Do Blogs Influence Purchasing Decision?

Recently I came upon an article (eMarketer) on blogs and purchasing decision. According to that article, blogs do have influence on purchasing decision of consumers. Now it can be anything...Its been over three years since I started writing in a review site which is really a consumer blogging site. It is amazing to observe there how you can influence the minds of a consumer. For example a movie which has bombed in box office may be portrayed in a positive light. And if the review comes from a star writer of the site...then just imagine?

The eMarketer article, Blogs and the Purchasing Decision states:

“For a portion of Web users, blogs rival search as a navigation tool, which has really interesting implications for advertisers,” said Rob Crumpler, CEO of BuzzLogic, in a statement. “Blogs are becoming trusted guides, steering users who are seeking very specific information to places of interest online.”

The number of consumers influenced by blogs will rise, based on overall blog readership projections. More than two-thirds of Internet users will read blogs in 2012, up from one-half who did so last year.

....

Now survey results like this sounds very sunny during recession when there is hardly any extra money to spare in ad campaigns for products.

Oops Most Sites are Blocked at Work

Unlike my current organization, in my last organization, we used to have an open internet policy, which meant that anyone can access any site from work. Now there may be a lot of unwanted activities if such is the case. On the other hand banning sites especially social networking sites like orkut, facebook or sites like youtube can take away a lot of good things from the young workforce. Under proper supervision a lot of learning can happen from these sites and productive collaboration too. But who will supervise it?

Harbinger Knowledge Products' product Teemingpod which is a social interaction tool for closed groups are not used among their employees. Even Infosys works on several Web 2.0 projects but they necessarily do not test them among their workforce. They also have a strict internet policy. Now if I am thinking about global collaboration...interaction...how is that gonna happen with most Web 2.0 sites being blocked?

The picture is taken from elearning guild survey reports.

Web 2.0 Approaches to Learning for the New Generation

I was thinking about that generation which has grown up with internet, computers and cell phones. They can very well connect with Web 2.0 and in that case learning for them can be supported and augmented with Web 2.0.

I was trying to put together material to train my team on M-learning and as I looked around I realized that how about supporting the instructor led exercise with some Web 2.0. I am still thinking and meanwhile you can take a look at a survery report I found on the Elearning guild site which shows percentage of usage of certain sites by Web 2.0 savvy people.

Learning Theories Supporting Collaboration

Dillenbourg (Dillenbourg 1994) identifies three different theories of learning that could be employed in collaborative learning systems:
-socio-constructivist theory
-socio-cultural theory
-shared cognition theory

Each theory relates the student's learning to a typical learning environment. These three approaches are classified as cognitive developmental approaches that focus on the interactions among peers around appropriate tasks in a given environment that would increase the mastery of critical concepts. Socio-constructivist theory advocates that students master new approaches of learning through interacting with others (Doise1990). This theory is an extension of Piaget's (Piaget1928, Piaget1932) theory that focused on the reasons for cognitive developments in individuals. In socio-constructivist theory, emphasis is given to interactions rather than actions themselves. A given level of individual development allows participation in certain social interactions which produce new individual states which, in turn, make possible more sophisticated social interactions, and so on (Dillenbourg, 1994).

The socio-constructivist approach focuses on the individual's development with respect to the social interaction, without really differentiating or identifying the underlying factors that enhance collaborative learning. Here the social interaction is assumed as a black box that boosts collaborative learning.

The experimental setup for the socio-constructivist approach follows a three stage process of pre-test, individual or collaborative learning and post-test. The differences between individual and collaborative learning are identified with respect to the difference between the performances on the pre- and post-test. A number of empirical studies have been reported to validate this approach (Doise & Mugny 1984, Blaye 1990, Blaye 1989, Durfee, Lesser., & Corkill 1989, Gasser 1991).

Socio-cultural theory focuses on the causal relationship between social interaction and the individual's cognitive development. This approach is derived from Vygotsky's zone of proximal development (Vygotsky1978). In this approach, each internal cognitive change is mapped onto a causal effect of a social interaction. In Vygotsky's own words:
The Zone of Proximal Development is the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky1978).
This essentially means that a learner would use the technique(s) that are learned during the collaborative effort with the companion when the learner tries a similar problem independently. That is, self review by the student is the internalization of peer review. The zone of proximal development defines meta-conceptions that might evolve as learned concepts after a period of social interactions. Thus, the inter-psychological processes are internalized during social interactions. Based on this theory, Dillenbourg and Self (Dillenbourg & Self 1992b) developed a computational model. In general, the socio-cultural approach supports collaboration as the means that would prove to be the catalyst to help the meta-conceptions mature into learned concepts.

Shared cognition theory is different from the other two theories in the sense that the environment in which learning takes place is given the focus rather than the environment-independent cognitive processes. The environment consists of both physical context and social context. The previous two approaches attributed the learning only to the physical context. But the shared cognition approach places the focus squarely on the social context that is claimed to make the collaborations happen and not just the presence of the collaborators. Shared cognition aims at letting the peers learn knowledge and skills in contexts where they are applicable (Brown, Collins, & Duguid1988, Lave & Wenger1991). Some advantages of the situated cognition approach are:

1. By linking together specific contexts and the knowledge to be learned, peers learn conditions under which the knowledge should be applied.
2. Situations foster creative thinking. Peers often learn how the knowledge they have can be applied in new situations.
3. Situatedness leads to the acquired knowledge being more practical in nature.
According to this approach, collaboration is viewed as a process of building and maintaining a shared conception of a problem, thus ensuring a natural learning environment.

Moore (1996) describes the importance of distinguishing between three types of learner interaction – learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner-learner.

In learner-content interaction, learners effectively “talk to themselves” about the information and the ideas they encounter. An extreme example would be self-study from a text in a library.
In learner-instructor interaction, learning effectively takes place from a “sage on the stage”, who supposedly imparts knowledge and wisdom to the students. This is still by far the most common method employed by most educational institutions, from primary schools through to universities.
In learner-learner interaction, students help themselves to learn, by sharing ideas and discussing problems, often in a real or virtual group setting. This is clearly the least common and least conventional of the three modes of interaction, but one of the most exciting for those interested in online delivery, since the use of online forums and email lists generally enable group discussion to a far greater extent than is possible in a conventional lecture / tutorial environment.
Granger and Bowman (2003) give the following as essential for building a
learning environment:
-Learner centeredness created within a context familiar to the learner.
-Individual construction of knowledge directed toward goals important to the learner.
-Contextual or experimental learning characterized by authentic interactions within the learning context (or community).

Informal Learning and Collaboration

Coombs (1985) defines informal learning as "the spontaneous, unstructured learning that goes on daily in the home and neighborhood, behind the school and on the play field, in the workplace, marketplace, library and museum, and through the various mass media, informal learning is by far the most prevalent form of adult learning".

Informal learning is what happens when knowledge has not been externalized or captured and exists only inside someone’s head. To access that knowledge, one must locate and interact with that person. Examples of such informal knowledge transfer include instant messaging, a spontaneous meeting on the Internet, a phone call for information, a live web meeting introducing a new product, a live chat-room, a webinar.

Thus collaboration of some form becomes integral to informal learning. As a social animal, the human being's behavior is per definition a form of collaboration according to the standard dictionary definition - 'working together with one or more in order to achieve a common goal.' From this perspective, collaboration is a naturally occurring phenomenon, embedded in our DNA. Charles Darwin argued that cooperation and collaboration must have evolved as an evolutionary advantage.

Collaboration may be instinctive and selected-for in evolutionary terms because it succeeds. But we collaborate not because it succeeds, necessarily, but because it is fun. Collaboration thus becomes a joyous experience and gives a feeling not achieved in any individual pursuit. It also provides a feeling of collective accomplishment. Thus there is a necessity to create tools which supports collaborative learning.

Web 2.0 Affecting Students

"Web 2.0", a phrase coined by O'Reilly Media in 2003 (O’Reilly, 2005), refers to a perceived second generation of web-based interactions, applications and communities.

It is considered to be inclusive of a shift from a World Wide Web that is “read only” to a Web that is being described as the “Read Write Web” (Gillmor, 2007). The Web is evolving to become more like an area for social and idea networking.

Students negotiate meanings and connections within Web 2.0 social spaces or idea networks, exchange bits of content, create new content, and collaborate in new ways.

In summary, O'Reilly (2005) indicates that, "Web 2.0" stands for the idea that the Internet is evolving from a collection of static pages into a vehicle for software services, especially those that foster self-publishing, participation, and collaboration

User-centered Web 2.0 phenomena are disrupting traditional ideas about how students
interact online and how content is generated, shared, and distributed.