Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:15:30.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Homophily in the formation and development of learning networks among university students

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2020

Hannes Weber Open the ORCID record for Hannes Weber [Opens in a new window] ,
Marc Schwenzer  and
Steffen Hillmert
Hannes Weber*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Tubingen, Wilhelmstr. 36, D-72074Tubingen, Germany (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected])
Marc Schwenzer
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Tubingen, Wilhelmstr. 36, D-72074Tubingen, Germany (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected])
Steffen Hillmert
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Tubingen, Wilhelmstr. 36, D-72074Tubingen, Germany (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected])
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Students’ personal learning networks can be a valuable resource of success in higher education: they offer opportunities for academic and personal support and provide sources of information related to exams or homework. We study the determinants of learning networks using a panel study among university students in their first and second year of study. A long-standing question in social network analysis has been whether the tendency of individuals with similar characteristics to form ties is a result of preferences “choice homophily” or rather selective opportunities “induced homophily”. We expect a latent preference for homophilic learning partnerships with regard to attributes, such as gender, ability, and social origin. We estimate recently developed temporal exponential random graph models to control for previous network structure and study changes in learning ties among students. The results show that especially for males, same-gender partnerships are preferred over heterogeneous ties, while chances for tie formation decrease with the difference in academic ability among students. Social origin is a significant factor in the crosssectional exploration but does appear to be less important in the formation of new (strong) partnerships during the course of studies.

Keywords

learning networkshigher educationhomophilyTERGM
Type
Research Article
Information
Network Science , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 469 - 491
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Axelrod, R. (1997). The dissemination of culture a model with local convergence and global polarization. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(2), 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benenson, J. F., & Alavi, K. (2004). Sex differences in children’s investment in same-sex peers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(4), 258–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biancani, S., & McFarland, D. A. (2013). Social networks research in higher education. In: Paulsen, M. B. & Smart, J. C. (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 151–215). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Blau, P. M. (1977). A macrosociological theory of social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 26–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, D. D., & Webster, C. M. (2000). Forgetting of friends and its effects on measuring friendship networks. Social Networks, 21(4), 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvó-Armengol, A., Patacchini, E., & Zenou, Y. (2009). Peer effects and social networks in education. The Review of Economic Studies, 76(4), 1239–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carley, K. (1991). A theory of group stability. American Sociological Review, 56(3), 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centola, D., Gonzalez-Avella, J. C., Eguiluz, V. M., & San Miguel, M. (2007). Homophily, cultural drift, and the co-evolution of cultural groups. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(6), 905–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), S95–S120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranmer, S. J., Heinrich, T., & Desmarais, B. A. (2014). Reciprocity and the structural determinants of the international sanctions network. Social Networks, 36, 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currarini, S., Jackson, M. O., & Pin, P. (2009). An economic model of friendship: Homophily, minorities, and segregation. Econometrica, 77(4), 1003–1045.Google Scholar
Currarini, S., Jackson, M. O., & Pin, P. (2010). Identifying the roles of race-based choice and chance in high school friendship network formation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(11), 4857–4861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Czarna, A. Z., Leifeld, P., Smieja, M. D., & Salovey, P. (2016). Do narcissism and emotional intelligence win us friends? Modeling dynamics of peer popularity using inferential network analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(11), 1588–1599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
David-Barrett, T., Rotkirch, A., Carney, J., Izquierdo, I. B., Krems, J. A., Townley, D., … Dunbar, R. I. (2015). Women favour dyadic relationships, but men prefer clubs: cross-cultural evidence from social networking. PloS One, 10(3), e0118329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desmarais, B. A., & Cranmer, S. J. (2012). Statistic mechanisms of networks: Estimation and uncertainty. Physica A, 391, 1865–1876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desmarais, B. A., & Cranmer, S. J. (2017). Statistical inference in political networks research. In Victor, J. N., Montgomery, A. H., & Lubell, M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political networks (pp. 203–219). Oxford, UK Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P., & Garip, F. (2012). Network effects and social inequality. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 93–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godley, J. (2008). Preference or propinquity? The relative contribution of selection and opportunity to friendship homophily in college. Connections, 1(1), 65–80.Google Scholar
Goodreau, S. M., Kitts, J. A., & Morris, M. (2009). Birds of a feather, or friend of a friend? Using exponential random graph models to investigate adolescent social networks. Demography, 46(1), 103–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanneke, S., Fu, W., & Xing, E. P. (2010). Discrete temporal models of social networks. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 4, 585–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., Markman, J. M., & Rivkin, S. G. (2003). Does peer ability affect student achievement? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(5), 527–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasan, S., & Bagde, S. (2013). The mechanics of social capital and academic performance in an Indian college. American Sociological Review, 78(6), 1009–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hillmert, S., & Lang, V. (2015). Persönliche Lernnetzwerke im Studium: Aufbau, Zusammensetzung und soziale Differenzierung. In Lessenich, S. (Ed.), Routinen der Krise—Krise der Routinen, Proceedings of the 37th congress of the German Sociological Association in Trier 2014 (pp. 1533–1548). Retrieved from http://publikationen.soziologie.de/index.php/kongressband_2014.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Research shows the benefits of adult cooperation. Educational Leadership, 43(3), 27–30.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Learning together and alone: Overview and meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(1), 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandel, D. B. (1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. American Journal of Sociology, 84(2), 427–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kossinets, G., & Watts, D. J. (2009). Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. American Journal of Sociology, 115(2), 405–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krivitsky, P. N., & Handcock, M. S. (2014). A separable model for dynamic networks. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 76(1), 29–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krug, G., & Rebien, M. (2012). Network-based job search. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 41(4), 316–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruse, H., Smith, S., van Tubergen, F., & Maas, I. (2016). From neighbors to school friends? How adolescents’ place of residence relates to same-ethnic school friendships. Social Networks, 44, 130–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavy, V., Paserman, M. D., & Schlosser, A. (2012). Inside the black box of ability peer effects: Evidence from variation in the proportion of low achievers in the classroom. The Economic Journal, 122(559), 208–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In Berger, M., Abel, T., & Page, C. H. (Eds.), Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 18–66). Van Nostrand, New York.Google Scholar
Lee, C., Scherngell, T., & Barber, M. J. (2011). Investigating an online social network using spatial interaction models. Social Networks, 33(2), 129–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leifeld, P., Cranmer, S. J., & Desmarais, B. A. (2018). Temporal exponential random graph models with btergm: Estimation and bootstrap confidence intervals. Journal of Statistical Software, 83(6).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leszczensky, L., & Pink, S. (2015). Ethnic segregation of friendship networks in school: testing a rational-choice argument of differences in ethnic homophily between classroom-and grade-level networks. Social Networks, 42, 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51.Google Scholar
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital. A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lomi, A., Snijders, T. A., Steglich, C. E., & Torló, V. J. (2011). Why are some more peer than others? Evidence from a longitudinal study of social networks and individual academic performance. Social Science Research, 40(6), 1506–1520.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayer, A., & Puller, S. L. (2008). The old boy (and girl) network: Social network formation on university campuses. Journal of Public Economics, 92(1), 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1987). Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. American Sociological Review, 52(3), 370–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouw, T., & Entwisle, B. (2006). Residential segregation and interracial friendship in schools. American Journal of Sociology, 112(2), 394–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilbeam, C., & Denyer, D. (2009). Lone scholar or community member? The role of student networks in doctoral education in a UK management school. Studies in Higher Education, 34(3), 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Rienties, B., Héliot, Y., & Jindal-Snape, D. (2013). Understanding social learning relations of international students in a large classroom using social network analysis. Higher Education, 66(4), 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivera, M. T., Soderstrom, S. B., & Uzzi, B. (2010). Dynamics of dyads in social networks: Assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robins, G., Pattison, P., Kalish, Y., & Lusher, D. (2007). An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Social Networks, 29(2), 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A., & Sotomayor, M. (1990). Two-sided matching. A study in game-theoretic modeling and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacerdote, B. (2001). Peer effects with random assignment: Results for Dartmouth roommates. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(2), 681–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrum, W., Cheek, N. H. Jr, & MacD, S. (1988). Friendship in school: Gender and racial homophily. Sociology of Education, 61(4), 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S., Maas, I., & van Tubergen, F. (2014). Ethnic ingroup friendships in schools: Testing the by-product hypothesis in England, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. Social Networks, 39, 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, T. H., & Flache, A. (2012). The double edge of common interest ethnic segregation as an unintended byproduct of opinion homophily. Sociology of Education, 85(2), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steglich, C., Snijders, T. A., & Pearson, M. (2010). Dynamic networks and behavior: Separating selection from influence. Sociological Methodology, 40(1), 329–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stehlé, J., Charbonnier, F., Picard, T., Cattuto, C., & Barrat, A. (2013). Gender homophily from spatial behavior in a primary school: A sociometric study. Social Networks, 35(4), 604–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Buuren, S., & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. 2011. mice: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Duijn, M. A., Zeggelink, E. P., Huisman, M., Stokman, F. N., & Wasseur, F. W. (2003). Evolution of sociology freshmen into a friendship network. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 27(2–3), 153–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, P., Winn, S., & Fyvie-Gauld, M. (2005). ‘It was nothing to do with the university, it was just the people’: the role of social support in the first-year experience of higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(6), 707–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimmer, A., & Lewis, K. (2010). Beyond and below racial homophily: Erg models of a friendship network documented on facebook1. American Journal of Sociology, 116(2), 583–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Windzio, M., & Bicer, E. (2013). Are we just friends? Immigrant integration into high-and low-cost social networks. Rationality and Society, 25(2), 123–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeng, Z., & Xie, Y. (2008). A preference-opportunity-choice framework with applications to intergroup friendship. American Journal of Sociology, 114(3), 615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimmerman, D. J. (2003). Peer effects in academic outcomes: Evidence from a natural experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(1), 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar