Networked Learning in The Digital Age PDF
Networked Learning in The Digital Age PDF
Christopher Jones
Networked
Learning
An Educational Paradigm for the Age of
Digital Networks
Research in Networked Learning
Series Editors
Vivien Hodgson
David McConnell
Networked Learning
An Educational Paradigm for the Age
of Digital Networks
Christopher Jones
Liverpool John Moores University
Liverpool, Merseyside, UK
Chris Jones’ “Networked Learning: An Educational Paradigm for the Age of Digital
Networks” is a very welcome contribution to the Springer Series in Research in
Networked Learning.
This book is a major contribution to the field of networked learning and provides
the most comprehensive examination and analysis to date of its place in education
in a networked society. As Chris Jones comments in his conclusion, at root the book
argues for a relational view of learning through which networked learning can deal
with the new mobility and from which networked learning can take its next steps by
designing educational opportunities for citizens in an increasingly complex network
society. In this book Chris Jones clearly identifies and differentiates networked
learning as a specific field of research and scholarship that is broadly based on
social theories of learning.
The book explores the relationship between digital and network technologies,
learning and social life. We are not aware of any other book on networked learning
that does what Chris Jones does here, nor of any book that does it so thoroughly. He
examines the broad themes of networks, networking and networked learning as seen
or experienced by institutions, through the use of infrastructures (the socio-material
contexts), as well as perspectives and experiences of the human elements of aca-
demics and students. It’s a broad sweep, taking the reader through the major com-
ponents of networked learning as we experience them today.
In the book Chris Jones provides a critique of political and policy issues within
the scope of the broad background picture relating to infrastructures. The changing
roles, contexts and expectations of the academic are illuminated. The book broadens
and contextualises contemporary issues in our understanding of networked learn-
ing. Issues covered range across the role of the university and position of academics
in networked learning, restructuring of the academic role in teaching and digital
scholarship, through to topical developments such as MOOCs and adoption and use
of Learning Analytics, as well as examining the learner and the learner’s experience
as real embodied students within networked learning. These topics are drawn
together in a way that makes logical, progressive sense, moving from the big and
v
vi Foreword
broad issues and perspectives, to the local and human ones. In doing this, Chris
Jones situates networked learning in a spectrum of important issues that surround,
support and make networked learning possible.
This monograph is a major critical analysis of networked learning that stands out
as possibly the most significant statement on the subject currently available.
Vivien Hodgson
David McConnell
Contents
vii
viii Contents
This book is about networked learning and it offers a different way of thinking about
the relationship between digital and network technologies and learning.1 In the
author’s lifetime digital and networked technologies have developed from large-
scale technologies marginal to everyday lives, deployed in sizeable organisations, to
items the public carry in our pockets and use routinely in our everyday lives. My
personal working life tracks some of the more recent changes. In my first job (in
1966) I worked in a commercial laundry that was still powered by a single source
with power delivered to the washing machines and spinners via a power shaft and
belts. While I worked there a new machine was installed that took washing in at one
end and delivered it at the other end washed and spun. It was a large washing
machine of the modern kind only horizontal in layout and large in size. What
intrigued me most and led me to talk to the Swiss technician installing the machine
was its computerised control. By pressing large numbered keys the machine could
be programmed to carry out various washes. The laundry work, largely done by
hand loading and moving between various washing and drying machines was to be
brought into a single computerised machine. I did not understand it then, but the
work of the laundry was being ‘informated’ (Zuboff 1988) and the kind of simple
labour I was being employed to carry out was being made redundant. Much of the
discussion in that era concerned the effects that computers might have on the labour
process, particularly in relation to skill (Braverman 1974). This discussion took
place largely in the context of mainframe computers, sometimes networked with
white collar work distributed in remote locations working at ‘dumb’ terminals.2
1
Networked and digital is used throughout this volume to characterise current technologies in a
general way. Networks exist independently of digital technologies and computing can take ana-
logue and quantum forms. Digital and networked describes the contemporary form of ‘new’ tech-
nologies and tries to avoid over generalisation.
2
Those younger than the author might need to know that a dumb terminal was a workstation that
had no self-contained processing power, it preceded the personal computer. The terminal was local
but the processing power was remote at the mainframe computer.
When I first went to university in the early 1970s ‘the’ computer was in its own
building separate from normal university life. It was considered so special it was
guarded by selected student volunteers during a student protest (a ‘sit-in’ that occu-
pied university administration buildings). In my first job following university I
encountered a 24 h computer room with separate staff working on a 7-day 24 h shift
cycle to service a large computer. In the mid-1970s I found myself working for a
large UK electricity supply company in what would now be described as a call
centre. The computer looked much as desktop computers look now although inter-
actions were using a command line interface and not the visual interfaces com-
monly used now. The mainframe was in another city some 35 miles (50 km) away
but I could call up customers’ accounts and deal with them via the telephone in a
way that has become familiar, but was then quite a novelty. Paper-based accounts
held on paper files had just been replaced for one side of the business, monthly
accounts; one half of the office was still paper-based dealing with another kind of
account. This transition in white collar work from paper-based systems to elec-
tronic systems is now at least 40 years old but it has not affected all aspects of work
and many universities remain at least partially paper-based in their administrative
and academic work.
The move from mainframe computer systems to the personal computer (PC)
began on a wide scale in the mid-1980s with the introduction of the Apple 11 and
other similar devices. While microcomputers began to emerge in the late 1970s with
the Apple 11, it was the introduction of the IBM personal computer and the Apple
Macintosh PCs with a graphical user interface that began to lead to a significant
expansion (Allan 2001). These work-related changes were accompanied by a range
of home computers, game consoles and education-related developments (e.g. the
BBC microcomputer was introduced to schools in the UK and the Phillips P2000 in
the Netherlands). The development of the computer was related to the wider devel-
opment of the networks connecting them. From the mainframe computing of the
late 1960s and 1970s, the 1980s saw a move towards both PCs and network connec-
tions. In the very early 1990s I was introduced to the Internet by a local union edu-
cator as part of a process to bring local union officers up to speed with technological
developments. The union’s offices were being equipped with PCs and we were
shown how to connect to Manchester Host (Fourkas 2002), a community informat-
ics project’s server which allowed onward access to other networks. This was my
first view of the Internet. I have to say that at the time it was less than impressive,
without a graphical user interface and limited in the kinds of information available.
I found it difficult to imagine how I would use it. At the same time I was studying
for an Open University (UK) degree by distance learning. This was largely con-
ducted via paper-based resources and broadcast TV with a small number of local
seminars and annual summer schools. It did however involve visits to a computer
lab at a local higher education college. These computers were networked although
the work we did was computer-assisted learning using the PC as a local device.
This book is a product of that rapid sociotechnical change introduced along with
networked digital computers and how it is implicated in changes in education.
Education and learning do not stand apart from society and the kind of educational
Why Networked Learning? 3
This book enters a congested field with many books already in existence, some dat-
ing back many years, so why should a reader bother with this one? Educational
technology has been the subject for many years to wide-eyed enthusiasm and boost-
erism (see for example on MOOCs Barber et al. 2013). Each new technology is
promoted by its advocates as requiring a radical break from the past and the revolu-
tion in education is always just around the corner. There are a smaller number of
doom mongers who see only bad things in the same educational technologies advo-
cated by the boosters (see for example Brabazon 2002, 2007). Networked learning
by contrast stands as a critical research-based strand which adopts neither of these
positions. Networked learning casts a cold hard eye on the evidence, informed by a
set of flexible but robust values that I claim should inform education. Research in
networked learning is interested in praxis, action in the world informed by theory,
and also an engagement in practice informed by a notion of what is good. Research
led and interested in empirical work networked learning is concerned with values
(Hodgson et al. 2012). The idea of the network is another central reason to engage
with networked learning. I claim that the metaphor of networks, as well as their
actual existence and processes, help to cohere a research field with a distinct focus
and research agenda (Jones 2004). It has been well argued that networks can be seen
as the defining feature of contemporary social life and the basis of a network society
(Castells 2000 [1996]; Van Dijk 1999 [1991]).
4 1 Introduction: The Long View—Technology, Learning and Social Life
This book is useful because the tradition of networked learning has grown
strongly over the past 15 years into a robust and productive area of research and it
has informed some significant areas of successful design and development. However
there is no single book that sets out the field from a single perspective. There are
several edited collections (Steeples and Jones 2002; Goodyear et al. 2004; Dirckinck-
Holmfeld et al. 2009, 2012; Hodgson et al. 2012) but no single authored text. There
are books that are close to networked learning (Ellis and Goodyear 2010), but net-
worked learning is frequently confused with other approaches to technology and
learning and sometimes even otherwise well-informed academic work assumes that
networked learning is just another term that equates with e-learning, technology-
enhanced learning (TEL) and a number of other general terms.
This book is addressed to a number of different audiences:
1. Research communities. This book is concerned with community, cooperation,
collaboration, participation, dialogue, networked and digital technology in edu-
cation. Researchers concerned with these issues will find something of value in
networked learning.
2. Teachers. Educational professionals who undertake teaching will find this book
useful in situating how their practices are changing and being changed by the
introduction of digital and networked technologies.
3. The new (emergent) professions. Learning technologists, educational technolo-
gists and educational developers, all those in para-academic roles who will find
in networked learning a critical research-based approach that takes design and
development seriously.
4. Designers and developers. The ideas in this book can help inform those who
design and develop technologies for use in education and for learning.
5. Policy makers at all levels. This book can help inform those staff who work in
senior positions in universities, government, think tanks and policy bodies. It is
a book for national and international bodies involved in representing the univer-
sity sector and the staff that work in that sector.
6. Students. This book will help students at all levels to understand the ways digital
and networked technologies interact with and co-construct contemporary educa-
tion and learning.
7. Opinion formers. This book can help journalists and others in the media who
report on education to differentiate between different sources. Media often report
startling claims and make sweeping claims based on limited resources. Support
for these claims can be found in, academic, non-academic, and ‘grey’ literature,3
and discrimination between sources is essential.
3
Grey literature abounds in this area, often written by academics these are reports and publications
that are not peer reviewed. They are important because they can be produced and spread quickly to
keep up with a fast moving field, but they are not scientific literature because of the lack of peer
review and their potential disconnect from a body of acknowledged literature. In current conditions
blogs are a very good example of grey literature and its potential strengths and weaknesses.
Why Networked Learning? 5
The claim that I make in this book is that networked learning is not just another term for
a common academic field it is a different way of thinking about the relationships between
digital and networked technologies and the processes of learning and education.
The core definition of networked learning is:
…learning in which information and communications technology (ICT) is used to promote
connections: between one learner and other learners, between learners and tutors; between
a learning community and its learning resources.
The key term in this definition is connections and the emphasis is on the interac-
tions between people mediated by technology and between people and resources.
This basic definition was included in the book I co-edited with Chris Steeples in
2002 and it grew out of earlier project work as reported by Goodyear (2014). The
team involved with the Networked Learning in Higher Education project and the
organisers of the networked learning conference series agreed to standardise their
citations of the definition by referencing the definition to a chapter by Goodyear
et al. (2004). This core definition has provided a degree of stability for researchers,
allowing for the development of a coherent body of work with a common focus.
Inevitably there are differences of emphasis and there has been some discussion
about the nature of the field and the question of definition (see McConnell et al.
2012; Dohn 2014). The core definition, having proved remarkably resilient in a fast
changing field, remains a cornerstone for the networked learning conference series
in many research studies, edited collections and this book series.
Carvalho and Goodyear (2014), p. 11 provide an additional section from the
original definition which states that:
Some of the richest examples of networked learning involve interaction with on-line materi-
als and with other people. But the use of on-line materials is not a sufficient characteristic
to define networked learning.
This section, although somewhat dated in style, displays some of the reasons
why the definition has been so robust. It was never tied to any one particular
technology, or any specific feature of the available technologies apart from their
potential for interactivity. At that time Internet connections were still limited,
4
Networked Learning in Higher Education: http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/definition.htm
6 1 Introduction: The Long View—Technology, Learning and Social Life
especially away from university premises, but the definition included the possibilities
for interaction using features that have since then become commonplace e.g. the use
of video. These three short sections when taken together provided a suitable starting
point for a research field that sits within, but is not coincident with, the broad subject
area of educational technology. The next section looks at the main alternative defi-
nitions found in educational technology and argues that networked learning has
clear advantages over the alternatives for the development of a field of research and
in encouraging a critical engagement with design and development.
Technology and learning have been intertwined from the beginning of human civili-
sation and Plato reported that Socrates was concerned that the introduction of writ-
ten texts would degrade previously important skills such as memorisation and
rhetoric (Plato 2008). The written word, taken from its context was thought to be
inferior to spoken words which could be attuned to the speaker’s awareness of the
settings in which they would be uttered. Thoughts could remain silent if they would
be of either no use or counterproductive in a particular situation, but the written
word had no such sensitivity to where it would be taken up. Writing is an early
example of the remediation of thought and its consequences for learning were con-
tested when it was introduced. Other technological innovations were perhaps less
dramatic and also less contentious. Perhaps the most ubiquitous piece of educa-
tional technology, the chalkboard (blackboard), was invented at the beginning of the
nineteenth century in Scotland and used almost simultaneously in the United States
at West Point (Krause 2007; Wylie 2012). The slate had been used previously but
the innovation lay in being able to use the board to present to an entire class. This
was not simply a technical change and Wylie (2012) has illustrated the way that the
chalkboard was integrated into classroom practice by way of manuals providing
guidance on the ways the board could be used. The chalkboard is now rarely thought
of as an educational technology. However Andrews and Haythornthwaite (2007)
discuss its recent reincarnation as the interactive whiteboard and point out that the
focus in research has too often been on the technology itself and not on broader
questions of adoption and implementation, and the use of the whiteboard alongside
other complementary technologies. Cuban’s work provides a link between modern
technologies including computing and the long history of technology and learning
(Cuban 1986, 2001; Tyack and Cuban 1995). Cuban’s work shows that the practices
of teaching and learning are highly resilient and the ways that established practices
have to provide substantial resistance to changes said to be the consequences of the
technology itself. Educational technology is a broad domain and it has generated
many arguments that are repeated anew in the context of the recent waves of digital
and networked technology. In this long historical process the terms and definitions
we use are important for delimiting the areas of study and the kinds of research and
development that are encompassed.
Alternatives to Networked Learning 7
Learning technology has emerged as more than an academic research field and it
encompasses new job roles and emerging professional bodies (see Chap. 7). There is
an overabundance of terms that have been used to discuss the use of new (generally
digital and networked) technologies for teaching and learning. Early terms such as
teaching machines (Skinner 1958) and telematics (Selinger and Pearson 1999) still
have some resonance, and broader approaches can still be influential, especially in
some parts of the world e.g. instructional design in the United States (Reigeluth 1999).
Some terms focus on particular technologies such as mobile/Internet/Web-based and
computer-assisted-learning; others focus on process such as online/distance/blended
and flexible learning. Within this field there is a general recognition that two broad
ways of thinking can be discerned. There are those who focus on a broadcast model of
distribution and an acquisition model of learning and there are those who favour dia-
logue, participation and discussion as the model for learning (Sfard 1998; Weller
2007). There are also fashions in the use of these terms and terms such as virtual learn-
ing, cyberspace and the information superhighway, which were once popular but are
less common now. Of all the terms that have been used perhaps the two most common
are e-learning and in Europe, Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL). There are of
course some significant, relevant and more specific expressions and theories associ-
ated with the educational technology research area and one of the more developed is
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL). This approach is not dealt with
in the Introduction; however, a discussion can be found later in Chap. 3.
Key issues that help to discriminate between the many approaches and the cut-
paths through the thicket of terminology are:
1. The theory of technology
a. Is technology seen as an independent force driving change, or as socially shaped
and co-constructed by its design and its context when it is taken into use?
b. Are the technology and its features seen as defining its educational use?
2. The underlying theory of learning
a. Is learning a process of delivery or is it an interactive process that involves
participation through dialogue?
b. Are learning processes seen as primarily individual, social or sociomaterial in
character?
Networked learning has its own particular views on these issues which are devel-
oped throughout this volume, and it is the combination of these which give net-
worked learning a distinct critical position in relation to the other dominant terms
and the theories associated with them. There are a small number of other terms that
roughly approximate to the approach taken by networked learning. One of the more
interesting and recent of the alternatives is the idea of connected learning (Ito et al.
2013; Kumpulainen and Sefton-Green 2014; Sefton-Green 2014). Connected learn-
ing is in some ways complementary to networked learning because it concentrates
on young people between 12 and 18 years of age, whereas networked learning gen-
erally focuses on learning in higher education and in professional development
which in both cases are concerned with people largely older than 18.
8 1 Introduction: The Long View—Technology, Learning and Social Life
e-Learning
Probably the most widely used expression that has been used to describe the field con-
cerned with digital and networked technologies for education and learning is e-learning. It
has been given a variety of definitions by policy makers, practitioners and academic
researchers. An example of a policy definition is that given by the UK government in 2003:
If someone is learning in a way that uses information and communication technologies
ICTs, they are using e-learning. They could be a pre-school child playing an interactive
game; they could be a group of pupils collaborating on a history project with pupils in
another country via the Internet; they could be geography students watching an animated
diagram of a volcanic eruption their lecturer has just downloaded; they could be a nurse
taking her driving theory test online with a reading aid to help her dyslexia—it all counts as
e-learning (Department for Education and Skills 2003, p. 4).
Used in this way e-learning lacks precision and simply describes all and any uses
of ICT for learning. More theoretically informed uses of the term also lack precision
and can be accompanied by a revolutionary rhetoric suggesting the necessity of
rapid change. For example Garrison and Anderson (2003) state:
…e-learning is not simply another technology or add-on that will be quietly integrated or
ultimately rejected… e-learning represents a very different category and mode of commu-
nication… E-learning will inevitably transform all forms of education and learning in the
twenty-first century (Garrison and Anderson 2003, pp. 1–2).
because it locates itself specifically in digital and networked technology and it focuses
on a main characteristic of these technologies, their interactivity and connectivity.
So e-learning is an imprecise term, used in a variety of ways in different contexts
(Guri-Rosenblit and Gros 2011). Guri-Rosenblit and Gros note that the lack of a
precise and widely accepted definition of e-learning causes misunderstanding and
robust debate between researchers and an effect on research outcomes by blurring
and confusing the specific detail of what is under discussion. For these reasons and
others, e-learning is now challenged by another commonly used phrase, TEL
Technology-Enhanced Learning
TEL has become common place in some areas, especially Europe, but definitions
are uncommon and it is not clear that those who use the term share an understanding
of what it might mean. The EU-funded network of excellence (Kaleidoscope) was
constructed around the term TEL and produced a book summing up the networks
outlook, but it is not possible to find in that book a concise definition of what TEL
might mean (Balacheff et al. 2009). While there is no definition, the book does set
out the sources for the research field:
We believe it is reasonable to say that TEL has grown out of five main areas of research:
1. The design area—a focus on the design and co-evolution of new learning activities.
2. The computational area—a focus on what technology makes possible.
3. The cognitive area—a focus on what the individual can learn under certain conditions
in different types of contexts.
4. The social and cultural area—a focus on meaning-making, participation, and changes
in activities in schools, universities, workplaces, and informal settings.
5. The epistemological area—a focus on how the specificities of the domain impact the
design and use of technologies.
All these areas contribute to the overall understanding of TEL (Balacheff et al. 2009, p. vii).
Of course the book itself stands as a contribution to defining the term, but its use
in this context is something of a catch-all, an expression that adds little to the gener-
ally used expression educational technology. A significant strength of the approach
is that there is a conscious attempt to make TEL an interdisciplinary activity build-
ing links and synergies between technologically oriented and human-oriented
research activities in computer science, psychology and the social sciences. The
work begun in the network described by Balacheff et al. (2009) has been continued
in a new network (STELLAR) that brought together elements of Kaleidoscope with
another preceding EU network Prolearn. A report of the activity of the new network
continues to use TEL as the defining term but persists in not supplying a concise
definition (Sutherland et al. 2012). Interestingly at the time of writing this chapter,
despite all the efforts of Kaleidoscope and STELLAR, the TEL Thesaurus does not
contain a dictionary entry for Technology-Enhanced Learning.5
5
http://www.tel-thesaurus.net/wiki/index.php/TEL_Dictionary_entries
10 1 Introduction: The Long View—Technology, Learning and Social Life
Kirkwood and Price reviewed the use of TEL in education, and they conclude
that the most common use of the phrase considers it synonymous with equipment
and infrastructure. They quote from the Higher Education Funding Council for
England (HEFCE 2009) who provides a definition of TEL as:
Enhancing learning and teaching through the use of technology.
The same HEFCE document makes available the reasoning behind their change
of terminology from e-learning to TEL:
The first edition of our strategy talked about e-learning, but in the past three years, terminol-
ogy, practice and contexts have developed. The term ‘e-learning’ can now sometimes be too
narrowly defined to describe fully the widespread use of learning technology in institutions.
We think it is more appropriate to consider how institutions can enhance learning, teaching
and assessment using appropriate technology (HEFCE 2009, p. 1).
One important feature of this account is the shift in focus from the use of technol-
ogy for learning to an institutional perspective, something I address in Chap. 5. The
normative inclusion of ‘enhancement’ in TEL is clearly displayed, and this is a
problem for those wishing to use the expression for research purposes because TEL
assumes some kind of benefit from the use of technology. HEFCE identifies three
levels of potential benefits of TEL:
• Efficiency—existing processes carried out in a more cost-effective, time-
effective, sustainable or scalable manner.
• Enhancement—improving existing processes and the outcomes.
• Transformation—radical, positive change in existing processes or introducing
new processes (HEFCE 2009, p. 2).
Although the term enhancement is central to this definition, Kirkwood and Price note
that the meaning of ‘enhanced’ in TEL is often taken for granted and generally used
uncritically and in ways that leave its meaning opaque. This led them to conclude that:
The term TEL is too often used in an unconsidered manner…This review has highlighted
variations in both the purpose of TEL interventions and the ways that enhancement has
been conceived. Underpinning this is a conflation of two distinct aims:
• Changes in the means through which university teaching happens; and
• Changes in how university teachers teach and learners learn (Kirkwood and Price
2014, p. 26).
Bayne (2014) explicitly references the review by Kirkwood and Price and argues
that her critical approach to TEL differs because she argues that TEL is not a term
that requires better definition because it is fundamentally flawed because it carries
with it a set of discursive limitations and deeply conservative assumptions. Using a
variety of theoretical perspectives, Bayne critiques the way technology is underde-
fined in TEL and described in essentialist and instrumental terms. Bayne also criti-
cises TEL for being related to an unquestioned dependence on humanistic values
and the idea that the humans can be perfected via technological enhancement and
scientific progress. Bayne’s third argument concerns learning and the way the dis-
cussion of learning is very often really concerned with education and the institutional,
Alternatives to Networked Learning 11
political and legal contexts that education is enmeshed with. The arguments Bayne
advances are of significance to networked learning and in the chapters that follow
which discuss technology, issues of agency, symmetry between humans and
machines, and the importance of sociomaterial assemblages in education are con-
sidered (Chaps. 4 and 6). However the question of learning is embedded in the defi-
nition of networked learning and the issues Bayne raises need careful consideration
in the networked learning community. They are touched on in later chapters, espe-
cially Chap. 3, but I do not think that learning is a problem of equal significance to
the others Bayne raises. I agree that learning has become a way to downplay the
institutional, infrastructural and political aspects of education but I try to demon-
strate that the use of the term learning is no bar to their full and proper inclusion in
networked learning.
Beyond the general terms applied to learning technology there are other terms
related to networked learning that need to be mentioned in order to set out clearly
the relationships they have to the discussion found in this book. One of the oldest
and most visible by way of published outputs is the phrase Asynchronous Learning
Networks (ALN) (Hiltz et al. 2007). The history of ALN overlaps with networked
learning as it is developed in this book. However the specific focus on asynchronous
technologies limits its scope in ways that networked learning does not. Networked
learning can involve the use of computer networks by learners who are co-located
and working together in real time. Synchronous technologies form a full part of the
approaches taken by researchers in networked learning, but they are excluded from
research in ALN.
…online courses that primarily rely on synchronous audio or video presentation or chat are
not ALN because these require learners and instructors to be available to communicate at
the same time (Hiltz et al. 2007, p. 56).
A second feature of the use of ALN is that it requires interactivity and interaction
in social networks and communities. This aspect draws it closer to networked learn-
ing because both approaches exclude learning that does ‘not include substantial and
rapid interactivity with others’ (Hiltz et al. 2007, p. 56). The link is reinforced by a
common concern with cooperative and collaborative forms of learning and an exten-
sion of that via networks, not only conceived of as technical systems but to the
social networks enabled by the technologies. Some of the earliest writing acknowl-
edged as part of the history of networked learning comes from the tradition that uses
the designation ALN (Hiltz and Turoff 1978; Harasim et al. 1995), but the history
diverged as the Sloan Foundation helped to establish a conference series focused on
ALN and the Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks which developed a more
narrowly devised area of research and practice to that developed using the alterna-
tive formulation networked learning.
12 1 Introduction: The Long View—Technology, Learning and Social Life
Another term used by authors in this tradition that has a wider influence is the
expression learning networks (Harasim et al. 1995). Their definition was that:
…learning networks are groups of people who use CMC [Computer-Mediated
Communication] networks to learn together at the time, place, and pace that best suits them
and is appropriate to the task (Harasim et al. 1995, p. 4).
The link to ALN is clearly visible in this definition but the same phrase is used
elsewhere with varying meanings (Downes 2007; Haythornthwaite and De Laat 2010;
Carvalho and Goodyear 2014). Downes for example identifies learning networks with
a general case elaborated from the Personal Learning Environments (PLE) and writes:
Taken together, the ideas that underlie the PLE—learning in communities, creation over
consumption, and context over class—constitute an instance of a more general approach
that may be characterized as ‘learning networks’ (Downes 2007, Online).
This definition is quite different to Harasim et al. and the tradition of ALN which
is much more focused on conventional classes and university courses than the
approach advocated by Downes who’s work went on to inform the first generation
of cMOOCs (see Chap. 5). The use of the term by those more closely associated
with the networked learning community has been to identify the characteristics of
the network structures and the practices taking place in them. In this usage net-
worked learning is the general phenomenon and the learning network is the particu-
lar set of interactions in a specific learning network (for example, see Haythornthwaite
and De Laat 2010). Goodyear and Carvalho (2014) add greater precision to this
approach and link their definition directly back to the work of Harasim et al. and the
limitations that they see in the original definition. Their argument suggests that
learning networks need to be a focus for networked learning research because of
the idea of indirect design, a key theoretical contribution of networked learning
(see Chap. 4). Indirect design argues that learning cannot be designed directly and
that it can only be designed for. The significance of this is that actual learning net-
works can be investigated and analysed so that they can inform the future designs
of those elements (tasks, spaces, tools and organisations) open to design activity.
Indirect design requires the building up of a repertoire of properly understood
examples that illustrate and simplify the complex processes and assemblages in
which networked learning takes place.
A number of key ideas are developed in the main chapters of this book in particular
affordance, agency and assemblage and these are returned to in the concluding
chapter. The main areas covered in the subsequent chapters are:
• The relationships between technology, society and change.
– Technological determinism, social shaping and sociomateriality.
– The relationships between technology, academic work and learning.
Key Ideas in Networked Learning 13
• The concept affordance and its potential for use in networked learning.
– As a way of stabilising dynamic relations.
– Related to issues of design.
• Design for learning, the notion of indirect design,
– Intentionality and emergence in complex systems
– Big data and analytics in learning
• The relationships between humans, artefacts and machines in networked
learning
– Symmetry and asymmetry
– Thinking in terms of levels—macro-meso-micro
• Infrastructure and its role in networked learning
– Infrastructures for learning
– Universal, institutional and hybrid infrastructures
• The politics and policy options related to networked learning
– Technology design and deployment as political choices
– Policy and institutional factors in networked learning
The book is structured in two parts with the first dealing with the three main
components in an understanding of networked learning. In Part I Chap. 2 deals with
the world in which networked learning is one small part. This chapter concentrates
on the processes of change, and technological change in particular, and the ways it
can be understood. It also discusses the kind of society that is emerging and the idea
of a network society. It discusses the idea of affordance and how it can be used to
provide a solid basis for understanding technological change. Chapter 3 examines
learning and asks the question whether networked learning has its own pedagogy.
The classic theories of learning are discussed and assessed in relation to networked
learning. This chapter also considers the question of whether networked learning
either needs or has its own pedagogy. Chapter 4 explores some of the different ways
networks can be understood. This chapter surveys mathematical theories of learn-
ing, social network analysis and actor-network theory (ANT). It finds some key
concepts in each of these different ways of thinking about networks that can be
fruitfully applied to networked learning. Taken together these three chapters pro-
vide a thorough grounding in the basic elements required for a comprehension of
networked learning.
The second part of the book looks in detail at some of the key areas of activity
that are implicated in any occurrence of networked learning. Chapter 5 examines the
institutions within which networked learning takes place, primarily the university as
the location for higher education and the idea of the ‘digital university’. The institu-
tions that support higher education are also the location for changes in the use of
data for analytic purposes and for new arrangements for generating open resources
and open and online courses. Chapter 6 explores the infrastructures through which
14 1 Introduction: The Long View—Technology, Learning and Social Life
References
Allan, R. A. (2001). A history of the personal computer: The people and the technology. Ontario,
CA: Allan Publisher.
Andrews, R., & Haythornthwaite, C. (Eds.). (2007). Sage handbook of e-learning research.
London: Sage.
Balacheff, N., Ludvigsen, S., De Jong, T., Lazonder, A., Barnes, S., & Montandon, L. (Eds.).
(2009). Technology-enhanced learning. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Barber, M., Donnelly, K., & Ritzvi, S. (2013). An avalanche is coming: Higher education and the
revolution ahead. London: IPPR. Retrieved from http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/10432/
an-avalanche-is-coming-higher-education-and-the-revolution-ahead
Bayne, S. (2014). What’s the matter with ‘technology enhanced learning’? Learning, Media and
Technology, 40(1), 5–20. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2014.915851. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/17439884.2014.915851
Brabazon, T. (2002). Digital hemlock: Internet education and the poisoning of teaching. Sydney,
NSW: University of New South Wales Press.
Brabazon, T. (2007). The university of Google. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Braverman, H. (1974). Monopoly capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (Eds.). (2014). The architecture of productive learning networks.
New York: Routledge.
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell
(Original work published 1996).
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Department for Education and Skills. (2003). Towards a unified e-learning strategy: Consultation
document. Nottingham: DFES. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.
uk/20130401151715/http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DfES-
0455-2003.pdf
References 15
Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2012). Exploring the theory,
pedagogy and practice of networked learning. New York: Springer.
Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Jones, C., & Lindström, B. (Eds.). (2009). Analysing networked learning
practices in higher education and continuing professional development. Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers, BV.
Dohn, N. (2014). Implications for networked learning of the ‘practice’ side of social practice the-
ories—a tacit-knowledge perspective. In V. E. Hodgson, M. De Laat, D. McConnell, &
T. Ryberg (Eds.), The design, experience and practice of networked learning (pp. 29–49).
Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Downes, S. (2007). Learning networks in practice. In D. Ley (Ed.), Emerging technologies for
learning. London: BECTA. Retrieved from http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/ctrl?acti
on=rtdoc&an=8913424&lang=en
Ellis, R., & Goodyear, P. (2010). Students’ experiences of e-learning in higher education: The ecol-
ogy of sustainable innovation. New York: Routledge.
Fourkas, V. (2002). The development and operation of virtual manchester(s), 1989-2001: A
research report. Online Planning Journal. Retrieved from http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/planning/
articles61/vrmanchester.pdf
Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st Century: A framework for research
and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Goodyear, P. (2014). Productive learning networks: The evolution of research and practice. In
L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks
(pp. 23–47). London: Routledge.
Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (2004). Advances in research on networked
learning. London: Springer.
Goodyear, P., & Carvalho, L. (2014). Introduction: Networked learning and learning networks. In
L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks (pp. 3–22).
London: Routledge.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. & Gros, B. (2011). E-learning: Confusing terminology, research gaps and inher-
ent challenges. The Journal of Distance Education, 25(1). Retrieved from http://www.ijede.ca/
index.php/jde/article/view/729/1206
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to
teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Haythornthwaite, C. & De Laat, M. (2010). Social networks and learning networks: Using social
network perspectives to understand social learning. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson,
C. Jones, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference
on Networked Learning (pp. 183–190), 3–4 May 2010, Aalborg, Denmark. Retrieved from
http://networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past-proceedings/index.htm
Higher Education Funding Council for England (2009). Enhancing learning and teaching through
the use of technology: A revised approach to HEFCE’s strategy for e-learning. Bristol: Higher
Education Funding Council for England. Retrieved from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/
hefce/2009/09_12/09_12.pdf
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation—human communication via computer
(1st ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley [Revised Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
1993].
Hiltz, S. R., Turoff, M., & Harasim, L. (2007). Development and philosophy of asynchronous
learning networks. In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), Sage handbook of e-learning
research (pp. 55–72). London: Sage.
Hodgson, V., McConnell, D., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). The theory, practice and peda-
gogy of networked learning. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.),
Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 291–305). New York:
Springer.
Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., & Livingstone, S. et al. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research
and design. Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. Retrieved from http://
dmlhub.net/sites/default/files/ConnectedLearning_report.pdf
16 1 Introduction: The Long View—Technology, Learning and Social Life
Jones, C. (2004). Networks and learning: Communities, practices and the metaphor of networks.
The Association for Learning Technology Journal, 12(1), 82–93.
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher educa-
tion: What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media
and Technology, 39(1), 6–36.
Krause, K.-L. (2007). Who is the e-generation and how are they fairing in higher education. In
J. Lockard & M. Pegrum (Eds.), Brave new classrooms: Democratic education and the Internet
(pp. 125–139). New York: Peter Lang.
Kumpulainen, K., & Sefton-Green, J. (2014). What is connected learning and how to research it?
International Journal of Learning and Media, 4(2), 7–18.
McConnell, D., Hodgson, V., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). Networked learning: A brief history
and new trends. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the
theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 3–24). New York: Springer.
Plato. (2008). Phaedrus (B. Jowett, Trans.). Project Gutenberg. Retrieved from http://www.guten-
berg.org/ebooks/1636
Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of
instructional theory (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sefton-Green, J. (2014). Introduction: Innovative methods for researching connected learning.
International Journal of Learning and Media, 4(2), 1–5.
Selinger, M., & Pearson, J. (Eds.). (1999). Telematics in education: Trends and issues. Bingley,
England: Emerald Group.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational
Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128(3330), 969–977.
Steeples, C., & Jones, C. (Eds.). (2002). Networked learning: Perspectives and issues. London:
Springer.
Sutherland, R., Eagle, S., & Joubert, M. (2012). A vision and strategy for technology enhanced learning:
Report from the STELLAR network of excellence. Retrieved from http://www.teleurope.eu/pg/file/
read/152343/a-vision-and-strategy-for-technology-enhanced-learning-report-from-the-stellar-net-
work-of-excellence
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Van Dijk, J. (1999). The network society. London: Sage (Original work published 1991).
Weller, M. (2007). Virtual learning environments: Using, choosing and developing your VLE.
Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Wylie, C. D. (2012). Teaching manuals and the blackboard: Accessing historical classroom prac-
tices. History of Education: Journal of the History of Education Society, 41(2), 257–272.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York: Basic
Books.
Part I
Theories and Concepts
in Networked Learning
Chapter 2
The Age of Digital Networks
This chapter examines the kind of society that has developed alongside digital and
networked technologies and it discusses the role of technology and of digital tech-
nology in that society. Digital and networked technology is a recent development in
terms of human history and even in terms of modern and contemporary history
(Dyson 2012). What kind of society is associated with these new technologies and
is that society significantly different from previous societies? How does technology
interact with society? These questions have a strong relationship to learning and the
way learning is located in a wider social context. The societies that emerged in the
late twentieth and early twenty-first century relied on the education of vast new
workforces and the reconfiguration of the existing workforces in already economi-
cally developed regions. Networked learning emerged as an idea in the context of
these rapid changes, changes to social, economic and political structures and
changes with regard to technologies. It is an unanswered question as to what the
relationships are between one set of changes and the other. Technology arises from
and is designed in society, for the existing society or its imagined future. However
once deployed in the world, technologies take on a life of their own changing the
societies they emerged from, often in unexpected ways, and spreading to societies
that did not design or envisage a future with that technology. In these ways tech-
nologies can have a revolutionary role in social change but one that is highly con-
tested. Do technologies drive change or are they outcomes of social processes of
change? Perhaps they are both.
Change
Change is a constant and the early twentieth century was defined by wars and revolu-
tions which continued to have ripple effects into the late twentieth century and on
into the early twenty-first century. So the claim here is not that change is unique to
the past 50 years rather the aim is to locate the emergence and development of the
In the mid-1960s the world was thought to be divided into blocks and it was rarely
thought of as a world system. The capitalist ‘West’ faced the Communist ‘East’ and
the others were variously described as the ‘Third World’ or self-organised into the
‘non-aligned’ movement. There has been significant debate about the ways that
military expenditure in this period interacted with the development of e-learning
(Friesen 2009, 2010). As I write globalisation is an assumption and the world sys-
tem of capitalism is almost universal, there are no blocks and Communist China is
as much a part of the global market economy as any other state. Beyond the market
are just one or two ‘pariah’ states, such as North Korea. In the mid-1960s political
choices were made between entire systems and ideologies whereas now choices
seem to be technical and managerial rather than driven by ideological demands. The
one line on the map that still embodies the old system is the demilitarised zone
between the two Koreas, one capitalist, the other a local version of Stalinist self-
sufficiency, Juche.
The second key difference between the mid-1960s and today is the level of devel-
opment of what was described in the 1960s as the ‘Third World’. Development has
been uneven but there is rapid growth in most if not all major parts of the world.
Development has occurred most strikingly in China, but it is evident across East
Asia in South Korea, Singapore and increasingly Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and
beyond. The designation, BRIC countries has been applied to Brazil, Russia, India
and China in an attempt to capture the growing economic powers in a single term
(O’Neil 2001). Since the designation of these emerging economies, a variety of new
terms have been coined to identify groups of other emergent nation states, most
recently MINT, Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey . Without delving into the
details of the developments that have taken place in different states and regions, two
key features are relevant to networked learning. The first is globalisation and the
second is the homogenisation of market cultures. Globalisation is not a smooth
process and the ‘clash of civilisations’ (Huntington 1993) is a claim made highlight-
ing frictions between broadly aggregated cultural blocks facing an increasingly
Change 21
globalised world. Without accepting the cultural claims of Huntington, the tensions
of globalisation are nevertheless clearly being played out in wars, revolts and insur-
rections (currently in Iraq, Ukraine, the Syrian civil war and a range of other con-
flicts). At the level of the market economy many global cities can be interchanged
and the major shops and suppliers found on the streets and shopping Malls fre-
quently remain the same wherever they are situated. Labour processes are also
exported to new regions, not only in factories but also in services including fast-
food outlets in a process described as a McDonaldisation (Ritzer 1993), which
affects patterns of consumption as much as production.
Globalisation has led to the growth of cities and urban areas and around
2008/2009 the proportion of the world’s population residing in urban areas increased
to more than 50 % of the total population, with about 50 % of those in urban areas
residing in urban areas with populations between 100 and 500 thousand. The growth
of towns and cities is not currently at its most rapid, and rates of growth in urban
populations seem to have peaked in the 1950s according the World Health
Organisation.1 This growth in urban populations was achieved in part by large-scale
migration. Internal migrations took place within states and external migration has
also taken place between states and regions of the world. The International
Organisation For Migration estimates that just over 3 % of the world’s population
are migrants, amounting to 214 million people. The number and proportion of
migrants has begun to fall in most areas of the world with only the United States and
the former USSR showing an increase. The increase in the former USSR is largely
a result of the redrawn boundaries following the demise of the Soviet Union.2 In
educational terms the internal movement of labour and the growth of urban areas
have increased educational possibilities and the options available for study.
Migration is linked not only to the movement of labour but also to the movement of
students and the growth of a world market in education, either through the move-
ment of students to educational establishments, or the building of overseas educa-
tional institutions in the developing world.
The globalisation and development of the world economy has taken place in the
political and economic context of an apparent resurgence of market capitalism,
often described using the term neoliberalism (Fuchs 2008; Harvey 2005).
Neoliberalism has come to mean the kind of deregulated capitalism first imple-
mented following the coup and dictatorship of Pinochet in Chile in the mid-1970s
and it includes an open market, a dominant private sector and a minimal state. These
characteristics and the broad neoliberal agenda later became associated with Anglo
Saxon capitalism by association with the political policies and open endorsements
of Ronald Reagan (USA) and Margaret Thatcher (UK). While neoliberal capitalism
has dominated intellectually it is important to note that in practice the state has
continued to have an enormously important, if not dominant role, even in those
1
Figures obtained from the World health Organisation: http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/
situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/
2
Figures obtained from the International organisation for Migration: http://www.iom.int/cms/en/
sites/iom/home/about-migration/factsDOUBLEHYPHENfigures-1/global-estimates-and-trends.
html
22 2 The Age of Digital Networks
Education, and how it is paid for, is a key part of this contradiction between state
support for the infrastructure of business and private enterprise and a laissez-faire
market ideology. More broadly the world continues to show signs of what the
Economist and some left wing and Marxist analysts call ‘state capitalism’ (Economist
2012). Many enterprises in the world economy are state owned rather than privately
owned and the state continues to dominate in some spheres of economic activity by
regulation, via state investment companies, and direct legislation. The interplay of
market and state is an important feature of education which largely remains either
in state control or under strict regulation by the state. This issue is closely related to
the process of globalisation and the internationalisation of education because large
multinational companies (e.g. Pearson and Laureate) are interested in entering the
previously state dominated national education systems, especially the higher educa-
tion sector.
Related to the dominance of neoliberal capitalism and the revised role for the
state that comes with it, inequality has increased in the twenty-first century (Picketty
2014). Picketty argues that capital accumulates more rapidly than the economy in
capitalist societies and that this pattern, visible in the nineteenth century, has reas-
serted its dominance since the 1980s when neoliberal policies led to the lifting of
controls on capital. In brief, Picketty argues that financial inequality is rising and it
is doing so at a very dangerous pace. Castells who is so closely associated with the
idea of network society has long argued that the rise of the information society is
closely connected to rising inequality and social exclusion at a global scale (Castells
2000a). Castells presents an image of simultaneous development and underdevelop-
ment, social inclusion and exclusion, taking place both within states and between
states at a global level. His argument concludes that despite the evidence of rapid
development, and as a consequence of global processes related to network society,
there is a growth in poverty and misery in the world at large.
A further aspect of politics and society is the interplay between markets, hierar-
chies and networks (Thompson et al. 1991). The overall changes in the structure of
the economy and the political ideas informing recent developments are reflected in
new policy and management styles and structures (Rhodes 1997). Networks have
become a focus for analysis as a counterpoint to simple hierarchies and markets
(Castells 2000b/1996; Van Dijk 1999/1991). Bureaucracy and classic hierarchical
forms of organisation are familiar forms in popular discourse and we are also famil-
iar with the mechanisms of the market. It is less common to think of networks as an
alternative form of coordination with their own mechanisms, such as relations of
trust and cooperation. Networks are not an exclusive form and markets and hierar-
chies can be thought of, and described as types of networks. They can also be
described as containing various networks and networks in this view are just one way
of describing and analysing the coordination of social life (Thompson et al. 1991).
Rhodes draws our attention to another common term used in contemporary debate
Technology and Society 23
Technology and social change have a close but disputed relationship, with technol-
ogy often described in ways that suggest it has an autonomous existence indepen-
dent of society. Although currently associated with a Californian free-wheeling
neoliberal (if not libertarian) capitalism, the technology of computing has its roots
in Second World War cryptography and the military-industrial complex of the Cold
War (Dyson 2012). Technology in the early twenty-first century carries with it the
political and economic debates of the late twentieth century, both in its origins and
in its supposed effects. The technology that is now taken for granted is in fact a
combination of ideas that arise separately. The idea that information can be coded
into zeroes and ones dates back to the seventeenth century and mathematical work
by Hobbes and Leibniz (Dyson 1999, 2012). The calculating device goes back to
designs by Babbage and there were mechanical computing devices constructed as
recently as the 1950s (Dyson 1999). In 1835 Babbage even conceived of a mechanical
communications network operating over steel wires with repeater stations acting as
nodes every 5 miles and foresaw that the physical movement of paper might be sup-
planted by telegraphic communication (Dyson 1999). What we now take to be the
‘computer’ and related information and communication technologies are an evolu-
tionary outcome, an aggregation of ideas and technological forms that could have
developed differently. It was not until after the Second World War that the technol-
ogy even settled on a digital rather than an analogue form and there are those who
want to return to analogue computing today (Dyson 2012). Technology has its own
separable history, but the relationship between that history and broader social
change forms the basis of much of the section that follows.
The change in technology has a link to changes in society but the nature of that link
has been a subject of intense speculation. Earlier theories that focused on the effects
of technology on society were challenged by theories that focused on the effects of
24 2 The Age of Digital Networks
categories of technology, each with their own origins and evolutionary paths. The
definitions Arthur provides are:
1. Technology as a means to fulfill a human purpose
2. Technology as an assemblage of practices and components
3. Technology as the entire collection of devices and engineering practices
available to a culture (adapted from Arthur 2009, p. 28)
Although I accept Orlikowski and Scott’s caution about the difficulties in provid-
ing a definition I find the triple definition provided by Arthur useful and I will return
to it in later chapters of the book particular when discussing infrastructure and the
use of the term assemblage (Chaps. 6 and 9). Its importance lies in the evolutionary
processes it identifies in all three definitions. Furthermore the three-part definition
addresses issues raised by the significant variation scale when discussing different
technologies and the variability of the term in day-to-day use while it adds a useful
layer of precision to thinking about the term technology.
Technology is not only varied because of its historical and evolutionary nature
but also because technologies are the outcome of political processes (Winner 1986).
Feenberg (1991) argues that:
… technology is not a destiny but a scene of struggle. It is a social battlefield, or perhaps a
better metaphor would be a parliament of things on which civilizational alternatives are
debated and decided (Feenberg 1991, p. 14).
Technological change is often seen as arising independently in society and then hav-
ing an impact on other dependent domains. In this common sense argument, tech-
nology is seen as having discernible effects and of being a force that can change
society in definable ways (Selwyn 2011). Technology to have this autonomous
capacity is also described as standing outside of normal social processes and being
driven by its own internal logic. This is what is meant by the term technological
determinism. Technological determinism can be articulated in either hard or soft
forms. Hard forms of determinism argue that technology changes society directly
26 2 The Age of Digital Networks
whereas softer forms argue that technologies imply social changes but indirectly,
often through better ways to adopt or integrate the technology. Examples of direct
determination in education include the idea of ‘digital natives’ being the direct con-
sequence of the large-scale introduction of digital technologies (see Chap. 8).
Examples of soft determinism argue that if educators are to work with digital and
networked technologies then one or another specified approach is better than the
alternatives. Soft determinism argues that in some way the technology requires a
defined kind of practice to accommodate it. Technological determinism in either
form is widely criticised and it is currently a largely discredited academic outlook
(Oliver 2011). However it remains common in policy discussion and in popular
discourse about particular technological innovations, for examples see Jones (2011)
for a discussion of technological determinism in relation to the digital native thesis.
In part in reaction to the prevalence of determinism an alternative set of theo-
ries were developed, inspired by the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK)
(Barnes et al. 1996). These various theories were brought together under the ban-
ner of the social shaping of technology (MacKenzie and Wajcman 1999). Despite
the variations between a number of contending outlooks all of them argued that
technologies were created, designed and used within a particular society and that
the kinds of technologies that emerged reflected the societies they came from in
significant ways.
Technologies do not have a momentum of their own at the outset that allows them to pass
through a neutral social medium. Rather they are subject to contingency as they pass from
figurative hand to hand, and so are shaped and reshaped (Bijker and Law 1992, p. 8).
attention towards either the social forces affecting the design and development of
technologies, and /or the ways in which technologies once designed were taken up
by their users (Hacket et al. 2008).
The recent turn towards materiality and the sociomaterial has added to the discus-
sion of technology by pointing to the ways in which technologies have to be consid-
ered as material as well as social in character (Fenwick 2012; Fenwick et al. 2011).
In this view the material is more than a context which is to be interacted with, or
tools to be used to enable certain outcomes, the material is an active force shaping
practice. The material turn moves on from the social and cultural turn and the social
shaping of technology and it also coincides with a debate about ontology in the
study of technology. The idea of materiality and its relationship to ontology are
discussed further in relation to learning (Chap. 3) and in the context of ANT (Chap. 4).
A crude but illuminating sequence can be elaborated in which the move from tech-
nological determinist concerns with the effects of technology leads on to ideas about
the social shaping of technology. Social shaping places an emphasis on the ways that
technologies come to be the way that they are and the ways that technologies are
taken up. The emphasis is on the design and development of technologies and the
ways that they are subsequently deployed and taken into use. The material turn adds
a further consideration by offering the possibility of a co-construction between
materials, material technology and social practice throughout the lifetime of a tech-
nology. In this view technologies have their own history and evolve (Arthur 2009),
and technologies are an imbrication of humans and things, of intentionality and
material agency. Inevitably this displaces the human actor from centre stage and
draws attention to a range of forces including humans, non-humans (animals,
machines and things) and assemblages of humans and non-humans (complex socio-
technical systems). In this view technologies are just one kind of material artefact
and because they are material they are resistant, or pushback, when they interact
with other technologies, with people and with assemblages of the two. In actor-
network theory things are thought of as actants or actors in their own right with
agency of their own. Technology when considered in its material aspect can be
thought of as including the social in its origins and in the ways it is used, and at the
same time as having effects that allow for (afford) and/or constrain certain practices
(Cornford and Pollock 2002).
Technologies as material entities are designed with purposes in mind and they
embody properties and features that are intended to be taken up in particular kinds
of use. As Hutchby noted:
The concept of affordance has been applied to technology in the sense that: technologies
possess different affordances, and these affordances constrain the ways that they can pos-
sibly be ‘written’ or ‘read’ (Hutchby 2001, p. 447).
28 2 The Age of Digital Networks
In this account affordances are relational but also real, independent of the act of
perception. This allows for an affordance to be latent (hidden), a possibility in the
environment even if it is not actually perceived (Gaver 1991, 1996). An example of
a latent affordance is one in which there is no perceptual indication that the affor-
dance exists. It could be nested, hidden beneath an affordance that can be perceived
or simply arrived at by chance. A hidden door or draw in a piece of furniture is a
case of an affordance being deliberately obscured, but available to those who know
of its existence, or potentially stumbled on by chance. The idea of affordance thus
has both a relational focus and a realist implication.
The idea of affordance was popularised by Norman’s application of the term to
the design and use of artefacts (Norman 1988) and the concept of affordance became
integrated into studies of Human–Computer Interaction (HCI). The significance of
Norman’s work was the application of the idea of affordance to the design of every-
day things. Here was a theory that looked for ways to make the technologies and
artefacts we meet all the time, such as doors and microwave ovens, understandable
and usable. Norman like Gibson was very concerned with the visible structure of
things and how design could render itself visible (or audible in some cases). Gibson’s
concept of affordance differs in significant ways from Norman’s application of the
term (1990, 1999).
Technology and Society 29
…the term affordance refers to the perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily
those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used
(Norman 1988, p. 9).
Yes
Perceptual Information
Correct Rejection Hidden Affordance
No
No Yes
Affordance
Fig. 2.1 Separating affordances from the information available about them. Adapted from Gaver
(1991), p. 80
…the nested affordance offers itself as an end in itself and as a means towards realizing
another affordance (Gaver 1991, p. 94).
A very useful summary and discussion of the development of the idea of affor-
dance and its application to HCI can be found in McGrenere and Ho (2000).
McGrenere and Ho (2000), emphasise the need to re-introduce and further
develop the original Gibsonian concept of affordance by acknowledging that an
expanded notion of affordance was required which acknowledged the existence of
varying degrees of affordance (McGrenere and Ho 2000). Torenvliet observed that
Gibson’s view was that affordance was a characteristic of the environment that
existed relative to an object, but that it existed independently of perception
(Torenvliet 2003). Gibson’s approach was based on the idea of direct perception, the
idea that there is a perception-action link and the relationship between organism and
environment was not mediated by cognitive processes. It is important to note that
the idea of direct perception does not rule out learning:
Direct perception depends on the actor’s ‘picking up’ the information that specifies the
affordance and may depend on the actor’s experiences and culture. Let us be clear, the
existence of the affordance is independent of the actor’s experiences and culture, whereas
the ability to perceive the affordance may be dependent on these. Thus, an actor may need
to learn to discriminate the information in order to perceive directly. In this way learning
can be seen as a process of discriminating patterns in the world, rather than one of supple-
menting sensory information with past experience (McGrenere and Ho 2000, p. 180).
The idea of direct perception remains controversial and Gregory, for example,
argues that perception is indirect (Gregory 1997; Gregory and Wallace 2001/1963).
Gregory and Wallace report a case study of a person who had been blind from 10
months who regained his sight after 50 years (Gregory and Wallace 2001/1963).
They argued that although the subject of the case came to use vision, his ideas of the
world arose from touch and there was a ‘direct’ transfer of information from touch
to vision once sight was regained.
Technology and Society 31
We may conclude that this case does provide evidence of transfer of perceptual information
from the tactual sphere to the visual modality. This seems somewhat at variance with the
evidence from studies of cross-modal transfer in animals and we can only speculate as to
the reasons for the discrepancy. It maybe that language is the decisive factor (Gregory and
Wallace 2001/1963, p. 37)
The importance of this finding is that it suggests a history, that perceptions at one
point in time are related to previous experiences, even when those experiences
involve senses related to another mode (touch rather than vision). Gregory’s general
position is that perception depends very largely on knowledge derived from past
experience (Gregory 1997).
It should be noted that Gregory’s argument does not contradict the position out-
lined by McGrenere and Ho (above) who acknowledge that perception could indeed
be influenced by prior learning. An example of the potential importance of historical
experience when dealing with newer technologies was provided by Kaptelinin and
Hedestig (2009). Using the concept of affordance they pointed out the difficulties
that occurred when teacher activity, grounded in previous and different practices,
was carried over into a new learning environment based on the decentralised use of
videoconferencing. The case study suggested that most of the breakdowns they
observed could be explained as being the result of ‘hidden’ affordances (there were
possibilities for action but they are not perceived by the participants) and ‘false’
affordances (the participants perceived non-existent possibilities for action). They
argued that the separation of affordance from perception and culture was incompat-
ible with the thrust of Gibson’s approach. Drawing on the case study they demon-
strated that the knowledge and skills teachers had developed in previous settings
were mobilised in the new technologically mediated one. In this case study the way
teachers drew on this prior knowledge often led to breakdowns in the new setting.
Criticisms of Affordances
The concept of affordance and the related idea of constraint have been discussed in
various contexts and the focus here is on the challenges that have focused clearly
on technology (see for example Hutchby 2001; Rappert 2003; Hutchby 2003). Two
articles stand out in this regard in terms of educational technology, Oliver (2005)
and Derry (2007). Oliver argues that the concept of affordance has drifted and that
it is now too ambiguous to be useful. He goes on to say that because the concept
has its origins in ecological perception, and primitive claims about animal-object
relations, it has little direct relevance to interactions between a person and a spe-
cific artefact. Oliver sets out the essentials of Gibson’s position on affordance and
then articulates what he considers to be the three available accounts that could
make sense of Gibson’s claim that affordances are neither objective nor subjective.
He finds none of these accounts satisfactory concluding later that:
One line of development is consistent with Gibson’s original position, although arguably these
refinements have not countered problems with its relevance to learning. This tradition is posi-
tivistic and essentialist, at odds with contemporary educational thought (Oliver 2005, p. 410).
32 2 The Age of Digital Networks
Oliver argues that any account based on Gibson’s version of affordance is going
to be essentialist, positivist and technological determinist. All in all this is quite a
charge sheet and Oliver explicitly references one of my own early attempts to clarify
the use of the term:
Jones (2005) argues that it is possible to overcome these difficulties by emphasising the
nondualist, realist and relational nature of affordances. However, this position does not
address either of the two main critiques offered. No ontological explanation is provided of
what this relationship between animal and environment consists of… Second, the assump-
tion that a totalising ‘view from nowhere’ can be inferred from specific perceived instances
fails to account for the idea that affordances might exist but never be perceived, and is also
an epistemologically suspect inferential move (Oliver 2005, p. 410).
In these arguments I think Oliver misses some fundamental points that have their
roots in Gibson’s own accounts and these are magnified by the way Oliver overlays
his argument with an explicit preference for constructivist accounts, positioned
against a weak positivist opponent. Firstly Gibson’s own account is relational with-
out invoking cognition. That is an affordance is only an affordance for something or
someone and it is therefore relational in character. A technology can have an affor-
dance for teachers and different affordances for a student. Secondly because in
Gibson’s account an affordance has reality apart from the perception of the affor-
dance there is no problem in principle with an affordance ‘never’ being perceived.
Furthermore Oliver positions the argument as being between positivist or construc-
tivist alternatives and fails to see the possibility of a third option, one offered by
sociomateriality (for more on this see Chap. 4). I think one aspect of Oliver’s confla-
tion of affordance with technological determinism is that he fuses materialism with
determinism, although it is well known that the equation of materialism with deter-
minism is not a sustainable position (Leonardi and Barley 2008). I argue below that
the idea of affordance can allow for a non-deterministic understanding of the ways
in which technologies, although socially constructed, are real and have material
effects or consequences.
Derry’s argument is that the term affordance has moved from its specific place in
ecological psychology into a loosely defined vernacular use. Derry noted that affor-
dance was used in an essentialist manner which suggested affordances were inher-
ent in technologies.
Rather than speaking in general terms of how ICT may offer or afford opportunities when
used within carefully designed educational contexts, the authors prefer the use of the tech-
nical noun ‘affordance’, a word made up by Gibson to communicate the possibility of direct
perception of meaning. This alters the focus of attention and contributes to the view that
technologies can offer educational advantages independently of the individuals engaging
with them for specific purposes (Derry 2007, p. 504).
to predictive hypotheses (Derry 2007). It also slides away from Gibson’s own accounts
when it suggests affordance leads to the ‘direct perception of meaning’. Gibson was
concerned with action, not meaning and he expresses strong opinions with regard to
accounts of perception which rely on meaning. It is central to a Gibsonian account
that affordances have real qualities that remain invariant whatever the observer’s
requirements. Indeed Oliver in his own critique of Gibson drew attention to this
when he notes that Gibson’s view was that:
The world is specified in the structure of the light that reaches us, but it is entirely up to us
to perceive it (Gibson 1986/1979, p. 63).
can constrain activity in the way Hutchby suggests. The reality is not possessed by
the technology alone but it resides in the relationship between the technology and its
user(s). It is this separation between the technology and the affordance which is
critical because this is the reason why affordance, properly understood, is far from
the determinist caricature portrayed by Oliver (2011). Gibson’s original notion of
affordance relied upon a relatively simple conception of activity and there is a useful
critique of the way affordance has been interpreted, arising from activity theory,
which provides a more sophisticated account of action (Kaptelinin and Nardi 2012).
The previous sections have briefly examined the way that society has changed in the
past 50 years and the way technologies have also undergone a process of change.
The arguments have been non-deterministic and it has been argued that social
change has not been caused or determined by technology but equally technology has
not been the outcome of social processes alone. Instead the chapter has argued for
an emergent materialism, an understanding of technology as having material form
that has a co-constructive role with social practice in an historical and evolutionary
development. The final step in the argument was to review the idea of affordance
and to argue that this concept can provide the basis for understanding how technol-
ogy, understood as material, can afford or constrain activity. This final main section
of the chapter leads on towards Chap. 3 which examines theories of learning, by
exploring how the changes in society and technology have been implicated in the
production, storage and distribution of knowledge in society. The entire period cov-
ered by this book has seen popular descriptions of society focused on ‘information’
and knowledge with various kinds of theories about what has been characterised as
the information society (Webster 2006). More recent theories have been focused, by
advocates and critics, not simply on information but the contemporary infrastructure
that supports information flows, the Internet, Web and more recently Web 2.0 (see
for example, Fuchs 2008; Rainie and Wellman 2012; Bakardjieva 2005; Morozov
2011, 2013). In what follows there is a key issue that develops from the earlier
accounts of change in society and the economy, and in technological change, and
that issue is choice. If society and technology are neither determined nor determin-
ing what are the choices that can be made and who can make them? Will these
choices reply on individuals, the crowd, or collective organisations?
goods to one based on knowledge (Drucker 1969) and a shift from an industrial
economy to one based on services requiring information as a resources rather than
muscle, power or energy (Bell 1973). The idea moved on to the post-industrial soci-
ety (Touraine 1971) which emphasised the production of symbolic goods rather
than either material goods or services. Eventually it could be argued that:
It is widely acknowledged that knowledge has become the principle force of production
over the last few decades (Lyotard 1984, p. 5).
Network Society
The change described by Castells using the phrase network society suggests that it
is not just that education and learning are required for work in an Internet- and Web-
based economy, but that network society also changes the character of the learning
that is required. Learning via networks can be moved from retention to learning-to-
learn. As access to information becomes more available the learner needs to develop
the capacity to know what to learn, how to discriminate between sources, how to
retrieve, process and reuse information and knowledge for the task in hand. This
view of the relationship between network society and knowledge is similar to that
found in the work of Van Dijk (1999/1991), although Van Dijk expresses some con-
cerns about the tendency towards technological determinism found in Castells work.
It also provides a direct link to the development of the idea of networked learning.
Early writers in the field of networked learning had a vision that went beyond edu-
cation and learning and described a ‘Network Nation’ (Hiltz and Turoff 1978).
These authors were amongst the first wave of writers focused on the possibilities of
Knowledge, Technology and Society 37
online or networked learning. They envisaged ways in which the then new information
and communications technologies could be applied to education and learning in
novel ways that took learning out of the classroom (see Harasim 2012, pp. 84–87 for
a brief history from a US perspective). Network society impacts on knowledge and
learning by: (a) changing the amount of information that is available; (b) by chang-
ing the type of much communication to multimodal texts; (c) by changing the ways
that educational and learning practices can be conducted.
The publication of Manuel Castells trilogy The Information Age over the years
1996–1998 took the understanding of the way knowledge, information, technology
and society interacted on from earlier discussions of information society (Webster
2006). Whatever the flaws of this work it was the culmination of 25 years social
research and it is all-encompassing in its scale and ambition. The term network
society derives both from the first volume of Castells’ trilogy (2000b/1996) and the
work of Van Dijk (1999/1991). The idea has since been taken up widely and it
informs a wide variety of topics including education. Castells introduced the term
informationalism to identify:
The action of knowledge upon knowledge itself as the main source of productivity (Castells
2000b/1996, p. 17),
He argues that this change modifies both the economy and society, but he does
not go on to suggest that the new arrangements mean the end of capitalism. In the
new economy, profit seeking private ownership of the means of production and the
market still prevail. This socioeconomic system might be networked but it remains
capitalist. Informational capitalism via its network structure combines enormous
flexibility with global extension, well beyond the possibilities of previous periods of
capitalism.
It is a hardened form of capitalism in its goals but it is incomparably more flexible than any
of its predecessors in its means. It is informational capitalism, relying on innovation-
induced productivity and globalisation-oriented competitiveness to generate wealth, and to
appropriate it selectively. It is more than ever, embedded in culture and tooled by technol-
ogy. But, this time, both culture and technology depend on the ability of knowledge and
information to act upon knowledge and information, in a recurrent network of global
exchanges (Castells 2000/1998, p. 369).
Castells ‘it should be noted’ does not suggest that the forces of capitalism and
technology, or the forces of individuals and the state, can set the agenda by them-
selves. He also credits change to the social movements of the late 1960s and those
following them up to the present day.
The network society is a society in which the core social activities and structures
are organised via electronically processed information networks. The network society
cannot be reduced to either networks or to social networks, because both networks
and social networks have long histories which predate digital technologies. The
defining characteristics of network society are the kinds of social networks which
process and manage information using micro-electronics-based digital technolo-
gies. It is important to note that Castells also distances himself from radical notions
of an information or knowledge society because information and knowledge have
been decisive in all aspects of previous societies. The defining characteristic of
38 2 The Age of Digital Networks
network society requires the necessary but not sufficient condition of digital networks.
These digital technologies are described as social outcomes and not as an autonomous
development. In relation to the Internet Castells points out that:
The history of the Internet provides ample evidence that the users, particularly the first
thousands of users, were, to a large extent, the producers of the technology (Castells and
Cardoso 2005, p. 3).
A second defining feature of network society is its global nature. Networks are
extensible and do not respect boundaries, the network society is based on global
networks, but these do not extend to all people. While network society covers the
entire planet and influences all global developments, currently the majority of the
world’s population remain excluded in network society (this despite rapid changes
such as the extensive diffusion of mobile telecommunications in the most remote
and economically deprived regions). Inequality and exclusion remain problems in
network society, both within and between states. The network society is not set out
as a goal or an objective, it is proposed as a description of the logic and morphology
of contemporary society. The approach adopted by those who describe society in
terms of networks, has been criticised by Fuchs as presenting the problems found in
network society as inevitable and something which people have to adapt to rather
than challenge and change (Fuchs 2008). My personal view is that some of Fuchs’
criticisms seem to ignore the link made by Castells between the network society and
contemporary capitalism. For example Fuchs argues that networks are characteristic
of all systems noting that:
The historically novel quality is that in more and more systems, such as the economy, polity
and the Internet, we find transnational actors that operate on a global scale; they are trans-
national/global networks (Fuchs 2008, p. 101).
Work
Zuboff (1988) linked the growth of information technology to changes in the work-
force and coined the term ‘informating’ to describe the properties of new technolo-
gies in the context of a paper processing mill.
Knowledge, Technology and Society 39
What is it, then, that distinguishes information technology from earlier generations of
machine technology? As information technology is used to reproduce, extend, and improve
upon the process of substituting machines for human agency, it simultaneously accom-
plishes something quite different. The devices that automate by translating information into
action also register data about those automated activities, thus generating new streams of
information (Zuboff 1988, p. 9)
The informating of educational processes has recently become a major focus for
policy makers and researchers in educational technology with the development of
learning analytics (see Chap. 5). Barley and Orr (1997) explicitly build on this char-
acterisation of the new work process and they go further by identifying a growing
sector of the workforce which relies on the manipulation of symbols to carry out
their work. The development of digital and networked infrastructure has resulted in
the emergence of an increasing number of technical occupations with a specific
relationship to scientific knowledge. They argue that such technical work sits at the
intersection of craft and science and it combines attributes of both mental and man-
ual skills which need to exist inseparably even if their coexistence is not always
comfortable. Barley and Orr refer to the process that leads to this coexistence as
technisation:
By technization, we mean to characterize the emergence of work which is comparatively
complex, analytic, and even abstract, because it makes use of tools that generate symbolic
representations of physical phenomena and that often mediate between workers and the
objects of their work (Barley and Orr 1997, p. 5).
They note that effective technical practice relies heavily on theoretical or abstract
knowledge which is often used to justify requiring technicians to obtain relevant
degrees from postsecondary educational institutions. However in practice, critical
skills and judgments are contextually situated and formal knowledge is only a small
part of what is required to be a skilful technical practitioner. These aspects of the
new workforce are related to developments in learning theory explored in Chap. 3
in terms of social and situated accounts of learning. They are also related to the
development of para-academic roles (e.g. learning technologists and educational
developers) in higher education and this is explored further in Chap. 7.
More recently Hardt and Negri (2005) have drawn attention to the growth of
immaterial labour; that is:
…labor that creates immaterial products, such as knowledge, information, communication,
a relationship or an emotional response (ibid, p. 108)
This general term actually captures two different kinds of work, one which is
concerned with the production of symbols, codes, ideas, texts etc. and the other with
affective labour, the production of relationships, a good attitude and social skills. In
this way of thinking the work remains material; it is the products or outputs from the
work process which are immaterial. Fuchs argues that this approach is problematic
in the way that it splits the world into material and immaterial forms (Fuchs 2008).
I would agree with this criticism and add that the idea of ‘immaterial’ products does
not do justice to many of the areas of work that Hardt and Negri include in their
analysis. The generation of texts and ideas is very much a sociomaterial practice
40 2 The Age of Digital Networks
Knowledge
In this context the important element for networked learning is the relationship
between network society and knowledge. Castells argues that while knowledge is
not the defining character of network society, increased access to information means
that education and life-long learning become essential resources for achievement in
work and for personal development (Castells 2001). I am not of course equating
information with knowledge, but noting that the flow of information can enable
construction of knowledge. Indeed Castells argues that the increased availability of
information reinforces the need to shift from learning to learning-to-learn and to
enhance the capacity to transform information into knowledge and knowledge into
action. The increased flow of information is also related to the ‘attention economy’
which means that an ability to select between sources based on a very limited read-
ing is an essential practical element of our day-to-day lives (Goldhaber 1997). Säljö
(2010) argues that in an attention economy education and learning require an ability
to select between sources, and learners must therefore direct their attention in ways
that mean they have to disregard much of what is available to them. The need to
disregard parts of the increased flow of information has been accompanied by a shift
in the forms that this information takes with communication increasingly multi-
modal in form.
The focus on the ability to read a text and to discriminate between them has led
Säljö to draw on Kress (2003) to make a distinction between ‘reading as interpreta-
tion’ and ‘reading as design’. In reading as interpretation the meaning is there in
every word and the task is to be able to read the text and to interpret and transform
what is clearly present in it. In multimodal texts he claims that the emphasis shifts
from telling to showing and the task for the reader is to impose order and to select
for relevance, a practice he calls ‘reading as design’. In Säljö’s view, reading
becomes an act of participation and the reader has greater flexibility in interpreta-
tion and is able to produce a version of a multimedia text for their own purposes.
This argument firstly directs attention to the multimodal forms available in digital
networks and secondly it places an emphasis on the practices of decoding text.
Conclusions 41
Conclusions
The underlying theme of this chapter has been change. Change in society, change in
technology and the consequent change that arises when these two aspects are
brought together in a network society. The way that change has been discussed is to
emphasise the weaknesses of determinist, specifically technological determinist,
arguments and this raises the question of the politics of change. Change in network
society arises in a number of ways, and these all involve choice and the choices have
a political dimension. Change can be individual in character, although this kind of
change is often overhyped. Humans always exist as social beings and a society rich
in technology is socially complex. The changes that affect network society are often
if not always collective in nature. The collective could be a ‘crowd’ a loosely linked
grouping in which individuals act in their own interests but generate an overall col-
lective response (Watts and Strogatz 1998). This kind of change is rare because
social life is generally historical in character and collective responses usually lead
to organisations that persist over time and once organisations are constituted they
act back on their members. This reflexive kind of collective self-organisation is the
stuff of politics and of democratic politics in particular. It is also a foundation of
organisational and social politics because it leads to self-organisation in profes-
sional bodies, and in interest and pressure groups. It should not be forgotten that the
design and deployment of technology also has a politics, and technology is a site of
struggle involving a ‘parliament of things’ (Feenberg 1991). Choice and political
and policy processes rely on a degree of stability and the concept of affordance can
be useful in providing a degree of permanence in changing circumstances. There is
then a ‘politics’ of networked learning, even if networked learning is generally not
concerned with Politics in the party political sense of the term.
42 2 The Age of Digital Networks
There is a small literature that addresses the question of the politics of networked
learning directly (Jones 2001, 2002; Land 2006; Greener and Perriton 2005;
Levinsen and Nielsen 2012). In the broader field of educational technology there
has been an increasing interest in a critical and political focus (see for example
Nespor 2011; Selwyn and Facer 2013). McConnell, Hodgson and Dirckinck-
Holmfeld do not mention politics directly in their brief history of networked learn-
ing, but they do refer to the role of critical pedagogy and the ethics of learning:
The various scholars and practices associated with networked learning have an identifiable
educational philosophy that has emerged out of those educational theories and approaches
that can be linked to radical emancipatory and humanistic educational ideas and approaches
(McConnell et al. 2012, p. 15).
In the conclusions to the same volume Hodgson et al. (2012) extend this and
overtly discuss the political positioning of networked learning in relation to ontol-
ogy and epistemology. They argue that networked learning questions the nature of
society and how new knowledge is developed, emphasising collaboration and shar-
ing as both a pedagogical and social goal. However overall networked learning has
rarely engaged with the broader political landscape sketched by Selwyn and Facer
(2013) and this is becoming a more pressing concern in the current global reces-
sion because of the severe pressures placed on higher education by economic
conditions.
References
Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. London: Allen Lane.
Bakardjieva, M. (2005). Internet society: The internet in everyday life. London: Sage.
Barley, S. R., & Orr, J. E. (1997). Between craft and science: Technical work in US settings. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University/ILR Press.
Barnes, B., Bloor, D., & Henry, J. (1996). Scientific knowledge: A sociological analysis. London:
Athlone Press.
Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York:
Basic Books.
Bijker, E., & Law, J. (Eds.). (1992). Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical
change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bloor, D. (1991). Knowledge and social imagery (2 ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(Original work published 1976).
Brey, P. (1997). Social constructivism for philosophers of technology: A shopper’s guide. Society
for Philosophy and Technology, 2(3–4), 56–78.
Castells, M. (2000). The end of the millennium (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell. (Original
work published 1998).
Castells, M. (2000a). The rise of the fourth world. In D. Held & A. McGrew (Eds.), The global
transformations reader: An introduction to the globalization debate (pp. 348–354). Cambridge,
England: Polity Press.
Castells, M. (2000b). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell
(Original work published 1996).
Castells, M. (2001). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business, and society. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
References 43
Castells, M., & Cardoso, G. (Eds.). (2005). The network society: From knowledge to policy.
Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations.
Cornford, J., & Pollock, N. (2002). The university as a ‘resourceful constraint’: Process and prac-
tice in the construction of the virtual university. In M. R. Lea & K. Nicoll (Eds.), Distributed
learning: Social and cultural approaches to practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Derry, J. (2007). Epistemology and conceptual resources for the development of learning technologies.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(6), 503–510.
Drucker, P. (1969). The age of discontinuity: Guidelines to our changing society. London:
Heinemann.
Dyson, G. (1999). Darwin among the machines. London: Penguin.
Dyson, G. (2012). Turing’s cathedral: The origins of the digital universe. London: Allen Lane.
Economist. (2012). The rise of state capitalism. Economist. Retrieved January 21, 2012, from
http://www.economist.com/node/21543160
Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fenwick, T. (2012). Matterings of knowing and doing: Sociomaterial approaches to understanding
practice. In P. Hager, A. Lee, & A. Reich (Eds.), Practice, learning and change: Practice-theory
perspectives on professional learning (pp. 67–83). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research:
Tracing the sociomaterial. London: Routledge.
Friesen, N. (2009). Re-thinking e-learning research: Foundations, methods and practices.
New York: Peter Lang.
Friesen, N. (2010). Ethics and the technologies of empire: e-learning and the US military. AI &
Society, 25(1), 71–81.
Fuchs, C. (2008). Internet and society: Social theory in the information age. New York: Routledge.
Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. Proceedings of CHI’91, New Orleans, LA, April
28–May 2, 1991 (pp. 79–84). New York: ACM.
Gaver, W. W. (1996). Situating action II: Affordances for interaction: The social is material for
design. Ecological Psychology, 8(2), 111–129.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, act-
ing and knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates (Original work published 1979).
Goldhaber, M. H. (1997). The attention economy and the net. First Monday, 2(4). Retrieved from
http://firstmonday.org
Greener, I., & Perriton, L. (2005). The political economy of networked learning communities in
higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 67–79.
Gregory, R. (1997). Knowledge in perception and illusion. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 352, 1121–1127. Retrieved from http://www.richardgreg-
ory.org/papers/knowl_illusion/knowledge-in-perception.doc
Gregory, R., & Wallace, J. G. (2001). Recovery from early blindness—A case study. Reproduced
from Experimental Psychology Society Monograph No. 2 1963. (Original work published
1963). Retrieved from http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/index.htm
Hacket, J. E., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., & Wacjman, J. (2008). Handbook of science and
technology studies (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. New York: Routledge.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2005). Multitude: War and democracy in the age of empire. London:
Hamish Hamilton.
Harman, G. (2009). Prince of networks: Bruno Latour and metaphysics. Melbourne, VIC: Re. Press.
Retrieved from http://re-press.org/books/prince-of-networks-bruno-latour-and-metaphysics/
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation—Human communication via computer (1st
ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley [Revised edition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993].
44 2 The Age of Digital Networks
Hodgson, V., McConnell, D., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). The theory, practice and peda-
gogy of networked learning. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.),
Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 291–305). New York:
Springer.
Huntington, S. P. (1993). The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22–49.
Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 451–456.
Hutchby, I. (2003). Affordances and the analysis of technologically mediated interaction: A
response to Brian Rappert. Sociology, 37(3), 581–588.
Ihde, D. (2002). Bodies in technology (Electronic mediations, Vol. 5). Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota Press.
Jones, C. (2001) Do technologies have politics? The new paradigm and pedagogy in networked
learning. In Technology pedagogy and politics—What next?, Mount Royal College, Calgary,
AB, May 4–5, 2001. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/33381/
Jones, C. (2002). The politics of networked learning (Symposium 8). In S. Banks, P. Goodyear,
V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Networked learning 2002: A research based conference
on e-learning in higher education and lifelong learning. Sheffield, England: University of
Sheffield. Retrieved from http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2002/pro-
ceedings/symp/08.htm
Jones, C. (2005). Who are you? Theorising from the experience of working through an Avatar.
E-learning, 2(4), 415–426.
Jones, C. (2011). Students, the net generation and digital natives: Accounting for educational
change. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Deconstructing digital natives (pp. 30–45). New York: Routledge.
Jones, O. (2014). The establishment: And how they get away with it. London: Allen Lane Press.
Kaptelinin, V., & Hedestig, U. (2009). Breakdowns, affordances and indirect design. In
L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning prac-
tices in higher education and continuing professional development. Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers, BV.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2012). Affordances in HCI: Toward a mediated action perspective. In
Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(pp. 967–976). New York: ACM.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
Land, R. (2006). Networked learning and the politics of speed: A dromological perspective. In
S. Banks, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, B. Kemp, D. McConnell, & C. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of
the Fifth International Conference on Networked Learning 2006. Lancaster, England: Lancaster
University. Retrieved from http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2006/
abstracts/pdfs/P16%20Land.pdf
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. London:
Routledge.
Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2008). Materiality and change: Challenges to building better
theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization, 18, 159–176.
Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality,
and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. The Academy of Management
Annals, 4(1), 1–51.
Leonardi, P. M., Nardi, B. A., & Kallinikos, J. (Eds.). (2012). Materiality and organising: Social
interaction in a technological world. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Levinsen, K. T., & Nielsen, J. (2012). Innovating design for learning in the networked society. In
L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy
and practice of networked learning (pp. 237–256). New York: Springer.
Lyotard, J-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington, &
B. Massumi, Trans.). Manchester, England: University of Manchester Press.
MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1999). The social shaping of technology (2nd ed.). Buckingham,
England: Open University Press.
McConnell, D., Hodgson, V., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). Networked learning: A brief his-
tory and new trends. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring
the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 3–24). New York: Springer.
References 45
McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. In Proceedings
of graphics interface 2000 (pp. 179–186). New York: ACM. Retrieved from http://www.dgp.
utoronto.ca/~joanna/papers/gi_2000_affordances.pdf
Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: How not to liberate the world. London: Allen Lane.
Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything click here: Technology, solutionism and the urge to fix
problems that don’t exist. London: Allen Lane.
Nespor, J. (2011). Technology and the politics of instruction. Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.
Norman, D. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–42.
O’Neil, J. (2001). Building better global economic BRICs. Global economics paper No. 66.
London: Goldman Sachs. Retrieved from http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/archive/
archive-pdfs/build-better-brics.pdf
Oliver, M. (2005). The problem with affordance. E-Learning, 2(4), 402–413.
Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: Some alterna-
tive ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 27(5), 373–384.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). 10 sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of tech-
nology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.
Picketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology
of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. Bijker, T. Hughes,
& T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the
sociology and history of technology (pp. 17–50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Rappert, B. (2003). Technologies, texts and possibilities: A reply to Hutchby. Sociology, 37(3),
565–580.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and
accountability. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Ritzer, G. (1993). The McDonaldization of society. London: Sage.
Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies,
social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
26(1), 53–64.
Selwyn, N. (2011). Schools and schooling in the digital age: A critical analysis. London: Routledge.
Selwyn, N., & Facer, K. (Eds.). (2013). The politics of education and technology: Conflicts, con-
troversies, and connections. New York: Palgrave McMillan.
Thompson, G., Frances, J., Levačić, R., & Michell, J. (1991). Markets, hierarchies and networks:
The coordination of social life. London: Sage.
Torenvliet, G. (2003). We can’t afford it! The devaluation of a usability term. Interactions, 10,
12–17.
Touraine, A. (1971). The post-industrial society: Tomorrow’s social history: Classes, conflicts and
culture in the programmed society. New York: Random House.
Van Dijk, J. (1999). The network society. London: Sage (Original work published 1991).
Van Heur, B., Leydesdorff, L., & Wyatt, S. (2013). Turning to ontology in STS? Turning to STS
through ‘ontology’. Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 341–362.
Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature,
393(6684), 440–442.
Webster, F. (2006). Theories of the information society (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
46 2 The Age of Digital Networks
Winner, L. (1986). Do artifacts have politics? In L. Winner (Ed.), The whale and the reactor:
A search for limits in an age of high technology (pp. 19–39). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press (Reprinted in D. MacKenzie, & Wajcman, J. (Eds.), (1999). The social shaping of tech-
nology (2nd Ed., pp. 28–40). London: Open University Press).
Woolgar, S., & Lezauan, J. (2013). The wrong bin bag: A turn to ontology in science and technol-
ogy studies? Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 321–340.
Wright, S., & Parchoma, G. (2011). Technologies for learning? An actor-network theory critique of
‘affordances’ in research on mobile learning. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 247–258.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York: Basic
Books.
Chapter 3
Theories of Learning in a Digital Age
In the previous chapter I outlined the kind of society that has emerged in conjunction
with the rise of digital networks. In this chapter I will examine the kinds of theories
of learning that might be applicable in such a society and explore how theories of
learning are changing. A society based on digital networks has clearly changed the
kinds of labour that are required in the economy and this shift in the demand for
labour has an influence on the kinds of learning that are required. The hidden cur-
riculum of an industrial society was the organisation of time and space in the factory
system and this led to structuralist and functionalist accounts of education that
emphasised how the educational system prepared people for working lives within
the factory system (e.g. Willis 1977). A limitation on the scope of the chapter is that
it largely deals with learning at the post compulsory level, focused largely on higher
education, as I explain below. Higher education has not been exempted from the
processes affecting education as a whole and although higher education is focused
on highly qualified sections of the workforce it has been argued that historically the
educational system prepared the university educated for certain kinds of scientific
and technical labour and the command and control positions in the state’s gover-
nance and administration (see Margolis 2001; Bourdieu 1988). A starting point for
this chapter is the term learning and the way digital and networked technologies
intertwine with social forms in contemporary universities, corporate training and
continuing professional development. Digital and networked technologies play a
part in forming and reforming work, social life and higher education. It is this com-
plex and dynamic mix of work, social life and the higher education system that we
need to understand alongside the different theories of education and learning.
The focus of this book is consistently on networked learning in the post compul-
sory sector. This could be workplace learning, professional and lifelong learning
but most centrally it is focused on learning at university level. One critical reason
for this restriction is that learning at the post compulsory level is concerned with
more than the transfer, transmission or internalisation of knowledge that is already
in circulation in society. The university remains a main site for the production of
new knowledge, despite challenges, and indeed the higher degrees conferred by
universities contain the requirement that the candidates for such degrees have made
a significant contribution to knowledge. University education can be seen as part of
the transition from schooling in an authorised canon of knowledge to a critical
understanding of existing bodies of knowledge and the eventual production of
new knowledge. The potential for challenges—related to digital and networked
technologies—to the university’s dominance in this role as producer of knowledge
are explored further in Chaps. 5 and 7.
This chapter does not take a particular view of learning, indeed it argues that one
of the strengths of networked learning is its flexibility in allowing for different ways
of thinking about learning. In this way this chapter differs from other accounts of
networked learning that privilege one tradition of learning theory or another. For
example McConnell et al. (2012) provide a brief history of networked learning in
which they state:
The development of networked learning has largely been influenced by understanding of
developments in technology to support learning alongside thinking stemming from the tra-
ditions of open learning and other radical pedagogies and humanistic educational ideas
from the likes of Dewey, Freire, Giroux and Rogers (McConnell et al. 2012, p. 4).
There is clearly a relationship between ideas drawn from some of these thinkers
to networked learning, and these ideas have informed individuals who have been
key in developing the academic area, but they have not to date been the main sources
of inspiration for many of the theories of learning which have been regularly drawn
on by networked learning researchers. The chapter returns to this point in its conclu-
sions and the author takes the view that because learning is a complex matter, one
that is universal across human societies, it cannot be reduced to any single or simple
definition (for a recent collection of contemporary learning theory see Illeris 2009).
This means that this chapter will examine a number of competing and at times
overlapping theories that often draw on traditional understandings of learning, even
though networked learning can be thought of as a relatively new phenomenon.
Illeris notes that:
During the last 10–15 years, learning has become a key topic, not only for professionals and
students in the areas of psychology, pedagogy and education, but also in political and eco-
nomic contexts. One reason for this is that the level of education and skills of nations,
companies and individuals is considered a crucial parameter of competition in the present
globalised market and knowledge society (Illeris 2009, p. 1).
An Accepted Canon?
Behaviourism
Behaviourism arose in the early twentieth century and its roots lie in the work of
Pavlov and the idea of conditioning (Harasim 2012). The approach was scientific in
the sense of the term that is currently viewed as ‘scientism’. That is it has a narrow
focus on objective knowledge and a refusal to include in scientific discourse internal
states and accounts of these states as mind or experience, which is an approach
behaviourism’s adherents dismissed as ‘mentalism’. Key figures in behaviourism
include Watson (1913), Thorndike (1911) and Skinner (1958). Watson recognised
no boundary between humans and animals (brutes) and reinforced the objectivist
and experimental basis of behaviourism by firmly locating it within psychology and
emphasising the prediction and control of behaviour.
Behaviourism has at its core a design-focused way of thinking. The experimental
stress on prediction and control, developed by Thorndike’s connectionist school of
behaviourism, emphasised the role of habit and the usefulness of stimulus response
pairings in establishing behavioural patterns. The connectionist use of association
reinforced the general behaviourist notion that learning could be explained without
reference to any states that were not directly observable. It is of course Skinner’s
name that is now most associated with the relationship between behaviourism and
the use of technology in education (Skinner 1954). A key development introduced
by Skinner was the notion of operant conditioning (Skinner 1953). Pavlov had made
use of direct stimuli such as the use of a bell to positively reinforce behaviours in
dogs. Skinner extended this notion to emphasise how behaviour could be modified
with both positive and negative reinforcement. Skinner’s notion of operant condi-
tioning was that active behaviour operated upon the environment to generate conse-
quences, and it allowed for a feedback loop in which the pattern of rewards or
punishment could feedback onto future behaviours.
Behaviourism has been widely criticised from a number of different perspectives
and in many ways it is currently used to set up a subsequent progression of ideas
about learning and learning with technology in particular. For example the idea of a
stimulus response pairing, while simplified in laboratory experiments, can easily be
confounded in a complex natural environment such as a classroom. However care
needs to be taken with this tendency towards blanket criticism because some of the
basic ideas, sketched out above, are still current and relevant in education. As Wilson
and Myers noted:
Recall that behaviorism was once a reform movement with a core commitment to active
learning. To fully appreciate the contribution of behaviorism, we would need to understand
what the behaviorists were trying to reform, and what they brought to the table? Proponents
of programmed instruction were dedicated to making instruction more individually tailored
and effective in accomplishing its objectives. A full range of media and technologies were
organized into new designs for instruction. Traditional methods such as teacher-centered
classrooms and lectures were precisely what behaviorists were trying to reform (Wilson and
Myers 2000, p. 60).
There are ideas drawn from behaviourism that are still relevant today. Firstly behav-
iourism has a focus on the learner, even though it is often dismissed as teacher-centred.
An Accepted Canon? 51
Secondly behaviourism has a focus on design and the idea that learning occurs
through modifications in behaviour. The idea of active learning with rapid if not
immediate feedback on outcomes is still practiced, most notably in the idea that
learning processes should be carefully analysed and planned in terms of intended
outcomes (Mayes and de Freitas 2013). The use of learning objectives linked to
strategies for instruction and crafted forms of assessment is still embedded in many
institutional and national regulatory systems and regimes. Implicitly it informs
some of the more recent experiments with learning analytics. Behaviourism remains
a theory concerned with the design of learning, but it remains relevant and can still
be an influence in educational technology. Networked learning rejects the idea that
the subjective aspect of human activity can be ignored and the neglect of intention-
ality inherent in the use of the term behaviour; however, it remains interested in
some common areas such as design and a planned approach to learning.
Cognitivism
Constructivism
There is not one kind of learning. It was the vanity of a preceding generation to think that
the battle over learning theories would eventuate in one winning over all the others. Any
learner has a host of learning strategies at command. The salvation is in learning how to go
about learning before getting irreversibly beyond the point of no return (Bruner 1985, p. 8).
If the standard view is correct how can these two epistemologically opposed out-
looks sit together so happily in the way that Mayes and de Freitas suggest? This
disagreement points to a major problem with simplified accounts of learning theory
which focuses on an implied progression from behaviourism to either constructivism
or a situative perspective—they do not accord with the history of ideas, they exclude
Alternative Views of Learning 55
significant trends in educational theory and muddle together approaches with quite
different ways of seeing the world and quite different practical implications.
In recent years constructivism has possibly been the most influential of the three
mainstream approaches to learning theory. The kind of constructivism that has
been most influential has been social in character and there is a slight difference in
the ways that constructivism has developed in the United States and Europe.
European approaches to learning theory are happier to speak and write in terms of
sociocultural theory and about situated learning whereas approaches from the
United States are more likely to use the term constructivism to cover similar issues.
The most important inheritance from constructivism in networked learning is the
situation of learning in social practice and in the interactions between people and
their social settings.
This chapter now explores some of the alternative ways of thinking that do not sit
comfortably in the accounts provided by either Harasim or Mayes and de Freitas.
The exploration begins with pragmatism and the work of Dewey (1859–1952) and
the way this outlook retains its influence (Garrison and Anderson 2003; Koschmann
2002; Vanderstraeten and Biesta 2006). It goes on to look at the varieties of what
might be summarised as social and situated views of learning, including the ideas of
communities of practice (Wenger 1998), legitimate peripheral participation (Lave
and Wenger 1991), cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) and expansive learn-
ing (Engeström 1987), and CSCL which was at one time portrayed as a new para-
digm for learning (Koschmann 1996). These theories continue to have a significant
influence on networked learning. This exploration also examines another broad out-
look that doesn’t fit in with standard views, the study of approaches to learning and
teaching alongside ideas such as constructive alignment and phenomenography
(Prosser and Trigwell 1999; Biggs 1999; Marton 1981; Marton and Booth 1997;
Richardson 1999). The review of alternative theories then concludes with some cur-
rent contending ideas for framing a new paradigm of learning, connectivism
(Siemens 2005) and the sociomaterial approach and actor-network theory (Fenwick
et al. 2011; Fenwick and Edwards 2010)
Pragmatism
Pragmatism is a broad philosophical movement which has its own view of episte-
mology and knowledge, although the particular pragmatic view is often confused
with constructivism. In relation to education and learning it is most associated with
Dewey and the idea of learning through experience (1916/1980). Pragmatists reject
the idea that knowledge describes, represents, or mirrors reality, but significantly
56 3 Theories of Learning in a Digital Age
pragmatists are not relativist and they believe judgements can still be made between
better and worse accounts of the world. Pragmatists developed a philosophy in
which knowledge is related to an understanding of the world gained through predic-
tion, action, and problem-solving. Pragmatists contend that the nature of knowl-
edge, science and belief are best viewed in terms of their practical uses. Dewey’s
(1916/1980) body of work emphasises action and experience, although his use of
experience is quite distinct and can easily be confused with more recent accounts of
experience and experiential learning (Elkjaer 2009).
Experience is both the process of experiencing and the result of the process. It is in experi-
ence, in transaction, that difficulties arise, and it is with experience that problems are
resolved by inquiry. Inquiry (or critical and reflective thinking) is an experimental method
by which new experience may be had not only through action but also by using ideas and
concepts, hypotheses and theories as ‘tools to think with’ in an instrumental way (Elkjaer
2009, p. 75).
Experience for Dewey involved knowledge as only one part of interaction with
the world (other aspects being emotion, aesthetics and ethics) and experience was
both subjective and objective, involving cultural practice and not simply individual-
ised minds.
Pragmatism retains an influence on education and learning (Elkjaer 2009;
Garrison and Anderson 2003) through pragmatist epistemology and debates
between contemporary philosophers with a relevance to education that draw on
pragmatism (Rockwell 2003). Dewey is also drawn on for more recent develop-
ments in educational thinking such as Kolb’s model of experiential learning
(Miettinen 2000). Pragmatism can also seem to have some very strange bedfellows.
Koschmann noted that Dewey in an address to the 25th anniversary American
Psychological Society praised the work of an early behaviourist:
…Dewey argues for the inclusion of the social in psychological research. As examples of
psychologists who had already made moves in this direction, he cited approvingly William
James, the British psychologist McDougall, and his colleague at Columbia, E. L. Thorndike!
Dewey goes on to applaud efforts by Thorndike and others to introduce statistical methods
and behaviorism into the study of social aspects of cognition (Koschmann 2000, p. 314).
The point being made here is not to suggest that Dewey endorsed behaviourism
in any significant way, but to note that the clear separation that is often made
Alternative Views of Learning 57
Social/Situated Learning
The most important approach not properly accounted for in the standard view of a
progression from behaviourism to cognitivism and onward to constructivism is
what Mayes and de Freitas described as the ‘situative’ view of learning (Mayes and
de Freitas 2013). The ideas of Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger, captured by the terms
legitimate peripheral participation and communities of practice have been highly
influential in educational technology (Lave 2011; Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger
1998). Equally a set of theories based on Vygotsky’s activity theory have been
highly influential in educational research and practice, in particular Yrjö Engeström’s
work on CHAT and his theory of expansive learning (Engeström 1987, 1999). What
unites these theories is a social view of learning, but they emerged with distinct dif-
ferences and some apparent contradictions between them. There is also a link that
unites pragmatism with these theories and that is the idea of practice.
Jean Lave located her work as social, cultural and historical but placed it in con-
trast to much that has been encompassed by the term constructivism:
I take issue with some work characterized in this way, for it either maintains overly simple
boundaries between the individual (and thus the ‘cognitive’) and some version of a world
‘out there’, or turns to a radical constructivist view in which the world is (only) subjectively
or intersubjectively constructed. Learning, it seems to me, is neither wholly subjective nor
fully encompassed in social interaction, and it is not constituted separately from the social
world (with its own structures and meanings) of which it is part. This recommends a decen-
tered view of the locus and meaning of learning, in which learning is recognized as a social
phenomenon constituted in the experienced, lived-in world, through legitimate peripheral
participation in ongoing social practice; the process of changing knowledgeable skill is
subsumed in processes of changing identity in and through membership in a community of
practitioners; and mastery is an organizational, relational characteristic of communities of
practice (Lave 1991, p. 64).
The term communities of practice was originally developed by Lave and Wenger
(1991) and the stress at that time was on legitimate peripheral participation, a pro-
cess abstracted from the observation of craft workers, which involved the movement
of a novice at the periphery towards mastery at the centre of a practice. Etienne
Wenger developed the idea of legitimate peripheral participation, formed jointly
with Jean Lave, into the full framework of communities of practice (Wenger 1998).
As he did so he further abstracted the concept, minimising its link to preindustrial
notions of apprenticeship and applied it to modern managerial practice (Wenger
et al. 2002).
58 3 Theories of Learning in a Digital Age
Communities of practice have since become one of the standard lenses through
which learning and teaching in a technologically rich environment is viewed.
A community of practice is a group of people who share a concern, a set of problems
or an interest (passion) for a topic and who then deepen their knowledge and exper-
tise by having an ongoing interaction (Wenger et al. 2002). The process Wenger
identified is an ongoing dialectical interaction between reification and participation
that involves the formation of identity. This dialectical relationship is evidenced in
the duality between reification and participation which is illustrated using a yin- and
yang-like tension within a unity (Wenger 1998, p. 63). In its initial formulation
Wenger identified three features of a community of practice, joint enterprise, mutual
engagement, and a shared repertoire (Wenger 1998). While the idea of community
of practice has become widespread Wenger has always insisted that his conception
involves ‘learning, meaning and identity’ with the last term being often the least
emphasised by those inspired by the idea of a community of practice. Wenger
emphasised that the process of active participation in a community of practice
involves learning; and the formation of identity is understood as both a shared iden-
tity as a group, and the person’s identity within the group.
Wenger has in recent years developed his view of networks and their relationship
to communities of practice. In his 1998 book Wenger referred to networks in a num-
ber of footnotes to distinguish them from communities in the sense that he used the
term. More recently he has taken up the position that communities of practice are
special cases of networks; that is that all communities of practice are networks but
not all networks are communities of practice (Wenger et al. 2011).
We prefer to think of community and network as two aspects of social structures in which
learning takes place.
• The network aspect refers to the set of relationships, personal interactions, and con-
nections among participants who have personal reasons to connect. It is viewed as a
set of nodes and links with affordances for learning, such as information flows, help-
ful linkages, joint problem solving, and knowledge creation.
• The community aspect refers to the development of a shared identity around a topic
or set of challenges. It represents a collective intention—however tacit and distrib-
uted—to steward a domain of knowledge and to sustain learning about it (Wenger
et al. 2011, p. 9).
This newer formulation is explicitly related to social networks enabled by digital
and networked technologies. In some ways the adoption of the idea of communities
of practice by educational technology researchers and practitioners is odd because
the initial research that led to the development of this perspective was so clearly
located in the observation of craft workers (tailors in West Africa), working in con-
ditions that did not include modern technologies and digital and networked tech-
nologies in particular. The issue of the craft basis and preindustrial origins of the
idea of a community of practice is one of the points of difference between theories
based on communities of practice and those drawing on activity theory and CHAT
(Engeström 2007).
Both Lave and Engeström draw on aspects of Marxist theory (Lave 2011). Lave
emphasised alienation and the commodity form in her work, whereas Engeström has
Alternative Views of Learning 59
a more explicit and fully developed link to Marxism via Vygotsky and the activity
theory tradition originally developed in the Soviet Union (Lave 1991; Engeström
1987). In Engeström’s work there is reference to the pivotal idea of contradictions
as being a key instrument for change and the central focus of the theory is the activ-
ity system, rather than singular activities. The theory of expansive learning based on
this approach is concerned with learning at the level of collectives and networks
rather than individuals. The problems which expansive learning is concerned with
often cannot be fixed by individuals alone, but only socially by the collaboration
and cooperation of groups. In addition the case made for expansive learning is that
‘standard’ views of learning are concerned with the transmission, understanding of,
and preservation of what is already known.
Standard theories of learning are focused on processes where a subject (traditionally an
individual, more recently possibly also an organization) acquires some identifiable knowl-
edge or skills in such a way that a corresponding, relatively lasting change in the behavior
of the subject may be observed. It is a self-evident presupposition that the knowledge or
skill to be acquired is itself stable and reasonably well defined. There is a competent
‘teacher’ who knows what is to be learned (Engeström 2009, p. 58).
The theory of expansive learning thus sits in a framework of analysis that deals
with the inner contradictions of capitalist production in a way that the ideas of com-
munities of practice do not. Another feature of expansive learning is its concern
with ‘horizontal’ rather than vertical processes. In his criticism of communities of
practice Engeström argues that the movement from novice to master remains a ver-
tical process and he also argues that Vygotsky’s work is vertical in character
(Engeström 2007). Engeström argues that the theory of expansive learning takes a
different stance and is concerned with the horizontal plane and sideway moves, in
which thinking is not moving vertically between abstract scientific concepts and
everyday thinking. Sideway moves are argued to be creative re-conceptualisations
of the problem, setting new agendas and new ways of working.
Despite these important differences there are explicit connections that link the
idea of a community of practice with the idea of an activity system:
An activity system is a complex and relatively enduring ‘community of practice’ that often
takes the shape of an institution. Activity systems are enacted in the form of individual goal-
directed actions. But an activity system is not reducible to the sum total of those actions. An
action is discrete, it has a beginning and an end. Activity systems have cyclic rhythms and
long historical half-lives (Engeström 2005, p. 219)
60 3 Theories of Learning in a Digital Age
Both outlooks take learning away from the isolated individual and locate it in
social processes which involve groups, social dynamics and culture. The kind of
learning covered by these theories ranges from the acquisition of already estab-
lished bodies of knowledge and practice, especially in relation to communities of
practice, to the way new knowledge is generated via contradictions within current
social practices identified by activity theory. The approach taken by social and situ-
ated views of learning is self-consciously related to the changing status and nature
of work. Social and situated learning is less concerned with training, for example in
the military, which might continue to draw on behaviourist and cognitivist
approaches to instructional design (Harasim 2012). The focus of social and situated
learning is on the kinds of flexibility and the creative application of knowledge
found in professional and highly skilled technical work. It is this kind of education
that is found in universities, but which is not confined to educational institutions,
and it can also be found in continuing professional development (Hansson 2002),
professional and management learning (Hodgson and Watland 2004), and informal
settings (Boud and Middleton 2003). Networked learning sits firmly in this tradition
with much of its focus being on higher education and on learning in professional,
technical and informal settings (Jones and Dirckinck-Holmfeld 2009). Networked
learning also has a close relationship to another area of research and practice that
has its roots in social and situated views of learning, Computer-Supported
Collaborative (Cooperative) Learning (CSCL).
CSCL as a designation in its own right because some were so uncomfortable with the
expansion, Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (Koschmann 1996). CSCL
is then something of a contested term, but one with a strong and distinctive tradition
that once laid claim to be a new paradigm (Koschmann 1996). Something of the rich-
ness of the tradition can be seen in the proceedings of the conference series and a
book series (Kirschner et al. 2004; Wasson et al. 2003; Spada et al. 2011; Rummel
et al. 2013). It can also be seen in recent summaries (Goodyear et al. 2014).
There are some authors who make a distinction between cooperative and collab-
orative learning (Crook 1994; Dillenbourg 1999) while others only make a distinc-
tion between individualistic learning and learning involving either cooperation or
collaboration (Jones et al. 2007; Johnson and Johnson 2008). In so far as a distinc-
tion between the two terms can be maintained, cooperation has most often been
applied to a division of labour, in which individuals achieve their aims by mutual
assistance, whereas collaboration has implied a stronger commitment to joint aims
as well as mutual assistance (Jones et al. 2007). A second feature that has been used
to distinguish between the different kinds of group organisation has been the role of
authority (Jones et al. 2007). McConnell has argued that cooperative learning situa-
tions can be divided between those in which an external authority, usually the
teacher, enforces cooperation by structure and rewards, and those where the learners
choose cooperation without external intervention (McConnell 1994). A popular
definition found in CSCL is that collaborative learning is:
A situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together
(Dillenbourg 1999, p. 2, emphasis in original).
This claim that CSCL makes learning observable and accountable was originally
motivated by an ethnographic or ethnomethodological understanding of account-
ability. In contemporary conditions accountability has moved beyond that to another
quite different conception. It now coexists with a managerial concern with account-
ability and a much more general claim about learning based on computing which
has developed using the term learner analytics (Ferguson 2012). This managerial
sense of accountability also extends beyond group learning at a relatively small
scale to include whole institution processes (McCluskey and Winter 2012). This
alternative understanding of accountability as learner analytics is dealt with more
fully in Chap. 5.
CSCL is the closest approach to networked learning and there are significant
overlaps in terms of researchers active in both fields and in terms of ideas
(Goodyear et al. 2014; Dirckinck-Holmfeld et al. 2009; Steeples and Jones 2002).
For this reason it is important to draw attention to some of the divergences between
them. CSCL tends to deal with smaller scale interactions (Goodyear et al. 2014;
Jones 2013). Networked learning usually has a focus on tens to hundreds (if not
thousands in distance mode), whereas CSCL can include quite small-scale interac-
tions such as small groups and dyads. CSCL has a clear focus on a particular kind
of interaction, collaboration, whereas networked learning has a focus on connec-
tions which can take many forms and include both strong and weak links (Jones
2004, 2013). Furthermore networked learning tends to focus on readily available
public technologies rather than technologies designed for a particular purpose (for
a related discussion of this issue see Nespor 2011). Much of the research in CSCL
is concerned with software specifically designed for education and collaboration,
sometimes designed for a particular setting (Jones 2013; Tchounikine 2011).
Tchounikine for example refers to software not designed for an educational pur-
pose as ‘basic software’ (Tchounikine 2011), however networked learning is often
concerned with the educational use of just such basic software. The focus on
small-scale and purposively designed software may pose a challenge for CSCL in
the context of Web 2.0 (Dohn 2009) because Web 2.0 involves large-scale network
effects and the ability to interact in, and contribute to, large groups (Kafai and
Peppler 2011; Goodyear et al. 2014). This challenge arises because CSCL has
previously concerned itself with tool and application development and Web 2.0
technologies and contemporary processes suggest a change of focus to whole
infrastructures and the use of universal services. Jahnke (2009) observed that Web
2.0 applications:
Transform social systems (e.g. social groups, universities) into socio-technical systems,
where socially and technically supported relationships are highly interwoven (Jahnke 2009,
p. 287).
Networked learning concerns itself rather more with these large-scale infra-
structures and the levels between microlevel interactions and macrolevel social and
technical conditions (Jones et al. 2006; Jones and Dirckinck-Holmfeld 2009).
Some of these issues are developed further in later chapters dealing with institu-
tions (Chap. 5) and infrastructure (Chap. 6).
Alternative Views of Learning 63
There is one further major influence on networked learning that does not fit comfortably
in the sequential standard view of learning theory and that is phenomenography
and the somewhat broader tradition of research that can be identified with the idea
of approaches to learning and teaching. Networked learning has an explicitly rela-
tional approach which prioritises connections between elements and in this it finds
a compliment in the relational approach to learning found in phenomenography
(Ellis and Goodyear 2010). Ference Marton described phenomenography as:
The empirical study of the differing ways in which people experience, perceive, apprehend,
understand, or conceptualize various phenomena in, and aspects of, the world around them
(Marton 1994, p. 4424).
to offer networked learning research (see for example Ellis and Goodyear 2010).
An interesting feature of the phenomenographic and approaches to study literature
is the way it cannot be easily contained in a standard model of the progress of
learning theory because it allows for both a psychological and a social reading.
Ellis and Goodyear argue that learning remains an individual process and that
what goes on ‘between a person’s ears’ is still important for the learning process
(Ellis and Goodyear 2010, p. 6). They suggest that an ecological framework can
locate student difficulties so that they are identified as a mismatch with their envi-
ronment rather than being seen as individual characteristics which are persistent,
context-free, personal failings. This use of ecology in this way has a clear relation-
ship with ideas of balance and equilibrium which are in turn associated with
functionalism and later with ideas of cybernetics and self-regulation. It stands in
sharp contrast to the idea of contradiction found in activity theory and the idea that
it is through an imbalance or contradiction that learning takes place and knowl-
edge moves forwards.
Phenomenography also stands distinct from social and situated views of learn-
ing, locating itself in a more individualistic tradition, but it cannot be subsumed
under the labels of behaviourism, cognitivism or constructivism. It stands out for
its grounding in a distinct relational and monist tradition of research that empha-
sises approaches, rather than fixed characteristics or styles, related to the contexts
they arise in. It is this location of the person-in-context that opens phenomenogra-
phy up to a social reading, in which personal characteristics are provisional and
they can be altered by interventions from outside e.g. by the design of technologies,
social settings and environments. Phenomenography when viewed from both an
individualist and a social reading is concerned with what students (and teachers) do
and their activity in the world. This emphasis on context and activity leads to a
design impulse that can be found in the idea of ‘constructive alignment’ (Biggs
1999) and the idea of indirect design (Goodyear 2001, 2005) which is addressed
later in this chapter.
There are newer contending theories that have an influence in networked learning.
Not all can be explored in this chapter and there is only sufficient space to briefly
consider two of the most significant, sociomaterialism, specifically actor-network-
based theories (Fenwick et al. 2011; Fenwick and Edwards 2010; Hannon 2013)
and connectivism (Siemens 2005; Downes 2006; Kop and Hill 2008). A notable and
relevant omission in this section is the role of dialogue and dialogicality (Bakhtin
1981, 1986; Koschmann 1999; Wegerif 2013) which has a distinct tradition related
to social and situated views of learning and activity theory. A second notable excep-
tion that has received recent attention in networked learning is the role of critical
theory (Selwyn and Facer 2013; Jandrić and Boras 2015).
Alternative Views of Learning 65
Connectivism
Connectivism argues that the starting point for learning occurs when knowledge is
actuated through the process of a learner connecting to, and providing information in,
a networked learning community. The idea of connectivism is closely linked to the
idea of networked learning because several of the authors writing about connectivism
also identify their work using the term networked learning (Siemens 2005; Downes
2006). Connectivism stresses two important skills that contribute to learning namely
the ability to seek out information, and the ability to filter information (Kop and Hill
2008). Connectivism locates itself in the standard progression of learning theories,
behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism, adding itself as the next (fourth) step
that is required as a response to digital and networked technologies:
Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism are the three broad learning theories most
often utilized in the creation of instructional environments. These theories, however, were
developed in a time when learning was not impacted through technology (Siemens 2005).
There is something distinctly odd about this claim because all three prior learn-
ing theories had their own distinct links to technology: Behaviourism in relation to
teaching machines, cognitivism by way of the information processing model, and
constructivism due to its focus on artefacts, including technological artefacts.
The learning process that connectivism describes is cyclical and learners who
have connected to a network to share and find new information subsequently modify
their beliefs and then afterward when they connect to a network (the same one or
another) to share and find new information they begin the process again. In this
account learning occurs via connections so that learning can be optimised by iden-
tifying the properties of effective networks. In connectivism it is the formation of
connections between nodes that constitute knowledge, and skilful learning involves
the ability of a learner to construct and traverse networks. As a consequence in some
ways of thinking about connectivism the learning is the network.
There are those who argue that connectivism is not a learning theory (Kop and
Hill 2008; Bell 2011). Clarà and Barberà (2013a, b) argue that connectivism is seri-
ously underdeveloped as a theory and that it has yet to be properly scrutinised in
terms of peer review. They note that connectivism is currently elaborated on blog
posts, non-peer-reviewed Internet articles, books compiling the previous two items
and MOOC courses. None the less Clarà and Barberà treat connectivism as if it was
a coherent theory and they argue that there are three important problems with con-
nectivism, namely the lack of a solution to the learning paradox, the underconcep-
tualisation of interaction and the inability to explain concept development (2013b).
Downes (2013) has fiercely defended his position with regard to connectivism argu-
ing that the link that Clarà and Barberà (2013b) make with the work of Ilich (1970)
is unwarranted and that their criticisms are mistaken. I think the current status of
connectivism is underdeveloped and it cannot be regarded as a developed learning
theory. However there are some interesting aspects of connectivism that warrant
further attention, specifically the conception of learning as connections and an ability
to navigate networks. Some of Clarà and Barberà’s criticisms seem to miss their
66 3 Theories of Learning in a Digital Age
mark, for example by confusing interaction with connection, but there is substance
in other arguments they make, in particular the criticism that connectivism has an
inadequate way of accounting for human development. Connectivism has had
important impacts, not least in the development of MOOCs and this alone makes
connectivism significant for networked learning and some of the issues in relation
to connectivism are developed further in Chap. 5.
Sociomaterialism
The four main areas the authors draw upon to develop a sociomaterialist perspec-
tive are CHAT, ANT, complexity theory and theories of spaciality. Connectivism
also draws on some of the same intellectual sources as these in chaos and complex-
ity theories. The unifying claim made for the term sociomaterialism is that all of
these four areas have similarities in the ways that they conceptualise knowledge and
capacities as being emergent from the webs of interconnections between heteroge-
neous entities, both human and non-human. The ‘material turn’ that is outlined in
sociomaterialism has implications for education, and the claim that it is relevant to
learning theory may also be important, but both of these claims are entangled in a
larger theoretical framework. The larger claims are in terms of a ‘relational materi-
ality’ that understands matter not as discrete reified objects but as effects of dynamic
indeterminate processes. The implications of this are temporal as well as material
because the real becomes an effect of a specific balance of forces between different
actors at a particular point in time. These claims cannot be dealt with properly in
this chapter which is concerned with learning theory, but they are examined more
fully in the following chapter dealing with ANT as one kind of network theory rel-
evant to networked learning.
Sociomaterialism and learning are part of a research programme that has a some-
what descriptive character concerned with how learning might be portrayed.
Humans and what they take to be their learning and social processes do not float, distinct,
in ‘contexts’ of practice that are a background of material stuff and spaces. The things that
assemble these contexts, the actions and bodies that are part of these assemblages, are con-
tinuously acting upon each other to bring forth objects and knowledge. These objects might
be taken by a casual observer as natural and given—as a ‘context’. But a more careful
analysis notes that these objects, including objects of knowledge, are very messy, slippery
and indeterminate (Fenwick 2012, p. 70).
As outlined by Fenwick et al. (2011) sociomateriality does not have a single uni-
fied definition of learning. Indeed the authors celebrate the multiple and contested
positions that are held by the different feeder theories and they make no attempt to
synthesise them. For this reason alone it is difficult to summarise sociomaterial
perspectives on learning or to treat these perspectives as being a ‘learning’ theory or
possibly even being ‘a’ theory at all.
Conclusions: The Issues Arising from Learning Theory for Networked Learning 67
The field of learning theory is extensive and well developed so this chapter has only
been able to focus on those areas that have had an extensive and direct influence on
research in networked learning. Even then there are theories that some of the origi-
nators of the idea of networked learning have drawn on, such as critical, humanistic
and radical pedagogy, which other than Dewey are not fully accounted for here (see
McConnell et al. 2012; Hodgson et al. 2014; Jandrić and Boras 2015). The final
section of this chapter examines some of the issues that arise from this review and
ends with those questions that networked learning still has to fully address.
Haythornthwaite and Andrews (2011) reflected on the position they had taken ear-
lier which argued that the field of ‘e-learning’ was not sufficiently mature to gener-
ate a ‘grand theory’ (Andrews and Haythornthwaite 2007). By 2011 they felt they
could give a clear answer that ‘yes’ a new theory of e-learning was required and that
it needed its own theoretical treatment. The term e-learning is imprecise and covers
many areas that would not be included in a consideration of networked learning
(e.g. standalone computing) but the question as to whether the introduction of new
technologies requires a new theory of learning (or e-learning for that matter) is
clearly of relevance to networked learning because networked learning is by defini-
tion concerned with the introduction of information and communication technolo-
gies into the process of learning. My conclusion differs to that of Haythornthwaite
and Andrews because I do not think that networked learning requires a new ‘grand
theory’ but I do concur that there are new elements to learning that uses information
and communication technologies and that these new elements may require new
theories. My disagreement is in terms of an encompassing theory of e-learning or
networked learning. My view is that learning is too slippery and complex a term to
have a single theoretical solution and the addition of networked and digital tech-
nologies only adds to that complexity.
This does not mean that networked learning is neutral in relation to theories of
learning. Networked learning has a broadly social approach but it doesn’t exclude
accounts of the individual in their social and material context. My own personal
views are more social than some others in the field who derive their views of net-
worked learning from a psychological or radical pedagogical origin (for example
Goodyear 2002; Ellis and Goodyear 2010; McConnell et al. 2012). This does not
stop us working closely together and indeed our research suggests that many prac-
titioners show little of the divergence in their day-to-day practice that might be
expected from their different overt theoretical positioning. In some ways theory is a
neglected area in research concerned with educational technology which generally
68 3 Theories of Learning in a Digital Age
focuses on technological change and design issues (Bennett and Oliver 2011).
Networked learning has a clear view that theory and theoretically informed research
are central to the successful use of technologies in education and learning, but I
argue that the need for theory is not answered by proposing a new theory of learning
or limiting networked learning to one approach or theory of learning.
The idea that learning can be designed is implicit in the tradition of instructional
design and it goes beyond the question of a theory of learning because it deals with
the role of the teacher and pedagogy (Harasim 2012; Illeris 2009; Koschmann
1996). It has also informed a large body of recent work that describes itself as learn-
ing design (Koper and Tattersall 2005; Conole 2013). Learning design has devel-
oped into two different forms, often indicated by capitalisation such that Learning
Design has a distinctly different emphasis to learning design. Learning Design used
in a strong sense of the term relies on assumptions that assume learning itself can be
designed.
• Learning can be improved by making the conditions of optimal learning explicit
(Koper 2005, p. 3)
• The quality of a unit of learning depends largely on the quality of the learning
design (Koper 2005, p. 4)
• A learning designer’s basic task is to design a course that meets a set of learning
objectives (Koper 2005, p. 4)
• Learning design knowledge consists of a series of rules following the ‘if situa-
tion, then method’ (Koper 2005, p. 19)
Such a view of design runs counter to much recent work concerning the process
of design more generally (Suchman 2007, 2011). Design from an anthropological
point of view results in plans that in and of themselves do not dictate the activity that
flows from them. Instead designs become one of a number of resources for action
that need to be mobilised in context. This is a fundamental point and it cannot be
addressed by finding a special category of ‘situated’ plans or designs. All designs,
all plans remain resources for action and no particular approach to design can avoid
the consequences. Learning design in the second sense of the term acknowledges
this and often incorporates a notion of design for learning rather than design of
learning (Beetham 2013; Beetham and Sharpe 2013; Jones 2013; Goodyear and
Carvalho 2013).
The theories of learning that have been discussed in this chapter incorporate both
implicit and explicit notions of teaching and pedagogy (for a discussion of how
these might relate see Beetham 2013). The approaches to learning tradition, for
example, includes a branch dealing explicitly with approaches to teaching (Hativa
and Goodyear 2002; Prosser and Trigwell 1999) and how approaches to teaching
Conclusions: The Issues Arising from Learning Theory for Networked Learning 69
Organisation Space
Community Place
Learning
Activity
Tasks
There is a second feature of the figure derived from Goodyear which I have
always found intriguing and that is the isolated nature of the central element learn-
ing. The suggestion in this figure is that not only are the activities, places and com-
munities in which learning takes place indirect in terms of design, there is no definite
relationship indicated between these enacted elements and the learning we may
wish to engender. Design and the possibilities and limits of design form important
aspects of later chapters when design is examined in relation to institutions and
infrastructures. The institutional and infrastructural aspects of networked learning
are intimately connected to the way the teaching function has been redistributed
across networks using digital technologies.
The introduction of digital and network technologies can have an influence on who
teaches, how teaching is configured and the balance between the different elements
in the teaching process e.g. between active teaching processes and those encoded
into educational resources. Distance education has illustrated these processes prior
to and following the widespread use of digital and networked technologies
(McAndrew and Weller 2005) but the introduction of new technology has increased
the pace of change and the spread of practices once restricted to distance learning to
other kinds of institutions, often under the terms blended or flexible learning (Oliver
and Trigwell 2005). The development of learning resources that can be used inde-
pendently of a teacher has been the hallmark of correspondence courses but in
recent years the idea of learning objects (Friesen 2004) and open educational
resources (Wiley 2006) has spread the practice of designing resources for either
independent use or use beyond the context for which the resources were originally
designed (Pegler 2011, 2013). The practice in distance learning of employing
part-time teaching only staff is long-standing but the more recent large-scale use
of adjunct (US) or sessional (UK) staff in whole-time place-based institutions
raises some of the same issues. For example how is it possible to maintain common
Conclusions: The Issues Arising from Learning Theory for Networked Learning 71
standards of teaching when courses can pass on from the staff who originated them
to staff who have no ownership of the course design (Asensio et al. 2001)? The role
of the teacher has been questioned by the spread of MOOCs, Massive Open Online
Courses, in which a small number of instructors run courses attended by large num-
bers of students (Daniel 2012). In some courses other students or additional volun-
teers take on some of the moderation or teaching functions, but in large part the
course participants have to be self-motivated and self-organised (Daniel 2012).
Mitra has promoted the idea of ‘minimally invasive education’, by which he means
teaching with a much reduced presence and role for the teacher (Mitra 2000).
However Mitra’s ideas are theoretically underdeveloped and the related studies
implementing his ideas largely focus on children rather than adult learners. Overall
two significant issues need to be addressed by networked learning concerning the
teaching function. Firstly whether there is a fundamental requirement for a teaching
function when dealing with adult learners and to what degree teaching interventions
are required. Secondly what kinds of choices are enabled by the introduction of
digital and networked technologies in terms of the disaggregation of the teaching
function? The answers to these questions involve choices that need to be made at
various levels, by students, academic staff and institutions.
Practice
As previously noted networked learning while not having any one particular learn-
ing theory is not neutral in relation to theories of learning and it tends towards what
might be broadly described as social theories of learning. Social theories of learning
are associated with communities of practice exemplified by the works of Wenger
and Lave (Lave 1991; Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998) and they are associ-
ated with activity theory and the CHAT particularly associated with Engeström
(2009). Broadly these social learning theories depend on an understanding of learning
as a practice, an array of human activity, embodied and mediated by artefacts,
hybrids and natural objects (Schatzki 1996; Schatzki et al. 2001). This idea of
practice builds upon earlier work by Wittgenstein (Schatzki 1996; Bourdieu 1988,
1990). It is intimately related to the idea of indirect design and designing for learn-
ing and it raises a number of questions that will be addressed in the chapters that
follow. Firstly the degree to which practice is a social phenomenon or a sociomate-
rial one remains a point of discussion (Hannon 2014). Furthermore some authors
argue that a focus on social practice can downplay the practice aspect in favour of
the social and that it is not possible to know in advance what sense—if any—participants
will make of whatever they might have learned when they engage in other practice
settings (Dohn 2014). The link between learning and practice also provides a bridge
to broader concerns with organisations and this will be taken up in Chaps. 5 and 6 in
relation to institutions and infrastructure (e.g. Orlikowski 2000; Jones and Dirckinck-
Holmfeld 2009).
72 3 Theories of Learning in a Digital Age
References
Andrews, R., & Haythornthwaite, C. (Eds.). (2007). Sage handbook of e-learning research.
London: Sage.
Archer, M. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Asensio, M., Whatley, J., & Jones, C. (2001). Taking over someone else’s design: Implications for
the tutor’s role in networked learning. The Association for Learning Technology Journal, 9(3),
65–74.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson, & M. Holquist,
Trans.). Austin, TX: University Of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). In C. Emerson, & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays
(V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Beetham, H. (2013). Designing for active learning in technology-rich contexts. In H. Beetham &
R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning
(2nd ed., pp. 31–48). London: Routledge.
Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (Eds.). (2013). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for
21st century learning (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-
enabled learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3),
98–118.
Bennett, S., & Oliver, M. (2011). Talking back to theory: The missed opportunities in learning
technology research. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 179–189.
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne, VIC: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham,
England: Open University Press.
Boud, D., & Middleton, H. (2003). Learning from others at work: Communities of practice and
informal learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(5), 194–202.
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Bruner, J. (1985). Models of the learner. Educational Researcher, 14(6), 5–8.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Clarà, M., & Barberà, B. (2013a). Learning online: Massive open online courses (MOOCs), con-
nectivism, and cultural psychology. Distance Education, 34(1), 129–136.
Clarà, M., & Barberà, B. (2013b). Three problems with the connectivist conception of learning.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(3), 197–206. doi:10.1111/jcal.12040.
Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antinomy in discussions of Piaget
and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39, 250–256.
Conole, G. (2013). Designing for learning in an open world. New York: Springer.
Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London: Routledge.
Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility.
Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Retrieved from http://jime.open.ac.uk/2012/18
Daniels, H. (2010). Vygotsky and psychology. In U. Goswami (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell hand-
book of childhood cognitive development (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. In
J. A. Boydston (Ed.), Middle works 9. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press
(Original work published 1980).
Dewey, J. (1986a). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educa-
tive process. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), Later works 8 (pp. 105–352). Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press (Original work published 1933).
Dewey, J. (1986b). Logic: The theory of inquiry. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), Later works 12.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press (Original work published 1938).
References 73
Goodyear, P. (2002). Psychological foundations for networked learning. In C. Steeples & C. Jones
(Eds.), Networked learning: Perspectives and issues (pp. 49–75). London: Springer.
Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and
design practices. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 21, 82–101.
Goodyear, P., & Carvalho, L. (2013). The analysis of complex learning environments. In H.
Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st
century learning (2nd ed., pp. 49–63). London: Routledge.
Goodyear, P., & Carvalho, L. (2014). Introduction: Networked learning and learning networks. In
L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks (pp. 3–22).
London: Routledge.
Goodyear, P., Jones, C., & Thompson, K. (2014). Computer-supported collaborative learning:
Instructional approaches, group processes and educational designs. In J. M. Spector, M. D.
Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications
and technology (4th ed., pp. 439–451). New York: Springer.
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner &
R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Simon & Schuster
Macmillan.
Haggis, T. (2003). Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into ‘approaches to
learning’ research in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 89–104.
Haggis, T. (2009). What have we been thinking of? A critical overview of 40 years of student learn-
ing research in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(4), 377–390.
Hannon, J. (2013). Incommensurate practices: Sociomaterial entanglements of learning technol-
ogy implementation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 168–178.
Hannon, J. (2014). Making the right connections: Implementing the objects of practice into a net-
work for learning. In V. E. Hodgson, M. De Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), The
design, experience and practice of networked learning (pp. 67–85). Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer.
Hansson, T. (2002). Leadership by activity theory and professional development by social con-
struction. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 15(5), 411–436.
Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. New York: Routledge.
Hativa, N., & Goodyear, P. (Eds.). (2002). Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher edu-
cation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Haythornthwaite, C., & Andrews, R. (2011). E-learning theory and practice. London: Sage.
Haythornthwaite, C., & De Laat, M. (2011). Social network informed design for learning with
educational technology. In A. D. Olofsson & J. O. Lindberg (Eds.), Informed design of educa-
tional technologies in higher education: Enhanced learning and teaching (pp. 352–374).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Hodgson, V. E., & Watland, P. A. (2004). Researching networked management learning.
Management Learning, 35(2), 99–116.
Hodgson, V. E., De Laat, M., McConnell, D., & Ryberg, T. (Eds.). (2014). The design, experience
and practice of networked learning. Heidleberg, Germany: Springer.
Ilich, I. (1970). Deschooling society. New York: Harper and Row. Retrieved from http://www.
preservenet.com/theory/Illich/Deschooling/intro.html
Illeris, K. (2009). Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists… in their own words.
London: Routledge.
Jahnke, I. (2009). The process of digital formalisation in sociotechnical learning communities—
Needed or overloaded? In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning: CSCL2009: CSCL practices (Vol. 1, pp. 287–291). Rhodes, Greece: University of
the Aegean.
Jandrić, P., & Boras, D. (Eds.). (2015). Critical learning in digital networks. New York: Springer.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and
individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
References 75
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2008). Cooperation and the use of technology. In J. M. Spector, M. D.
Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational com-
munications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 1017–1044). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism vs constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.
Jones, C. (2004). Networks and learning: Communities, practices and the metaphor of networks.
The Association for Learning Technology Journal, 12(1), 82–93.
Jones, C. (2013). Designing for practice: A view from the social sciences. In H. Beetham &
R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning
(2nd ed., pp. 204–217). London: Routledge.
Jones, C., Cook, J., Jones, A., & De Laat, M. (2007). Collaboration. In G. Conole & M. Oliver
(Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research (pp. 174–189). London: Routledge
Falmer.
Jones, C., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2009). Analysing networked learning practices: An introduc-
tion. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning
practices in higher education and continuing professional development (pp. 1–27). Rotterdam,
The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, BV.
Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Lindström, B. (2006). A relational, indirect, meso-level
approach to CSCL design in the next decade. International Journal of Computer Supported
Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 35–56.
Kafai, Y. B., & Peppler, K. A. (2011). Beyond small groups: New opportunities for research in
computer-supported collective learning. In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law (Eds.),
Connecting computer-supported collaborative learning to policy and practice: CSCL2011
conference proceedings (Long papers, Vol. I, pp. 17–24). Hong Kong, China: The University
of Hong Kong.
Kirschner, P. A., Martins, R. L., & Stribos, J. W. (2004). CSCL in higher education. In J.-W. Strijbos,
P. Kirschner, & R. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher
education. Boston: Kluwer.
Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 9(3). Retrieved
from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/523/1103
Koper, R. (2005). An introduction to learning design. In R. Koper & C. Tattersall (Eds.), Learning
design: A handbook on modeling and delivering networked education and training (pp. 3–20).
Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Koper, R., & Tattersall, C. (Eds.). (2005). Learning design: A handbook on modeling and deliver-
ing networked education and training. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Koschmann, T. (Ed.). (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Koschmann, T. (1999). Toward a dialogic theory of learning: Bakhtin’s contribution to understand-
ing learning in settings of collaboration. In C. Hoadley (Ed.), Proceedings of Computer Support
for Collaborative Learning (pp. 308–313). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Koschmann, T. (2000). The physiological and the social in the psychologies of Dewey and
Thorndike: The matter of habit. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth inter-
national conference of the learning sciences (pp. 314–319). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Koschmann, T. (2001). Revisiting the paradigms of instructional technology. In G. Kennedy,
M. Keppell, C. McNaught, & T. Petrovic (Eds.), Meeting at the crossroads. Proceedings of the
18th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary
Education (pp. 15–22). Melbourne, VIC: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, The University of
Melbourne. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pdf/papers/
koschmannt.pdf
Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey’s contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. In CSCL’02
Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations
for a CSCL Community (pp. 17–22), Boulder, CO.
76 3 Theories of Learning in a Digital Age
Lankshear, C., Peters, M., & Knobel, M. (2000). Information, knowledge and learning. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 34, 17–40.
Laurillard, D. M. (1993). Rethinking University teaching: A framework for the effective use of
educational technology. London: Routledge.
Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley
(Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–82). Washington, DC: APA.
Lave, J. (2011). Apprenticeship in critical ethnographic practice. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Lowyck, J. (2013). Bridging learning theories and technology-enhanced environments: A critical
appraisal of its history. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook
of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 3–20). New York:
Springer.
Margolis, E. (Ed.). (2001). The hidden curriculum in higher education. London: Routledge.
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—Describing conceptions of the World around us.
Instructional Science, 10, 177–200.
Marton, F. (1994). Phenomenography. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international
encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 4424–4429). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of
Educational Research, 19, 277–300.
Marton, F., Hounsell, D., & Entwistle, N. (1997). The experience of learning: Implications for
teaching and studying in higher education. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Academic Press.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning 1: Outcome and process.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning 11: Outcome as a function
of the learner’s conception of task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.
Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2013). Technology-enhanced learning: The role of theory. In
H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st
century learning (2nd ed., pp. 17–30). London: Routledge.
McAndrew, P., & Weller, M. (2005). Applying learning design to supported open learning. In
R. Koper & C. Tattersall (Eds.), Learning design: A handbook on modelling and delivering
networked education and training (pp. 281–290). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
McCluskey, F., & Winter, M. (2012). The idea of the digital University: Ancient traditions, disrup-
tive technologies and the battle for the soul of higher education. Washington, DC: Policy
Studies Organisation/Westphalia Press.
McConnell, D. (1994). Implementing computer supported cooperative learning. London: Kogan
Page.
McConnell, D., Hodgson, V., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). Networked learning: A brief his-
tory and new trends. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring
the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 3–24). New York: Springer.
Miettinen, R. (2000). The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey’s theory of reflective
thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(1), 54–72.
Mitra, S. (2000). Minimally invasive education for mass computer literacy. Paper presented at the
CRIDALA 2000 conference, Hong Kong, China, June 21–25, 2000. Retrieved from http://
www.hole-in-the-wall.com/docs/Paper01.pdf
Nespor, J. (2011). Devices and educational change. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(Suppl.
1), 15–37.
Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘blended learning’ be redeemed? E-learning, 2(1), 17–26.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for study-
ing technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.
References 77
Pegler, C. (2011). Reuse and repurposing of online digital learning resources within UK higher
education: 2003–2010. PhD Thesis, The Open University. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.
uk/32317/
Pegler, C. (2013). The influence of open resources on design practice. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe
(Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning (2nd ed.,
pp. 145–161). London: Routledge.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in
higher education. Buckingham, England: Society for Research into Higher Education and
Open University Press.
Ramsden, P. (2002). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research. Review of
Educational Research, 69(1), 53–82.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching
in higher education. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 673–680.
Rockwell, T. (2003). Rorty, Putnam and the pragmatist view of epistemology and metaphysics.
Education and Culture, 14(1), 8–16.
Rummel, N., Kapur, M., Nathan, M., & Puntambekar, S. (Eds.) (2013). To see the world and a
grain of sand: Learning across levels of space, time, and scale: CSCL 2013 conference pro-
ceedings (Vol. 1—Full papers & symposia). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Schatzki, T. R. (1996). Social practices: A wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the
social. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Schatzki, T., Knorr-Cetina, K., & von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contempo-
rary theory. London: Routledge.
Selwyn, N., & Facer, K. (Eds.). (2013). The politics of education and technology: Conflicts, con-
troversies, and connections. New York: PalgraveMcMillan.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism a theory of learning for the digital age. International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/
Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review,
24, 86–97.
Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128(3330), 969–977.
Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Spada, H., Stahl, G., Miyake, N., & Law, N. (Eds.). (2011). Connecting computer-supported col-
laborative learning to policy and practice: CSCL2011 Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1). Hong
Kong, China: The University of Hong Kong.
Stahl, G. (2003). Meaning and interpretation in collaboration. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, &
U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments: Proceedings of
the international conference on computer support for collaborative learning (CSCL’03)
(pp. 523–532). Bergen, Norway: Kluwer. Retrieved from http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/papers/
ch20.pdf
Steeples, C., & Jones, C. (Eds.). (2002). Networked learning: Perspectives and issues. London:
Springer.
Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd ed.).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Suchman, L. (2011). Anthropological relocations and the limits of design. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 40, 1–18.
Tchounikine, P. (2011). Computer science and educational software design: Resources for multi-
disciplinary work in technology enhanced learning. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence. New York: Macmillan.
Vanderstraeten, R., & Biesta, G. (2006). How is education possible? Pragmatism, communication
and the social organisation of education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(2),
160–174.
78 3 Theories of Learning in a Digital Age
What Is a Network?
Since the early origins of network analysis there have been several relatively
recent key developments, three of which will be explored here. Firstly the idea of
random networks (Erdős and Rényi 1959; Gilbert 1959), secondly the idea of small
worlds (Milgram 1967; Watts and Strogatz 1998) and thirdly and most recently the
idea of scale-free networks (Barabási 2002).
Random Networks
The idea of random networks draws together statistical probability and graph
theory. It was initially developed independently by Erdős and Rényi (1959) and
Gilbert (1959). The theory suggests that although webs of connections that arise in
a multitude of different contexts are necessarily varied, a simplified framework
could be developed to represent all the sorts of complex graphs. In this framework
the simplest way a network could be generated was random, and this way of under-
standing networks viewed them as fundamentally random. Its importance was that
it explained how starting from a simple aggregation of individual and unconnected
nodes it was possible to move to a single interconnected cluster. In the social terms
that are more familiar in networked learning, this theory covered a process in which
a group of individuals when brought together develop interconnections between
themselves, starting with a single link, and move from a fragmented aggregate to an
organised community. The random networks that this framework describes were
not neat regular graphs, they were abstracted representations of the messy complex
systems that could be found in the real world. In regular graphs each node has the
same number of links. A mesh composed of perpendicular lines forming a square
lattice has nodes with four links. In a beehive structure, or hexagonal lattice, each
node has three links (Barabási 2002). The regularity and neatness of such ordered
patterns is what is absent from real-world complex networks and the introduction of
the theory of random networks took graph theory out into the messy world of social
gatherings and natural processes. The idea of random networks was until relatively
recently the dominant idea and the complex networks found in the real world were
viewed as fundamentally random.
Small Worlds
The random network framework of Erdős and Rényi had some clear limitations.
It did not account for the clustering found in real-world networks and it did not
account for the development of hubs with a large number of links. It is the first of these limi-
tations that the idea of small worlds addresses, the clustered nature of many real-
world networks. In popular thinking small worlds are linked to the idea of six degrees
82 4 A Network of Network Theories
of separation and this idea was developed, although not originated1 in the work of
Milgram (1967) and added to by Granovetter (1973). Milgram set about testing
empirically whether the assumption of a random network applied to human relations
by estimating (a) the number of people that each person in the United States knew
(average 500) and (b) what the chances were, if randomly distributed, of any two US
citizens knowing one another (1 in 200,000) and (c) if linked by 2 intermediate
acquaintances, the odds of being linked become better than 50–50. Intrigued by this
mathematical projection Milgram set about exploring the result by an experimental
procedure. The experiment involved randomly chosen residents in Wichita, Kansas
or Omaha, Nebraska being asked to deliver a folder to one of two randomly selected
targets. For Kansas participants the target was the wife of a divinity professor in
Sharon Massachusetts and for Nebraska participants it was a stockbroker in Boston.
The finding was that any two randomly assigned persons could be linked by a median
chain length of five intermediates. This was a surprising result and it has become a
popular cultural reference by way of the phrase ‘six degrees of separation’, although
Milgram did not use that phrase and it has been attributed to a play of that name by
John Guare (Barabási 2002). Six degrees of separation should not be taken literally
but the idea that networks allow for relatively short steps between different nodes on
the network is highly important. It suggests that people can be connected in this way,
but documents can also be linked via their URLs on the Web, and the Web itself can
be shown to have the characteristics of a small world (Barabási 2002).
Small worlds are not confined to social networks but the idea of clustering was
something most obvious in social analysis. The mathematical development of the
idea of six degrees of separation was accomplished by Watts and Strogatz (1998).
Watts and Strogatz identified two independent structural features affecting small
world features in networks: firstly the clustering coefficient; a measure of how many
interconnections exist between nodes in a network, and secondly the distance; the
number of links in a path between nodes. The random networks described by Erdős
and Rényi exhibit a short distance between nodes and a low clustering coefficient.
In small-world networks, Watts and Strogatz showed a short distance between nodes
but a much higher clustering coefficient than randomness would allow. The small-
world networks described by Watts and Strogatz took network theory closer to real-
world networks and began to answer one of the weaknesses of a theory based on
random networks, the fact that they did not account for local clustering. Watts and
Strogatz had shown that with a high degree of clustering, in which each node is highly
connected to its near neighbours, a few weak ties connecting random nodes could
dramatically shorten the average distance between nodes, making it a small world.
Granovetter (1973) had added to the debate by discussing the strength of different
ties or links between nodes in a network. Strength was defined not in relation to the
character of the link between two nodes but in the structure of the wider network.
A strong tie was one which described two nodes with a connection that also shared
ties with others in their networks. A weak tie was one in which the two nodes shared
some links in their wider network and the absence of any shared ties would be a
1
For an account of the ideas origins in the work of the Hungarian writer Karinthy see Barabási (2002).
Small Worlds 83
limiting case. The idea of the strength of ties disrupts the notion of random networks
in which all nodes share the same number of links. Grannoveter’s work on the
strength of weak ties suggested that the spread of ideas, just as the delivery of a
folder, depended not so much on close contacts but on acquaintances, or ‘weak ties’.
These more casual links play an important part in the ability of more tightly knit
communities and groups to communicate with each other. It is these looser ties that
are the bridges to the wider world. This idea of groupings and clusters connected by
weak links contrasts with the idea of a random network in which links are entirely
random and do not have different strengths. The idea of weak and strong ties in net-
worked learning has been explored by Jones et al. (2008). The importance of weak
ties in networked learning lies in their ability to bridge between tight clusters that
each may contain knowledge valuable to the other clusters linked to by a weak tie.
In Watts’ view networks are everywhere: the brain is a network of neurons; social
organisations are networks of people and the economy is a network of markets (Watts
1999). Network representations can be applied to ecosystems, the Internet and the
Web. The distinct element of Watt’s view is that many of these networks can be
described as small worlds. In small-world networks local actions can have global
consequences and the relationships between the local and the global are highly
dependent on the network structure. Perhaps most importantly small worlds inhabit a
region between random networks and the ordered networks represented by the lat-
tices and beehive structures mentioned earlier. Watts proposes a class of networks,
small worlds, which abstractly represents the clustering and tie lengths found in real-
small-world networks. The importance of this for networked learning lies in the
implications these descriptions have for how network structures can influence the
formation of communities and patterns of cooperation and collaboration. In relation
to cooperation the game theory prisoners dilemma was drawn on by McConnell to
support the theory of CSCL (2000, p. 6) and this same dilemma also formed the basis
for one of the chapters in Watts’ book about small worlds (Watts 1999, Ch. 8).
Small worlds answered one of the weakness left by the description of random
networks, the gap concerning clustering. It left another major weakness that
remained to be addressed which was how hubs formed in networks. A hub is a node
in a network with a high number of links or ties with other nodes. Hubs are an exten-
sion of, and an extreme example of, weak links and the tasks that they can perform.
Nodes with many links can perform the role of being a connector, and the existence
of nodes with anomalously large numbers of ties provides a major challenge to the
conception of random networks. Barabási (2002) described how finding that the
Web had a small number of hubs was a shock. There was a further surprise that
the Web was not an exception and an examination of a diverse range of networks
revealed that they too had hubs, something that ran counter to both the idea of a
random network and small worlds. Barabási argues that hubs dominate the structure
84 4 A Network of Network Theories
of all the networks in which they are present, making such classes of networks look
like small worlds. In scale-free networks hubs acting as connectors create short
paths between all nodes in a system.
Scale-free networks display a power law distribution. That is, those nodes with
only a few links are numerous, but a few nodes have a very large number of links.
Those not familiar with mathematics or network (graph) theory may not have heard
of a power law distribution but they may have been introduced to a normal distribu-
tion or bell curve, a distribution that would characterise a random network. If the
links between nodes were distributed randomly you’d expect the outcome of a plot
mapping the number of connections that each node has (its degree) against the fre-
quency of the occurrence of a node with a particular number of connections (degree)
to be the familiar bell curve of the normal distribution. In this curve the mean of the
number of links would be the most common node type and the poorly or exception-
ally connected node would be the exceptions. Unlike the bell curve distribution a
power law distribution does not have a central maximum, instead a histogram dis-
playing a power law is a continuously decreasing curve (see Fig. 4.3). This curve
describes many nodes with few links and a small number of nodes with many links
and each has an exponent, a figure capturing the number of highly linked nodes
relative to the less connected.
The number of nodes with exactly k links follows a power law, each with a degree exponent
that for most systems varies between two and three (Barabási 2002, p. 69).
The random network described by the normal distribution of the bell curve
decays more quickly and it does not describe nodes with very high numbers of links
and the majority of nodes have a similar number of links with deviations from the
average being rare. It is this feature that means that random distributions have a
characteristic ‘scale’, the node connectivity of the average node. Power law distri-
butions do not have an average or characteristic node and they contain extremes
from rare well-connected hubs to numerous small nodes with few links, they are as
a consequence scale-free.
Scale-free networks predict that such networks will have several large hubs
which fundamentally define the network topology. The rationale behind this kind of
distribution rests on some simple propositions. Firstly networks grow through what
are described as preferential attachments so that when new nodes are added to a
network the new nodes link to preexisting nodes. Secondly the probability of link-
ing to a preexisting node is higher if it already has a large number of attachments. It
is from these simple processes, growth and preferential attachments that scale-free
networks develop. This pattern of growth and preferential attachment provides a
basis for an historical dimension to networks and their emergent structures. It also
suggests an order as opposed to the randomness in earlier descriptions of networks,
but an order that is not completely regular. For this reason Barabási suggests that
scale-free networks: ‘are the parent signatures of self-organisation in complex sys-
tems’ (Barabási 2002, p. 77). A further characteristic of scale-free networks is their
robustness. Scale-free networks, even more than random networks, cope well with
the removal of many nodes and they are resistant both to attack and to errors.
Small Worlds 85
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Number of links (k)
The normal distribution or bell curve
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Number of links (k)
Fig. 4.3 Bell curve and scale-free distributions (Plus Maths). A scale-free distribution adhering to
a power law. (The black circles represent a data set from a typical scale-free network. All points lie
on or close to the blue line, which is the graph of a function of the form ax−k. The degree distribu-
tion adheres to a power law). Adapted from: Reference: Freiberger, M. (2007) Network News.
+Plus magazine http://plus.maths.org/content/network-news
86 4 A Network of Network Theories
2
This use of actor network does not refer to Actor-Network Theory but to networks composed of
actors e.g. the Kevin Bacon game in which actors are connected to Kevin Bacon in a few steps.
Social Networks 87
Social Networks
SNA has a relatively long history (Freeman 2004) that is loosely related to aspects
of the development of mathematical network theory outlined above. As previously
noted some of the key figures in network theory were also contributors to the devel-
opment of SNA (Milgram 1967; Granovetter 1973). SNA is a developed field with
handbooks (Scott 2000) providing guidance on methods and introductory texts that
cover both the practical questions of implementation and the theoretical develop-
ment of the field (Degenne and Forsé 1999). It has been connected with the develop-
ment of networked learning through a common interest in the development of
community and online community in particular (Wellman et al. 1996). More
recently the idea of ‘networked individualism’ has been drawn on for the under-
standing of the network society and networked learning (Castells 2000/1996; Jones
2004; Jones and Dirckinck-Holmfeld 2009; Rainie and Wellman 2012; Wellman
et al. 2003). A key link in this connection has been the work of Haythornthwaite
(2002, 2006, 2010) who worked and wrote with Wellman, but who also became
active in networked learning (Haythornthwaite and De Laat 2010). An early adopter
of SNA in networked learning was De Laat (2006) who applied SNA to examine
group cohesion and interaction patterns. Jones et al. (2008) drew on Grannoveter’s
notion of the strength of weak ties in a networked learning context and SNA has also
been applied to relations between people and the analysis of these relations by way
of the texts and resources they interact with (Haythornthwaite and Gruzd 2008,
2012). More recently this latter approach has provided a link to the developing area
of learner analytics (Schreurs et al. 2013; De Laat and Prinzen 2014).
The SNA approach builds on the principles of analysis from network or graph
theory but it also draws heavily on sociology and communications theory for an
understanding of interpersonal, organisational and communal relations. A focus of
this approach is how relationships between people and organised groups of people
form networks and how these networks affect access to opportunities such as jobs,
knowledge and information, physical goods and services. Haythornthwaite and De
Laat (2010) identify the basic building blocks of SNA as: actors, ties, relations and
networks. Care should be taken not to understand an actor in these building blocks
as simply an individual. Actors in networks can be organised groups and they are
not necessarily individual people or even people at all. Indeed actors can sometimes
be computer agents and sociomaterial forms of mediated human–human or hybrid
human–machine configurations, animals, insects or a combination of these ele-
ments (Fig. 4.5).
Haythornthwaite and De Laat are cautious about the inclusion of these inanimate
and hybrid forms of actors and state:
However, there is little work at this stage that has applied social network analysis to include
objects, and interpretations of the social aspects of networks that include mixed and/or
inanimate objects will require careful thought (Haythornthwaite and De Laat 2010, p. 185).
These hybrid and non-human forms of actors are discussed more fully in the next
section dealing with ANT and related sociomaterial and post-human approaches.
88 4 A Network of Network Theories
Actors Networks
Nodes in the network Configuration of sets of actors
Examples: Students and instructors and their ties
in a class, informal learnings in an Reveals key actors (star),
online forum; co-workers in an positions (broker), roles
organization; organizations in an (technological guru) AND
industry or region connectivity, centralization,
Relations cliques, isolates
Lines in the network--Connect Social Can be rabust, solid, enduring,
actors in one specific kind of Network based on many nodes, sustaining
interaction social capital
Basics OR sparse, fragile, temporory,
Directed (giving or receiving), dependent on critical nodes
OR undirected (sharing)
Co-located and distributed
Examples: sharing information; giving Center on work, social and/or
social support; teaching and learning learning relations
Ties
Also lines in the network:
total connection between actors,
comprised of one or more relations
Strong ties (many, important,
different, plus intimate relations) or
weak ties (few relations)
Configurations of discussion
board conversations
Fig. 4.5 Social network basics. Source Haythornthwaite and De Laat (2010), p. 184. Open source
For the remainder of this section the focus is on more traditional social relations
involving person to person and organisational relations between persons and organ-
ised groups and between organised groups.
In SNA terms the actors form the nodes of a network and the ties between these
nodes are known as relations. The relations between actors can be single or multiple,
frequent or infrequent, optional or required, personal or impersonal. Once actors
have a minimum of one relationship they are tied and the ties can vary between weak
and strong ties as discussed earlier. Weak ties can be infrequent, unimportant or
incidental whereas strong ties are based on multiple relations that might involve reci-
procity, trust and a degree of self-disclosure. Actors and the relations between them
form networks. These networks can be drawn and represented in sociograms, and the
visualisations generated can form a major part of SNA, ranging from simple line
drawings to mathematically complex renderings and visually stimulating images.
Early sociograms in the field of networked learning were developed from studying
online learning interactions by Henri (1992) who derived ‘communicograms’ depict-
ing degrees of interactivity in computer conferences from content analytic data. For
examples of visualisations see De Laat et al. (2007) and Dawson et al. (2010).
We have already noted how the existence of weak ties can provide bridges between
groups that are primarily tightly bound in communities and collaborative groups.
Social Networks 89
This is one feature of network structure that has a clear set of implications for
networked learning but the implications of strong ties are equally important and relate
to those learning theories that identify cooperation, collaboration, community and
interaction including dialogue as important. So far so good, because these kinds of
network patterns are well researched and at least partially understood. Recently the
growth in scale of learning interactions, for example, in MOOCs (Massive Open
Online Courses), has led to the growth of an interest in the kinds of emergent network
patterns arising at scale (Daniel 2012; Clow 2013). Clow notes that participation rates
in MOOCs look more like marketing figures and describes the pattern as a funnel of
participation, a pattern which although fat-tailed is not a power law distribution:
The funnel of participation is a real, significant phenomenon in MOOCs and related
courses. Compared to formal learning, there tends to be much higher rates of drop-out, and
steeply unequal patterns of participation (Clow 2013, Online).
Networked Individualism
SNA has also led to new ways to conceptualise interactions between people that
have implications for dominant theories of learning. Wellman (Wellman et al. 2003;
Wellman 2001) and Castells (2000/1996) have described the form of sociality in
network society as ‘networked individualism’ (Castells 2001, p. 129). The idea of
networked individualism and network society is directly related via Wellman to
early ideas informing the development of networked learning through the work of
Hiltz and Turoff (1978). The idea of networked individualism is connected to
changes in the contemporary economy organised around global networks. These
economic relations imply on the one hand an increasing interdependence and coop-
eration and on the other hand a work process that is increasingly individualised.
Network organisation suggests a dynamic tension between integration and fragmen-
tation. The macrosocial question of a new network sociality and the growth of net-
worked individualism raise fundamental questions about the relationships between
the network society and the organisation of learning (see Chap. 2). At a micro- or
mesolevel, networked individualism also pointedly raises critical questions about
learning theories that are based on notions of community, cooperation and collabo-
ration (Jones 2004).
Jones et al. (2006) writing in the context of CSCL argued that the tensions
between networks and more communal and collaborative forms of organisation rep-
resented a challenge to conventional theories of learning that required investigation
in future research. Wittel (2001) sharply contrasted the notion of network sociality
with prevailing ideas about community.
Community entails stability, coherence, embeddedness and belonging. It involves strong
and long-lasting ties, proximity and a common history or narrative of the collective.
Network sociality stands counterposed to Gemeinschaft. It does not represent belonging but
integration and disintegration…In network sociality, social relations are not ‘narrational’
but informational; they are not based on mutual experience or common history, but primar-
ily on an exchange of data and on ‘catching up’ (Wittel 2001, p. 51).
Ryberg and Larsen (2008) argued that the tensions between the metaphor of
networks on one side, and Communities of Practice and collaboration on the other
do not necessarily lead to a direct opposition between them. However the tensions
between a network view and ideas of community and collaboration suggest
theoretical and methodological challenges to widely accepted ideas. For example
Ryberg and Larsen argue that it is difficult to circumscribe a network and as a con-
sequence define the unit of analysis. The problem of defining and describing net-
work boundaries is a recurrent issue because network organisation has an extensible
form. Ryberg and Larsen also suggest that it might be useful to clarify the meaning
that ties have in a network by the use of the conception of identity. Their suggestion
extends the idea of a tie derived from network theory by drawing on identity, which
was an idea already present in Wenger’s (1998) conception of a community of prac-
tice. Identity formation in these two contexts does not need to have the same pro-
cesses underlying it. The idea of community suggests proximity and the development
of identity through a common (even if imagined) history and narrative whereas
Technologies as Actants and Agents 91
ANT has begun to receive attention in educational research because research using
this framework brings to the fore the material and takes the human and the social
away from a privileged and central position in both education and educational
research (Fenwick and Edwards 2010). ANT is a difficult area to pin down and
authors in this tradition emphasise the variation and revisability of the ANT frame-
work. Fenwick and Edwards (2010) talk about ANT as an array of practices for
approaching the complexity of the world rather than as a coherent theory or body of
work and ANT tradition has been described using a number of alternative names,
for example the ‘sociology of translation’ (Callon 1986a) and ‘material semiotics’
(Law 2008). Law argues that ANT is a set of:
Tools, sensibilities, and methods of analysis that treat everything in the social and natural
worlds as a continuously generated effect of the webs of relations within which they are
located (Law 2008, p. 141).
This complicated sentence set out by Law will need to be unpacked later, because
it carries more than the usual baggage in its construction of the world, both human
and material, as effects of webs of relations. ANT is more than simply a theory of
how the material interpenetrates the world, or a theory of networks, it holds within
itself a radical philosophical outlook that is at least a comment on epistemology and
probably a radical ontology which brings into question both realism and relativism
92 4 A Network of Network Theories
Material technologies are not included in a vague and general way as they are in
some other kinds of literature dealing with educational technologies. Readers are
not introduced to the ‘Web’, the ‘Internet’ or ‘Web 2.0’, as if such gross aggregates
of technologies could be causative. Rather the reader is introduced to lists of human
and non-human participants who form assemblages, entanglements of actors in a
symmetrical balance. Importantly the technologies and the humans are both ‘par-
ticipants’, equal in their place in the enquiry. To explore the complex field of ANT
further I will explore some of these key concepts, including symmetry, and the way
it is used in the quotation above.
Symmetry is perhaps both the most attractive element and the most controversial
in relation to ANT. Symmetrical analysis holds that that the material and non-human
elements of any network should be treated analytically in the same way as the social
and human elements (Law 1992). Society and the social, so important to the develop-
ment of networked learning are not seen as preexisting objects of study but as emer-
gent outcomes of networks. The social is ‘reassembled’ (Latour 2005) out of various
forms of association between human, non-human and hybrid entities. The world, both
social, and natural is performed and ANT aims to elucidate how these assemblages
Technologies as Actants and Agents 93
and entanglements are formed and how they hold together in associations that
produce effects. Agency in this framework is an outcome of a network, a network
effect and not an inherent property of any particular kind of agent, either human or
machine. Humans are treated no differently to non-humans and in the networks
between them both are capable of exerting force and through their mutual associations
they co-constitute the different elements of the network. ANT provides an approach
that allows researchers to trace the way things come together, act and become durable,
a research approach that begins by following the actor (Latour 2005).
A second important term in ANT is translation, the process in which one element
stands in for another or many others (Callon 1986a, b; Callon and Law 1982). The
term translation suggests an analogy with language in which one word can stand in
for another or a sign or symbol stands in for one or many others. So important is this
term that Latour tells us one alternative to the designation ANT that he considered
was the ‘sociology of translation’.
We have now reached the very birthplace of what has been called ‘actor-network-theory’ or,
more accurately, ‘sociology of translation’-unfortunately the label never held in English
(Latour 2005, p. 109).
It can be seen from the above that ANT is not a standard network theory, although
it includes the term network and actors could be subsumed under the term nodes,
and translations under the terms link or tie. ANT has a philosophical edge and its
terminology is tightly bound and particular because it is related to an ontology, an
understanding of the way the world is. The chapter returns to this point later and
shows how these debates about the nature of reality have fed into the more practical
and pragmatic approach of networked learning.
The account of translation is also relevant to the idea of network that informs
ANT. Networks in ANT diverge from the accounts found in other key texts in net-
work theory, SNA or in accounts of network society (Latour 1996). Networks in
ANT trace actors, and actors are not actors in this framework unless they have
effects. Networks are dynamic and they check how much energy and movement
researcher’s reports are able to capture.
The consequence is that you can provide an actor-network account of topics which have in
no way the shape of a network—a symphony, a piece of legislation, a rock from the moon,
An engraving. Conversely, you may well write about technical networks—television, e-mails,
satellites, salesforce—without at any point providing an actor-network account (ibid, p. 131).
The positive contribution of ANT, beyond its inclusion of the material in social
accounts, lies in its unsettling focus on change. The world ANT described is pre-
carious and does not abide by traditional notions of cause and effect. The entities
commonly worked with dissolve into assemblies of different elements, the elements
94 4 A Network of Network Theories
themselves when unpacked are not essential items, but only further assemblies of
entities that could be further divided and explored. Learning Management Systems,
modules, teachers, curricula, policies etc. have to be traced through the negotiations
and associations that entangle them to be able to account for their effects. The ques-
tion then becomes how do we account for the apparent stability and sedate order we
perceive around us? In an ANT account the precarious stability of things requires
continuous ongoing work to sustain it.
A term used in ANT to describe stabilised assemblages is ‘black box’. Black box
is a term already introduced in relation to behaviourism in which it was used to
argue that external behaviour, described in terms of stimulus and response, was
what was important and that what occurred internally, in the mind or brain, could be
safely ignored and treated as a ‘black box’. More generally a black box applies to
any device, system or object that can be considered in terms of its input, output and
the frequency of transfers between them, without any knowledge of its inner work-
ings. In ANT black box is applied to those stabilised networks that are outcomes of
the precarious and dynamic processes described above using the terms translation
and networks. In ANT terms, the world consists of the effects of dynamic networks
of translations between actors, and these have effects. When stable these assem-
blages can be treated as black boxes and the processes that produce the effects can
be ignored. This applies at all levels and the ANT world could be thought of as a set
of Russian dolls going up and down in scale infinitely. Each stable black box can be
shown to be an assembly of other actors each of which can be treated as black
boxes. These component black boxed actors are the outcomes of processes, more or
less transient in time, which sustain their apparent stability. The stability of all black
boxes can be understood and traced by following the actors.
Criticisms of ANT
ANT is not without its critics and debates about some of the fundamental issues
raised by ANT have been rehearsed at the networked learning conference. For
example in 2012 a symposium session included papers coming from an ANT per-
spective alongside more traditional STS and network theoretical and realist accounts
(Jones 2012). Drawing on Mol (2002) Oliver argued that it was to be expected that
multiple ‘realities’ would be created by our practices (Oliver 2012).
This is the plot of my philosophical tale: that ontology is not given in the order of things,
but that, instead, ontologies are brought into being, sustained, or allowed to wither away in
common, day-to-day, sociomaterial practices (Mol 2002, p. 6).
independent of the researcher as a basis from which to judge between different and
alternative accounts. The claim I make is that a correspondence account of truth is
a poor opponent and that realist accounts do not require there to be simple corre-
spondence. The argument presented in this form resembles a simple realist–relativist
dialogue but Latour’s own position is more complex than that.
Latour argues that his position is that nothing by itself is either reducible or irre-
ducible to anything else (Harman 2009). This relational stance allows him to claim
a kind of realism and deny the charge of relativism. For Latour the human and world
do not need to be brought into a relationship with each other because they are
always, and inextricably, intertwined. ANT is not a form of social constructivism
because the world does not depend on the human presence for its constitution.
Reality does not require a human observer because objects and things can have
relationships whether or not humans observe them. So far so realist, but there are
times when Latour and ANT stray into relativist positions, for example Latour’s
position with regard to Pasteur’s description of microbes. Latour suggests that after
the description of microbes the history of events prior to that discovery are them-
selves altered by the discovery and then retrofitted with the subsequent knowledge
of microbes. Harman remarks that:
The problem here is that Latour focuses on a human actor, Pasteur (ibid, p. 84).
This is not a necessary position for relational thinking because the interaction of
objects can exist independently of Pasteur, but the slide is an easy one to make when
adopting an ANT form of analysis. ANT while formally holding a specific kind of
realist stance is often absorbed into wider post-modern discourses in which a radical
relativism is central, this despite Latour having being criticised in STS circles for
failing to take a sufficiently relativist stance (Bloor 1999).
A second criticism of ANT is important for networked learning and that is the
way that ANT is thought to downgrade intentionality. This critique has been
articulated in Activity Theory criticisms of ANT (Kaptelinin and Nardi 2006).
Activity theory criticism focuses on symmetry because ANT treats all actors as being
on the same level, human and non-human alike. Activity theorists agree that material
things can have agency and that traditional accounts that restrict agency to humans
are inadequate. However they argue against pure symmetry and they claim that
humans are a significantly different kind of actors because they are motivated by
their intentions. At its most basic this can be expressed as an existential choice, a
billiard ball hit by another moving across a table will, on interacting with the other,
have a predictable outcome, whereas a human being faced with complying with an
instruction or being shot can always refuse to comply and accept the consequences.
There seems to be a fundamentally different quality to an interaction at this human
level to interactions between material non-human objects. Kaptelinin and Nardi
(2006) point to the scientific work investigating strange particles, particles that were
difficult to observe until the invention of the bubble chamber. Drawing on Pickering’s
(1993) account of this scientific development they discuss the ‘mangle of practice’:
Now I can talk about the mangle. In a restricted sense, the dialectic of resistance and accom-
modation… is what I mean by the mangle of practice. “Mangle” here is a convenient and
96 4 A Network of Network Theories
suggestive short-hand for the dialectic: for me, it conjures up the image of the unpredictable
transformations worked upon whatever gets fed into the old-fashioned device of the same
name used to squeeze the water out of the washing. “Mangle” can also be used as a verb: I
want to say, for example, that the contours of material agency are mangled in practice,
meaning emergently transformed and delineated in the dialectic of resistance and accom-
modation. In a broader sense, though, I take the mangle to refer not just to this dialectic but
to an overall image of practice that encompasses it to the worldview, if you like, that sees
science as just described, as an evolving field of human and material agencies reciprocally
engaged in the play of resistance and accommodation (Pickering 1993, p. 567).
Emergence is the idea that the whole is more than the sum of its parts in particular
that at each level of complexity new and often unexpected qualities emerge that can’t
in any simple or straightforward way be reduced to the known properties of the con-
stituent parts (Clayton and Davies 2006). Emergence is thus counterposed to reduc-
tionism which argues that properties of complex systems can be explained by the
characteristics of the elements the system is composed of, for example matter in
Technologies as Actants and Agents 97
can provide a useful practical lens, and they are an essential component for thinking
about the phase changes that occur, including those separating non-intentional and
intentional actors.
Network theories straddle the classic sciences-humanities divide, and they subvert many
recent social science preferences for the specifically human and cultural, emphasised in
the ‘cultural turn’ (Jameson 1998), by re-introducing elements of the material and of
structure into contemporary discourse (Fenwick et al. 2011). While this chapter has
been concerned with networked theory there are a range of interventions that reconsider
the place of humans and humanity in the world, from post-humanism (Hayles 1999) to
the idea of the anthropocene (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000). These ideas displace the
human on one hand and on the other simultaneously reinforce the importance of human-
ity in relation to the world. A key area for consideration in networked learning is the
question of agency in an understanding of the world that displaces the specifically
human and places a greater emphasis on the material, the technological and human
machine hybrids and assemblages. The question of agency will be more fully explored
in the concluding chapter of this book. The question of agency also relates to the con-
cluding arguments of the preceding chapters. Agency is intimately connected with the
relational account of affordance in Chap. 2 and it is also connected to the idea of practice
as outlined in Chap. 3. Network theories are not simply metaphors for how the contem-
porary world organises, nor are they just descriptions. These theories carry with them
indications of the areas for development in theories of networked learning. The applica-
tion of the thinking outlined in the previous Chapters in Part I of this volume is now
explored in relation to various different locations in education and learning. In the
following chapter the application of the ideas found in Part 1 is in relation to the institu-
tion, primarily the University but also corporate and private bodies concerned with con-
tinuing and professional development. The subsequent chapters take up the role of
infrastructure the changing place of the academic and the learner in the context of
networked learning. In all of these chapters the idea of networks informed by various
aspects of networked theory will be central.
References
Barabási, A.-L. (2002). Linked: The new science of networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Bloor, D. (1999). Anti-Latour. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 30(1), 81–112.
Buchanan, M. (2002). Nexus: Small worlds and the groundbreaking science of networks. New York:
W.W. Norton.
Callon, M. (1986a). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops
and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology
of knowledge? (pp. 196–223). London: Routledge.
100 4 A Network of Network Theories
Callon, M. (1986b). The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle. In
M. Callon, J. Law, & A. Rip (Eds.), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology:
Sociology of science in the real World (pp. 19–34). London: Macmillan.
Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big leviathan: How actors macrostructure reality
and how sociologists help them to do so. In K. D. Knorr-Cetina & A. V. Cicourel (Eds.),
Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro- and macro-
sociologies (pp. 277–303). Boston: Mass/Routledge/Kegan Paul.
Callon, M., & Law, J. (1982). On Interests and their transformation: Enrolment and counter-
enrolment. Social Studies of Science, 12, 615–625.
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell
(Original work published 1996).
Castells, M. (2001). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business, and society. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Clayton, P., & Davies, P. (Eds.). (2006). The re-emergence of emergence: The emergentist hypoth-
esis from science to religion. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Clow, D. (2013). MOOCs and the funnel of participation. In Third Conference on Learning
Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2013), 8–12 April 2013, Leuven, Belgium. Retrieved from
http://oro.open.ac.uk/36657/1/DougClow-LAK13-revised-submitted.pdf
Crutzen, P. J., & Stoermer, E. F. (2000). The ‘Anthropocene’. Global Change Newsletters, 41,
17–18.
Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility.
Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Retrieved from http://jime.open.ac.uk/2012/18
Dawson, S., Bakharia, A., & Heathcote, E. (2010). SNAPP: Realising the affordances of real-time
SNA within networked learning environments. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson,
C. Jones, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference
on Networked Learning, 3–4 May 2010, Aalborg, Denmark (pp. 125–133). Retrieved from
http://networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past-proceedings/index.htm
De Laat, M. F. (2006). Networked learning. Apeldoorn, England: Politie Academie.
De Laat, M. F., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., & Simons, P. R. J. (2007). Patterns of interaction in a net-
worked learning community: Squaring the circle. International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 87–104.
De Laat, M., & Prinzen, F. (2014). Social learning analytics: Navigating the changing settings of
higher education. Research & Practice in Assessment, 9(2), 51.
De Laat, M. F., Schreurs, B., & Sie, R. (2014). Utilizing informal teacher professional develop-
ment networks using the network awareness tool. In L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The
architecture of productive learning networks. London: Routledge.
Degenne, A., & Forsé, M. (1999). Introducing social networks. London: Sage.
Erdős, P., & Rényi, A. (1959). On random graphs I. Publicationes Mathematicae Debrecen, 6,
290–297.
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor network theory in education. London: Routledge.
Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research:
Tracing the sociomaterial. London: Routledge.
Fox, S. (2000). Communities of practice, Foucault and actor-network theory. Journal of
Management Studies, 37(6), 853–868.
Fox, S. (2002). Studying networked learning: Some implications from socially situated learning
theory and actor-network theory. In C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.), Networked learning:
Perspectives and issues (pp. 77–91). London: Springer.
Fox, S. (2005). An actor-network critique of community in higher education: Implications for
networked learning. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 95–110.
Fox, S. (2009). Contexts of teaching and learning: An actor-network view of the classroom. In
G. Biesta, R. Edwards, & M. Thorpe (Eds.), Rethinking contexts for learning and teaching
(pp. 31–43). London: Routledge.
Freeman, L. C. (2004). The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of
science. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Empirical Press.
References 101
Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representations in
scientific practice (pp. 19–68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters
(pp. 103–131). London: Routledge.
Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications and more than a few complica-
tions. Soziale Welt, 47, 369–381. Retrieved from http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/
files/P-67%20ACTOR-NETWORK.pdf
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. London:
Routledge.
Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor network: Ordering, strategy and heterogeneity.
Systems Practice, 5, 379–393.
Law, J. (2008). Actor network theory and material semiotics. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The new
Blackwell companion to social theory (pp. 141–158). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
McCluskey, F., & Winter, M. (2012). The idea of the digital University: Ancient traditions, disrup-
tive technologies and the battle for the soul of higher education. Washington, DC: Policy
Studies Organisation/Westphalia Press.
McConnell, D. (2000). Implementing computer supported cooperative learning (2nd ed.). London:
Kogan Page.
Milgram, S. (1967). The small World problem. Psychology Today, 2, 60–67.
Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Oliver, M. (2012). Learning with technology as coordinated sociomaterial practice: Digital litera-
cies as a site of praxiological study. In V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. De Laat, D. McConnell,
T. Ryberg, & P. Sloep (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Networked
Learning, 2–4 April 2012, Maastricht, The Netherlands (pp. 440–447). Retrieved from http://
networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past-proceedings/index.htm
Pickering, A. (1993). The mangle of practice: Agency an emergence in the sociology of science.
American Journal of Sociology, 99, 559–589.
Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Ravasz, E., & Barabási, A.-L. (2003). Hierarchical organisation in complex networks. Physical
Review E, 67(2), 026112.
Ryberg, T., & Larsen, M. C. (2008). Networked identities—Understanding relationships strong and
weak ties in networked environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 103–115.
Schreurs, B., & De Laat, M. (2014). The network awareness tool: A web 2.0 tool to visualize
informal networked learning in organizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 383–394.
Schreurs, B., Teplovs, C., Ferguson, R., De Laat, M., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2013). Visualizing
social learning ties by type and topic: Rationale and concept demonstrator. In Third Conference
on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2013), 8–12 April 2013, Leuven, Belgium, ACM
(pp. 33–37).
Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Surowieki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few. New York:
Anchor Books.
Thompson, T. L. (2012). Who’s taming who? Tensions between people and technologies in cyber-
space communities. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring
the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 157–172). New York: Springer.
Watts, D. J. (1999). Small worlds: The dynamics of networks between order and randomness.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Watts, D. J. (2003). Six degrees: The science of a connected age. London: Norton.
Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature,
393(6684), 440–442.
Wellman, B. (2001). The rise of networked individualism. In L. Keeble (Ed.), Community networks
online. London: Taylor & Francis.
References 103
Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., & Isla de Diaz, I. et al. (2003).
The social affordances of the internet for networked individualism. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 8(3). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/issues.html
Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythornthwaite, C. (1996).
Computer networks as social networks: Collaborative work, telework and virtual community.
Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 213–238.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Wittel, A. (2001). Towards a network sociality. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(6), 51–76.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York: Basic
Books.
Part II
Agents and Actors in Networked Learning
Chapter 5
Networked Learning and Institutions
This chapter examines networked learning from the standpoint of the institutions in
post-compulsory education. It will briefly examine the nature of work and the relation-
ship work has with learning and the university. However the primary focus will remain
on the university. The university remains central to modern societies because it provides
an institutional solution to the problem of developing and conserving knowledge that
has a universal role in grasping reality and at the same time it is dedicated to circulating
that knowledge and making it, at least in principle, universally available. The rise of
digital and networked technologies raises questions for some commentators about
whether the institutions that grew up in earlier periods of economic and technological
development are still fit for purpose. Beyond technology there are other contemporary
challenges to the university posed intellectually by postmodernism (see Fuller 2009)
and economically by changing financial constraints. The economic constraints have
arisen firstly from the longstanding ‘fiscal crisis of the state’ (O’Connor 1973) and the
neoliberal political and economic response (Harvey 2005; Fuchs 2008) and more
recently by the banking crisis and the following period of austerity in advance industrial
countries (Shattock 2010). Overall the changes that are influencing the university come
from a number of intertwined sources: from globalisation and the internationalisation of
the student body; from the spread of higher education to an increasingly large proportion
of the population, inelegantly called ‘massification’; and from the main focus of this
book changes in technology and the constraints and opportunities this gives rise to.
There is a growing literature that imagines that technologies will undermine if not
eliminate traditional educational institutions and the university in particular (for
example see Tapscott and Williams (2010) and Barber et al. 2013). These claims take
a number of forms, most recently articulated in terms of MOOCs (Daniel 2012). They
also involve issues that will be dealt with more fully in following chapters. The idea
of a new net generation of digital natives will be explored in Chap. 8 and the claims
about the digital scholar will be explored in Chap. 7. The main focus of this chapter is
the ways technologies affect the nature of work and work organisations, both within
the university as a workplace and in the university’s relationships with other organisa-
tions and wider populations. The arguments for institutional change based on changes
This chapter accepts that technological arguments are choices informed by a num-
ber of separable arguments about economic and political structures and it does not
take the continued existence of the university as an institution for granted. It explores
whether those who argue that technology is ‘disruptive’ are deploying technological
arguments or masking social and economic choices with technological imperatives
and it asks what weight can be given to arguments that suggest the days of the tradi-
tional university are numbered.
In Chap. 2 changes in society and technology were outlined and related to the changing
place of learning and knowledge in the economy. This section takes this one step
further by examining these changes in relation to the institutional context of work.
The changes that have taken place in production methods have led to a series of
accounts and a set of descriptions applied to newer production techniques to distin-
guish them from earlier forms. The mid-to-late twentieth-century system of mass
production has been identified with assembly line production and the term Fordism.
This system, based on Taylorism and scientific management was identified with
higher wages and high productivity leading to a virtuous circle of production and
consumption at a mass scale. The late twentieth-century production system has been
variously described as Post-Fordism (Lash and Urry 1987) and flexible specialisation
(Piore and Sabel 1984). The change to Post-Fordist systems of production signalled
a move away from uniform large-scale mass production to production that is more
tailored to specific consumption needs with a degree of personalisation, enabled by
systems of just-in-time batch production and rapid logistic chains for distribution at
a global scale. For a recent critical discussion of these trends and theories see Stuart
et al (2013). In the service sector the rhythm has been slightly different with batch
production being linked to a Taylorisation of the production process and what has
been described as the McDonaldisation of society (Ritzer 1993). These new systems
of production have affected different sectors in a variety of ways. McDonaldisation
has become a byword for low-wage and low-skill jobs, while modular and batch
production often requires the employment of high-wage and high-skill workers.
Most of this institutional change has occurred in the market facing sectors,
whether publicly or privately owned. However the state sector has had its own
transformations by way of New Public Management, driven by the demands of
more for less and the introduction of quasi markets in a financially constrained pub-
lic sector (Lane 2002). In both the market and tax funded public sector there has
been a further transformation based on the application of networked and digital
Team Working, Instability and Change 109
The use of teams and the development of collaborative and cooperative forms of
working give rise to new organisational and institutional forms. The striking thing
about these arrangements has been their relatively transitory nature. Organisations
and institutions are often thought of in terms of their stability but some newer organ-
isational forms celebrate their fleeting nature. Engeström et al (1999) argue that the
term knotworking is a suitable description for unstable situations in which there is
an active process of construction of relations, in the moment, leading to a constantly
changing configuration of people and artefacts:
110 5 Networked Learning and Institutions
In a series of recent studies, we have encountered numerous examples of this type of work
organization. We call it knotworking. The notion of knot refers to a rapidly pulsating, dis-
tributed and partially improvised orchestration of collaboration between otherwise loosely
connected actors and activity systems (Engeström et al. 1999, p. 346)
The unstable organisational context also gives rise to what Engeström describes as a
radical new landscape of widely dispersed, fluctuating and weakly bounded community
forms (Engeström 2007). He argues that these features are particularly evident in new
forms of peer or social production, for example the Open Source movement and he intro-
duces the concept of mycorrhizae to capture the quality of these new forms of organisation.
Engeström acknowledges that his use of mycorrhizae is related to Deleuze and Guattari
(1987) and the idea of rhizome which was deployed to indicate a horizontal and multidi-
rectional pattern of organisation in contrast to hierarchical, top-down and tree-like forms.
Engeström argues that his use of mycorrhizae builds upon this organic metaphor by
emphasising the invisible symbiotic relationship of fungi with the root system.
Mycorrhizae are difficult if not impossible to bound and close, yet not indefinite or elusive. They
are very hard to kill, but also vulnerable. They may lie dormant for lengthy periods of drought
or cold, then generate again vibrant visible mushrooms when the conditions are right. They are
made up of heterogeneous participants working symbiotically, thriving on mutually beneficial or
also exploitative partnerships with plants and other organisms. (Engeström 2007, p. 52)
While the term mycorrhizae and the organic metaphor are difficult concepts to
use in practice, the idea has some interesting features, in particular the relationship
between the impermanent knotworking and the more stable and permanent struc-
tures on which these unstable forms depend. The horizontal and invisible mycor-
rhizae depend on plants and they generate fruiting bodies that are visible, vertical,
and more or less durable. The transitory network forms of knotworking in organisa-
tions similarly depend on institutional and relatively stable structures. As such they
are not a replacement for more traditional forms of organisation, they supplement
and potentially reinvigorate them.
The university remains a central element helping to determine the ways that tech-
nologies are deployed in higher education. This chapter explores the relationship
between the university and digital and networked technology. It begins by drawing
The University and the Digital 111
the reader back to the kind of societies in which universities developed and the
contemporary society in which networked learning is developing, and the way these
locations change the demands on education, the organisational form of the univer-
sity, and the processes by which education is achieved and accredited.
While higher education has wider roots (Perkin 2007) the University in the
organisational form we know it today, granting Bachelor, Masters and Doctoral
qualifications, can date its origins back to the European middle ages (Collini 2012;
Scott 2006). The corporate form that the university has taken is related to medieval
guild traditions and it retains aspects of the self-governing bodies of teachers and
scholars that grew up in early Europe. Universities preserve the right to award cre-
dentials, in the granting of degrees, and they also maintain a key liberty, academic
freedom, intended to protect universities from power. Although early universities
had their roots in the church, and they and were frequently established by Kings, the
university retained an ability to self-govern, even as the nation state developed and
it maintained quasi-independence from both secular and religious power.
Despite this lengthy history the university is also distinctly modern as an institu-
tion (modern in the historical sense of post-dating the premodern and medieval):
The university may have a longer history than virtually any other macroinstitution of the
present day, excepting the Church and perhaps one or two others. However, as an institution
with research at its core, the university is distinctly modern and largely formed by develop-
ments of the last two centuries. (Wittrock 2012, p. 199)
The ‘mission’ of the university over this historical time period has been analysed
by Scott (2006) and he concluded that despite historic transformations there
remained a core feature to the university:
From medieval to postmodern times, service is the keynote. All universities were and are
social organizations designed to provide higher educational services such as teaching,
research, and a host of other academic services to the church, governments, individuals,
public, and in the future, perhaps, the world. (Scott 2006, p. 3)
The abstract and to some extent imagined continuity of the university’s corporate
form and mission of service masks periods of rapid and significant change. Wittrock
(2012) for example argues that three major transformations can be identified, the late
eighteenth and early nineteenth century in continental Europe, the late nineteenth
and early twentieth century with the expansion of the research mission in universi-
ties and the second half of the twentieth century with the move from elite to mass
higher education. The modern research intensive university emerges from periods of
nation building, war and empire and from the late nineteenth century and an engage-
ment with industrial development using science and technology. The move from
elite to mass universities has taken place at different times and with somewhat dif-
ferent motivations in the twentieth century. However I would argue that the contem-
porary university is probably subject to its most significant period of change.
The university as an institution has extended rapidly across the globe and student
numbers continue to increase. There are recurrent pressures for the university to
become more relevant and for universities to engage in society and to have a mea-
surable impact. The history of the university as an institution in society is a complex
mixture of imagined stability and change, of relative academic freedom and require-
ments for public accountability. Within those changes, and intertwined with them,
112 5 Networked Learning and Institutions
One of the general issues identified with the changing nature of work was the way
in which digital technologies ‘informate’ work (Zuboff 1988). By ‘informate’
Zuboff described a significant feature of the new technologies. Whereas automation
increased and deepened the process that rationalised work and decreased depen-
dency on human skills, the technologies that informate a process increase the
explicit information content of tasks. Zuboff argued that the characteristics of tech-
nologies that informated were often unintended consequences of change. The
capacity to informate was not the opposite of automation but ‘hierarchically inte-
grated. Informating derives from and builds upon automation’ (Zuboff 1988, p. 11).
It might be thought that this insight is now dated but Kallinikos noted that the cen-
tral themes of the book remained relevant. Kallinikos noted that:
Paper-based documents are by large mnemonic devices; the knowledge by which they are
produced is to a large extent mobilized by sentient human beings, enacting rules of sense
making and expertise gained through formal training and experience, that is, skill interior-
ization. Computer-based systems increasingly explicate these rules, embody them in pro-
grams, and automate their execution. (Kallinikos 2010, p. 1100)
This capacity of computers to externalise processes has also led to the genera-
tion, collection and storage of vast amounts of information as data. This has become
known as ‘big data’ and it is more properly known as data-intensive science.
The University and Learning Analytics 113
Data-intensive science makes it possible using the same computing power that
enables collection to detect patterns in large data. This trend has been called the
‘Fourth paradigm’ (Hey et al. 2009) and located in the recent rise of computational
science. It is claimed to be distinctly new because of the way data is collected, pro-
cessed by software, stored in a computer and only at the latter stages of the process
is it processed by scientists using data management and statistical techniques (Hey
et al. 2009). The idea that the scale of the data is what sets it apart has been chal-
lenged by noting that it is often the relational and networked nature of the data that
make it important. Boyd and Crawford argue that:
There is little doubt that the quantities of data now available are often quite large, but that
is not the defining characteristic of this new data ecosystem. In fact, some of the data
encompassed by Big Data (e.g., all Twitter messages about a particular topic) are not nearly
as large as earlier data sets that were not considered Big Data (e.g., census data). Big Data
is less about data that is big than it is about a capacity to search, aggregate, and cross-
reference large data sets. (Boyd and Crawford 2012, p. 663)
So the term ‘big’ data should be treated cautiously as it often signifies more
about its source and the relations it has with other data than its scale.
Furthermore there are those that contend that paradigm questions the role and
position of theory:
This is a world where massive amounts of data and applied mathematics replace every other
tool that might be brought to bear. Out with every theory of human behavior, from linguis-
tics to sociology. Forget taxonomy, ontology, and psychology. Who knows why people do
what they do? The point is they do it, and we can track and measure it with unprecedented
fidelity. With enough data, the numbers speak for themselves. (Anderson 2008)
The idea that ‘numbers speak for themselves’ and that theory is, at best, irrele-
vant would be extremely dangerous if applied in universities and there are well-
known weaknesses in a reliance on ‘big data’ as set out by Boyd and Crawford
(2012). The term analytics has been applied to the use of big data but it does not
have a consistent definition:
A variety of terms for analytics also exist in the educational domain. Higher education’s
approach to defining analytics is particularly inconsistent. Some definitions are conceptual
(what it is), while others were more functional (what it does). Analytics is the process of
data assessment and analysis that enables us to measure, improve, and compare the perfor-
mance of individuals, programs, departments, institutions or enterprises, groups of organi-
zations and/or entire industries. (van Barneveld et al. 2012, p. 2).
Learning analytics are a focus for emerging debates because they follow a trend
towards business analytics and they engage with powerful policy and market
interests (Brown 2011). The term learning analytics has become popular in higher
education, although it can be used to refer to somewhat different topics (Siemens
2013). Learning analytics can be focused most clearly on the student experience and
data related to that topic. Learning analytics can equally be focused more widely to
include the administration of the university and the data required for reporting to
funders and governments. The range and extent of the data sources included in a
114 5 Networked Learning and Institutions
broad view of learning analytics can be seen from the list provided by Norris and
Baer investigating applications of analytics in the United States (2013, p. 9):
• ERP systems (student, finance, financial aid, human resources, advancement and
other modules to be added over time)
• Third-party administrative systems (co-curricular systems, parking, residence
hall, food service, bookstore, other auxiliary enterprises)
• Academic enterprise systems (LMS, other personalised learning systems, library,
academic support services)
• Assessment (testing, student evaluation, course and faculty evaluation, NSSE/
CSSE)
• Customer relationship management systems and/or CRM functionality in other
systems
• Peer institution and benchmarking data
• Open educational resources and experiences, with associated learning analytics
The way that big data has become integrated in higher education in ways relevant
to networked learning is explored below in relation firstly to what I am calling
learner analytics and then in relation to institutional analytics through the lens of
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP).
Learner Analytics
I have chosen to use the term learner analytics to identify those aspects of learning
analytics that focus on the learner or student as opposed to the institutional or business
aspects of analytics. Siemens amongst others makes a similar distinction between a
more business focused approach and a focus on learning but retains the term learning
analytics for learner focused activity (Siemens 2013). The definition of learning ana-
lytics set out in the call for papers for the first international conference in this area
was:
Learning analytics is the measurement, collection, analysis and reporting of data about
learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimising learning and the
environments in which it occurs. (LAK 2011 as reported in Ferguson 2012)
This learner focused definition is rooted in earlier social science information sys-
tem developments such as social network analysis and data mining but it is driven by
more immediate institutional and political concerns and the increasing availability of
machine readable data sets produced by digital technologies, including the learning
management systems deployed in many universities (Ferguson 2012). Ferguson pro-
vides a useful overview of the state of the field and of the kinds of drivers that promote
the development of analytics. When she considers the question of who benefits from
learning analytics Ferguson considers three interest groups:
… governments, educational institutions and teachers/learners. Although the interests of
all three groups overlap, they require analytics work on different scales and at different
granularities. The choice of target audience therefore affects how researchers conceptualise
Learner Analytics 115
problems, capture data, report findings, act on their findings and refine their models. As the
following sections show, the field of analytics changes and develops as the balance between
these three drivers and three interest groups shifts. (Ferguson 2012, p. 307)
What this quote amply illustrates is that the apparently technical exercise of data
collection and analysis involved in learner analytics is in fact a site of struggle
(Feenberg 1991). Like other technological developments the various interested par-
ties have an influence on the functioning and basic structure of the technological
solutions that are developed and implemented.
Currently a number of universities are exploring how these large data sets can be
managed and analysed to provide meaningful information to institutional managers,
course teams, teachers and students (Norris and Baer 2013). The struggle over ana-
lytics in universities will be important not least because it will determine the ways
that institutions conceive of the student-academic-institution nexus. If a broad
administrative view of analytics is taken then analytics can be just another manage-
ment and administrative tool that will shift the balance in institutions away from
academic and pedagogic concerns towards market and business concerns with mea-
surable performance and value for money. Measurements of quality, progression and
dropout when seen in terms of students as units of resource are quite different from
measures of quality understood in terms of human development and citizenship.
Ferguson (2012) notes that analysis of data for educational purposes has a his-
tory that extends back into the late twentieth century and that early interest in ana-
lytics was focused largely on business process whereas earlier concerns with the use
of data to improve the effectiveness of learning and learning processes was initially
the province of educational data mining. She dates the early development of analyt-
ics focused on the learner and learning process to 2003 and work deriving from
Social Network Analysis and a networked learning perspective (Aviv et al. 2003; De
Laat et al. 2014). In Ferguson’s view the development of the field leads in different
directions but what she identifies as learning analytics most closely matches the idea
of learner analytics used here: that is an educational focus on analytics optimising
the opportunities for learning. A current example of how learner data can be applied
comes from The Open University (Wolff and Zdrahal 2012) who use student data to
identify students ‘at risk’ using predictive models in order to help improve retention
rates and more broadly the ‘student experience’. The practicality and robustness of
many of these kinds of approaches are still to be tested and the promise often
remains more than the current reality.
Learner analytics used in this sense has been applied beyond the university to
learners and learning in the workplace (De Laat and Schreurs 2013). In a similar
way to learner analytics in the university the application of analytics to learners in
the workplace aims to find methods to make informal and largely invisible pro-
cesses explicit within the organisation. Their method detects and visualises informal
professional networks. The aim of these visualisations is to aid value creation by
connecting ideas often held in isolated networks within organisations. The aim of
the project was to generate real time, automated learning analytics in large-scale
systems to accomplish this task of making informal networks visible. The method
that they applied combined social network analysis (SNA) with content analysis
(CA) and context analysis (CxA) (see Fig. 5.1).
116 5 Networked Learning and Institutions
Using this approach De Laat and Schreurs developed a Network Analysis Tool
that could provide visualisations of personal networks and the place of the person in
wider networks automatically and immediately. This system relies on users describing
and tagging problems that are part of their learning and add people they collaborate
with. Users can also link themselves with problems others have already described.
Such a system is quite different in character to learner analytics that are part of a
top-down institutional process and the system relies on professional activity to
ensure the quality and availability of data.
Learner Analytics Raises a Large Number of Questions Including:
• Which interest group(s) will dominate in determining the developments that take
place?
• Will development of analytics be a top-down or bottom-up process?
• What are the pedagogically useful indicators that can lead to robust
recommendations?
• How can learner analytics be made accessible for non-specialist users?
• What are the ethical considerations that need to be included in using student and
learner data?
To be useful the data has had to be managed, curated and presented in relevant
and usable forms. Learning analytics will require the application of a significant
effort to manage, curate and process the raw data derived from a variety of systems
that are not necessarily compatible or interoperable with each other. The settings
for data collection and the questions asked in survey data collection will have a
large influence on the quality of data included for analysis. Currently it is not clear
how systematic these processes will be or which groups in the university will carry
the responsibility to ensure a robust and coordinated process. The implementation
of learner analytics is a complex organisational as well as technical process.
Enterprise Resource Planning 117
Learning analytics has been used in ways that include organisational and adminis-
trative data (Norris and Baer 2013). I have distinguished between learning analytics
focused on the learner which I have called learner rather than learning analytics.
The other aspect of learning analytics is institutional in focus and deals with the
integration of IT systems across the university. For example in the United Kingdom
the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) promotes Enterprise Architecture
which they characterise as enabling organisations to adapt to change by defining how
their business processes work in tandem with their Information and Communications
Technology systems (JISC 2010). The need for an enterprise approach is clearly
located in the pressure to change:
Universities and colleges are increasingly complex sociotechnical organisations that are
hard to change, and yet they face enormous pressures to increase operational efficiencies
and adapt to new challenges. (JISC 2010 Online)
In this Sect. 5.1 have chosen to discuss one aspect of the organisational use of
analytics in the deployment of Enterprise Resource Planning in universities.
Enterprise used in this context is synonymous with institution, although it carries
with it a business- and market-oriented notion of a ‘bottom line’ and a singular goal
which is often absent from universities despite contemporary pressures to view uni-
versities as businesses. There are other systems that are cross institutional, such as
the student and academic facing Learning Management Systems (LMS), which feed
into learner analytics, and library systems which also have a learner focus, and there
are additional administrative and organisational systems, such as those dealing with
customer relations, parking, residences, catering etc. The ERP is however the focus
of administration and it is central to the rationalisation of the many dispersed and
often bespoke systems found across universities. ERP in a university context has
generated a literature dealing with specific case studies (see for example in the UK
context JISC 2009) and it has been investigated by a significant number of research-
ers with a more sector wide focus including Scott and Wagner (2003), Pollock and
Cornford (2004), Lee and Myers (2004), Wagner and Newell (2005), Pollock et al.
(2007), McCluskey and Winter (2012). ERP in this chapter is used broadly and it
includes elements that would not normally be included under this term. This is
because ERP is usually a single business management computer system and
Enterprise Architecture as used in the JISC literature refers to a looser transitional
process of integration that may include several systems. Enterprise Architecture
also suggests a link to the current trend away from single systems towards a more
flexible approach based on open standards similar to the discussion between single
LMSs and an open systems- and service-oriented architecture (often characterised
as Web 2.0) developed for similar purposes (Weller 2007).
The introduction of enterprise systems aims to transform the administration of the
university and the discussion that follows focuses on two contrasting ways of under-
standing that process. The first example is drawn from the writing of Pollock and
Cornford (2004, 2005) and Pollock et al. (2007), and the second from McCluskey
118 5 Networked Learning and Institutions
and Winter (2012). The provision of comprehensive enterprise systems suggests that
there is a potential to move from an administrative culture to one in which there is a
degree of academic self-management (Pollock and Cornford 2005). The self-
management enabled by such systems is not of course unlimited, indeed it follows
the New Public Sector management dictum of regulated autonomy or ‘freedom
within boundaries’ (Hoggett 1991; Enders 2012) in that the academic self-manages
but only within the confines of what is allowed by the system. The enterprise systems
are engaged in a process of de-skilling some administrative staff while re-skilling
others and academic staff are encouraged to take on new administrative roles as they
‘self-manage’ in active interaction with technical systems. Pollock and Cornford
(2004) were also interested in the dynamics of ERP implementation in what some
argue is a unique organisation. They suggest that the similarity or difference of the
university, seen as an enterprise, and the business base from which ERP systems
originate, sets up a tension which was exemplified the university that they studied:
…the construction of similarity/difference occurred not simply within the confines of the
project team but was also the outcome of a set of relationships the university has with the
system, its supplier, various internal departments, and other institutions involved in similar
implementations. (Pollock and Cornford 2004, p. 32)
In this view the technology is part of a larger assemblage engaged with the
implementation of a sociotechnical system. The technology is in a negotiation with
a variety of other actors and the outcome is not predetermined but negotiated. Key
figures, such as the university Vice Chancellor set the terms of these negotiations by
setting goals that emphasised the similarities between the university and businesses
with a pressure on staff to rethink processes and procedures in business terms using
Enterprise language, even when this caused irritation and resistance (Pollock and
Cornford 2004). The pressure for standard business solutions led to the creation of
‘work-arounds’ allowing users to find ways to resolve conflicts between business
processes and the specific needs of the institution. A third feature of the process of
implementing ERP in the university was that solutions were increasingly sectoral
rather than institution-specific, that is university-specific demands could be accom-
modated in-so-far as they were variants of a sector-wide issue and the specific issue
could be made generic and applicable beyond one institution.
The process of implantation showed how ERP systems built ‘bridges’ between
diverse organisational users through a process of ‘generification’ (Pollock et al.
2007). The idea of generification is an important indication of the limits of viewing
every instance as unique and of computer-based systems as being unable to travel or
transition between contexts:
Rather than focus on the collision between unique organizational practices and the generic
solution we should also address how technologies are made (and continuously remade) to
bridge these different locales, as part of our enquiry into the broader and longer-term co-
evolution of artefacts and their social settings of use. We have argued that generic solutions
do exist and that they do travel to many different places; though, of course, they don’t go
everywhere. (Pollock et al. 2007, p. 274)
While ERP systems standardised processes they did not do this as a crude inva-
sion of the university by an external system, but through an interactive process in
Enterprise Resource Planning 119
From a suppliers point of view the technology had to have a manageable level of
diversity, while from the universities’ point of view the relatively standardised pro-
cesses needed to incorporate the local and particular practices of very different
kinds of institutions and local contexts. The achievement of a managed process
required the university to master a number of complex translation processes and
highlighted and refashioned the boundaries between universities and other organisa-
tions. The process also challenges the unique identity that universities claim for
themselves by the drift towards standardisation with business processes.
This account of ERP systems contrasts with McCluskey and Winter (2012) who,
writing from a largely US position, argue that ERP systems make ‘exceptions to rules
all but impossible’ (ibid, p. 13), control ‘all aspects of college life’ and ‘dictate the
pace of the modern university’ (ibid, p. 14). The process of standardisation implicit
in the deployment of ERP systems is claimed to have serious implications for aca-
demic life. However in this account the choices that are available are often ignored as
they can be at the messy institutional level of negotiation and translation outlined
above rather than at the individual scholar’s level. When McCluskey and Winter do
focus on the institutional level they propose a ‘BLT’ model in which there are three
basic kinds of university governance, a Bureaucracy, a Learner, and a Teacher-centred
model. The Bureaucratic Centred Model (B-governance) characterises many current
university administrations and roughly equates to the model found in descriptions of
New Public Management in universities (Lorenz 2012). The management and admin-
istration are professional and positions are largely appointed rather than elected. The
Teacher-Centred Model (T-governance) will also be familiar because it is focused on
the forms of faculty governance found in older collegiate systems of university gov-
ernance. In this model many of the key managerial posts are elected positions and
they are in some sense representative of the academic staff. This model has echoes of
the early medieval model, especially that based on Paris, which embodied the univer-
sity as a collective of academics (the Italian, Bologna model in contrast was a student
collective). The final model is described as a Learner-Centred Model (L-governance)
but it is based on Enterprise systems of data management. It may come as a surprise
to find that being ‘learner-centred’ depends on a form of governance that has at its
heart ‘big data’ and learning analytics. The argument made by McCluskey and Winter
(2012) is a determinist argument that suggests that the old institutions need to be
broken apart to allow the emergence of a data focused university.
McCluskey and Winter (2012) note that when ERP systems were adopted the
universities involved began to link all the kinds of information that was collected by
the institution. As a consequence the digital university they envisage is less a learner-
centred model than it is data-centred. They argue that the new combined sources of
data enabled by digital technologies provide new opportunities for governance based
120 5 Networked Learning and Institutions
on data analysis but they largely ignore the ethical implications of this. They mention
the ethics of software development as a subject to be taught but they do not discuss the
ethical implications of an ERP and data-driven governance of the university. The ethi-
cal issues raised by learning analytics have recently been raised by the Director of
Teaching and Learning at The Open University (Sclater 2014). Sclater argues that
risks are a consequence of exploring the potentials of learning analytics:
With these possibilities come dangers that the data could be used in ways undesirable to stu-
dents. These include invading their privacy, exploiting them commercially by selling their data
to third parties or targeted marketing of further educational products (Sclater 2014 Online)
These dangers of course also extend to staff and universities have clear legal
responsibilities to comply with data protection legislation, restricting access by
third parties to data collected about staff and students. Universities should also
allow students and staff access to view data held about them and universities should
also make them aware when data is being collected and what purposes it might be
used for. Some data protection legislation, for example in the EU, also restricts
where data can be stored raising questions about many cloud-based applications
with US-based storage. Overall the ethics of data collection and management needs
much closer scrutiny and the bland assumption that because data can be collected it
should be collected needs to be challenged (Slade and Prinsloo 2013). Learning
analytics at an institutional level could lead to a new form of university governance,
but this requires an informed choice. The idea of a data-driven university points
back to questions of surveillance and discipline as noted in relation to LMS/VLEs by
Land and Bayne (2005). They concluded their work by suggesting that technology
presented a range of choices, and a proper understanding of the technology could
enhance provision, but that choices based on data alone, or based on power-driven
approaches, threatened to be disempowering to those subject to it.
Digital and networked technologies have the potential to change the relationship
between learners and the institutions of learning to their resources. Digital technolo-
gies can reduce to almost zero the costs associated with reproducing digital material
and they can theoretically be copied many times and be circulated at almost no
additional cost. The potential of these features of digital and network technologies
depends on them being institutionally enacted for them to be realised as affordances
for learners. A key element of the definition of networked learning that informs this
book is the connection of learners with learning resources. Networked learning
takes place between people but also between a learning community and their learn-
ing resources. The definition suggests that the use of online materials is a necessary
but not a sufficient condition for networked learning because interaction needs to be
both with the materials and with other people. In recent years there have been a
number of developments beyond the purely technical that have impacted on the
institutional provision of learning resources. Many of these developments are
Openness, Open Educational Resources and the University 121
located in universities and other related institutions. These changes began with the
idea of learning objects and more recently the concern has been with open educa-
tional resources (OER) (see for example Weller 2007; Pegler 2011 and Pegler 2013;
Selwyn 2014). The simple idea behind OER is that universities and other institu-
tions generating knowledge make their materials freely available online for anyone
to use. Wiley et al (2014) state that OER are educational materials which use a
Creative Commons license or which exist in the public domain and are free from
copyright restrictions. This raises a raft of questions, some practical concerning how
this change can be enabled but others are fundamental concerning for example who
actually pays, because as is already well known nothing is absolutely free, even
when it is free to use. The openness of OER is a also a concern for MOOCs, which
are the subject of the next section of the chapter, but both OER and MOOCs are said
to raise basic questions about the institutional form of the university, and perhaps
about institutional forms per se (Selwyn 2014). The university is central to the
development not just of open resources but of the organisational and institutional
arrangements that can support and sustain open development, curation and re-use.
The key moment that raised the profile of open educational resources was the
announcement by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) of the MIT Open
Courseware (OCW) initiative.1 The initiative continues and it has been a success in
its own terms, sharing a large number of MIT resources and attracting large num-
bers of people to MIT online. As I write this chapter the MIT OCW web site shows
figures of use ending in 2012 with 2150 published courses and 125 million views.
The MIT initiative began using a grant from the Hewlett Foundation and they have
continued to fund other large OER initiatives such as The Open University’s Open
Learn2 which began in October 2006 and claims to have reached more than 23 million
people. Despite the success of these university level initiatives the trend towards
OER has its limits as Conole notes:
However, despite the rhetoric about new social and participatory media generally and OER
specifically, the reality is that their uptake and reuse in formal educational contexts has been
disappointing. (Conole 2012, p. 131)
Although the OER movement is recent Pegler (2013) points out that the term
open content was in use by 1998 and the idea of openness cuts across earlier initia-
tives such as The Open University and open source software (Selwyn 2014). The
idea of openness as it is used in OER can include being free to the user, immediately
accessible online and being available for further distribution and re-use with the
author only retaining attribution rights (Sclater 2011). Sclater reports that the defini-
tion of OER developed by UNESCO at meetings in 2002 and 2004 included the
following areas:
• Learning resources
• Courseware, content modules, learning objects, learner support and assessment
tools, online learning communities
1
MIT OCW: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
2
Open Learn: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/
122 5 Networked Learning and Institutions
The politics of OER is also explored by Selwyn (2014) and Phelan (2012).
Selwyn notes that OER have their supporters among both left leaning advocates of
collaboration, flat-hierarchies and worker/producer control and on the right by neo-
liberal influenced libertarians attracted by the possibility of reduced ‘interference’
by institutions and the state. Underpinning both approaches is a notion that OER
3
This use of science should be understood as systematic knowledge, in a similar sense to the
German word Wissenschaft.
Openness, Open Educational Resources and the University 123
lead to new learner-driven notions of learning which link OER to broader pedagogic
notions of constructivism, constructionism and a sociocultural approach to knowl-
edge building. In this way OER fit into a long line of educational debates in which
shrill calls for change cloaking wider ideological agendas and as Selwyn notes:
…much of the current enthusiasm for openness is (un)consciously yoked to wider ideological
motivations of re-engineering and reorientating the social relations of educational technolo-
gies and educational institutions. (Selwyn 2014, p. 75)
educated and flexible labour commodity. In his critical analysis Selwyn identifies a set
of five issues raised by the suggested benefits of OER. These issues include:
1. Tensions between individual competition and ‘communal’ production
2. Power imbalances within open processes of production
3. Mass consumption of openly produced products
4. The limited outcomes of open production processes
5. Open production as a site of exploitation and commodification
It can clearly be seen from this list that Selwyn’s focus is largely on the processes
of production. Ehlers (2011) in contrast argues that the second phase of OER devel-
opment should move from the production of resources and providing access to
them, to what he defines as open educational practices (OEP).
OEP are defined as practices which support the (re)use and production of OER through
institutional policies, promote innovative pedagogical models, and respect and empower
learners as co-producers on their lifelong learning path. OEP address the whole OER gov-
ernance community: policy makers, managers/administrators of organisations, educational
professionals and learners. (Ehlers 2011, p. 3)
OEP change the focus from production to use and management including the
institutional policies and pedagogic models that surround the resources (Andrade
et al. 2011). Murphy (2013) takes this a step further by including formal recognition
and assessment of OER learners beyond formal programmes:
… open educational practices will therefore be considered as policies and practices imple-
mented by higher education institutions that support the development, use and management
of OERs, and the formal assessment and accreditation of informal learning undertaken
using OERs. (Murphy 2013, p. 202).
The change of focus from resources to practices is a useful reminder of the insti-
tutional supports that are necessary for successful education to take place (Knox
2013). The question moves from the production of resources to the supports that
might be required at an institutional level.
Openness is not new and a previous iteration of university development was initiated
by the development of The Open University in the United Kingdom. An explicitly
social-democratic and Labour Party initiative there was no attempt to disguise the
political agenda of the early Open University. Although still political in nature it is
clear that the politics of OER are less explicit and more diverse, finding support from
both left and right. What unites both is a suspicion of the university and larger social
institutions such as the state. However some of the well-known issues affecting OER
are linked, at minimum, to institutional if not national and international solutions.
The university can provide the basis for sustainable development, discovery, quality
assurance and the contextualisation and localisation of OER. It is university prac-
tices that can make OER viable and provide them with a ‘business’ model.
Institutional Supports for Openness 125
There are two interrelated issues of sustainability of OER, the first is maintaining
a base of users the second is financial (Wiley et al. 2014). Pegler notes that OER
based on existing resources which are by-products of conventional educational
practices require less resource (Pegler 2013). She also argues that by way of con-
trast new resources created purely for OER require ‘an exceptional flow of funding
or effort’ (ibid, p. 149). Universities are central to the development of OER because
they provide a sound and relatively permanent basis for organising the effort
required to either repurpose existing resources or to develop new ones. They also
have the potential to be beneficiaries to this development effort and can reward and
incentivise staff to generate and support OER. The ‘business model’ for OER with-
out institutional support from a university could be the kind of dystopia outlined by
Selwyn (2014) in which OER lead to the ‘corporate misappropriation’ of free labour
supplied for ethical and moral reasons. This criticism relates strongly to the issues
raised in Chap. 2 about the contemporary phase of capitalism and the development
of ‘immaterial labour’ (Hardt and Negri 2005).
Being able to find OER is not simply a technical question although it clearly involves
the development of standards and specifications (Wiley et al. 2014). Work on learning
objects led to a significant technical development of metadata standards and specifica-
tions intended to make learning objects easier to find. To be discoverable will require
frameworks allowing major search engines to provide properly focused results. The
technical question of discovery points to a displacement and repositioning at the heart
of OER. OER are positioned as an outcome of co-production and voluntary effort but
they may also require complex technical support such that rather than replacing
resources controlled by publishers and institutions with cooperatively developed alter-
natives, OER replace one system of organisation and power with another. In this case
one potentially dominated by technical experts and administrative requirements rather
than publishers and university administration. The hope for OER is that they would
translate the idea of the prosumer (Toffler 1980; Ritzer and Jurgenson 2010), someone
who did more than simply consume into an educational context. The danger is that
without universities and a coordinated university sector providing institutional supports
OER will simply lead to a mass of consumers, control by a technological elite, a cor-
porate takeover of the business, and a narrow band of activist producers organised
around a complex technical infrastructure and corporate financial ‘business’ models.
A traditional area of university activity has been in the assurance of the quality
of materials produced. One answer to why universities charge or cost the public
purse for their services has been provided by Brown and Duguid who argued that
the core function of a university was as a degree granting body. Their claim was that
universities provided credentials to learners, allowing their prior learning to be
acknowledged in the labour market. However in this context the credentials were
valued in the market because the university and the procedures they followed in the
production of knowledge, its circulation, assessment and validation provided a war-
rant (Brown and Duguid 2000). The university as an institution stands behind the
materials and qualifications it produces. If discovery is a problem for OER this is
compounded by a quality problem when there is an oversupply of material. If a
search engine generates thousands of results for a topic how can the user decide
between them, which are the high quality resources and which can be discarded?
126 5 Networked Learning and Institutions
The assessment of quality relies on a complex set of decisions that are not simply
about the quality of the resource itself but on its appropriateness for the context it is
intended to be integrated into. Resources are another example of the relational
processes in learning in which a learning resource is only assessable for quality in a
dynamic relationship between the features of the resource, the intentions of the user
and the characteristics of its destination setting.
The need for contextualisation has been recognised as a challenge for OER (Wiley
et al. 2014). Pegler (2013) argues that translation alone can lead to positive benefits
including allowing users rather than suppliers to lead decisions and spread large quanti-
ties of resources. She also argues that this can lead to reciprocity with resources being
shared back from what were originally ‘read only’ exchanges to examples of reciproc-
ity. For these benefits to be achieved there is a considerable effort required not only to
translate resources into different languages but to make them available in a new con-
text. Resources made freely available by Ivy league universities in the United States
might not be readily absorbed into linguistically, culturally and politically diverse con-
texts. It could be the eventual users who repurpose the resource but that then raises
questions about how that effort in repurposing is going to be supported and sustained.
It seems that OER do not remove the requirements for institutional frameworks for the
work necessary for education even though they might displace them and generate new
or reformed institutional approaches. One of the revised forms for the institutional use
of OER has been the development of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) and the
development of MOOCs is the subject of the next section of this chapter.
The Massive Open Online Course is a current focus for debates about learning via
digital and networked technologies. It has raised the visibility of issues that had
previously only been discussed in academic circles and placed them into the public
domain by way of media discussion (see for example BBC4, The Guardian5).
MOOCs have become the basis for another round of wild claims about the likeli-
hood of radical change in universities (Barber et al. 2013). MOOCs have generated
an atmosphere in which it is important for university and government policy makers
to express clear ideas about how their ideas are connected to this new approach to
teaching and learning. In this flurry of activity and overhyped claims it is difficult to
remember the niche beginnings of the MOOC in Canada and its associations with
the idea of networked learning (Daniel 2012)
The first course carrying the name MOOC was offered in 2008, so this is a new phenome-
non. Second, the pedagogical style of the early courses, which we shall call cMOOCs, was
based on a philosophy of connectivism and networking. (Daniel 2012, p. 2)
4
BBC Massive open online course- threat or opportunity 1st July 2013: http://www.bbc.co.uk/
news/education-23069542
5
The Guardian: Peter Scott. Moocs: if we’re not careful so-called open courses will close minds 5th
August 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/aug/05/moocs-online-higher-education
The University and the Challenge of MOOCs 127
The origins of the educational idea of the MOOC are still contested, although
there is certainty about the role of connectivism in the process. Both Daniel (2012)
and Clarà and Barberà (2013a, b) link connectivism with the ideas of Ivan Illich
(1970), but this is contested by Downes (2013). Whatever the connection between
connectivism and Illich there is, as Daniel noted a link between the aims of Illich
and the aim of cMOOCs, which is:
to provide all who want to learn with access to available resources… empower all who want
to share what they know to find those who want to learn it from them (Daniel 2012, p. 3)
This early form of MOOC has not gone away and the term cMOOC has been
used to distinguish the connectivist style of MOOCs from the new kinds of
xMOOCS developed by elite universities and private corporate interests, largely
in the United States (Siemens 2012). The aim of cMOOCs stands in sharp contrast
to the xMOOCs which generally embody an instructivist approach to education,
with video lectures, multiple choice assessment and limited peer-to-peer interac-
tion. The cMOOCs were initially developed prior to and at the point of the global
financial crisis, whereas the xMOOCs have gained prominence as the global
financial crisis and austerity began to bite. In these changed economic conditions
the utopian aims of cMOOCs gave way to a focus on the market and the need for
a ‘business model’ for MOOCs (Barber et al. 2013). The emergence of xMOOCs
is still very recent as Daniel records:
Early in 2012 Stanford University offered a free, chunked course on Artificial Intelligence
online and 58,000 people signed up. One of the faculty members involved, Sebastian Thrun,
went on to found Udacity, a commercial start-up that helps other universities to offer
xMOOCs (Meyer 2012). MIT (2011) announced MITx at the end of 2011 for a launch in
spring 2012. MITx has now morphed into edX with the addition of Harvard and UC
Berkeley (edX 2012). Since then similar initiatives from other well known US universities
have come thick and fast. There seems to be a herd instinct at work as universities observe
their peers joining the xMOOCs bandwagon and jump on for fear of being left behind.
(Daniel 2012, pp. 3–4)
The three fundamental challenges to the university that the authors identify are:
1. How can universities and new providers ensure education for employability?
‘Given the rising cost of degrees, the threat to the market value of degrees and
the sheer scale of both economic change and unemployment, this is a vital and
immediate challenge’.
2. How can the link between cost and quality be broken? ‘in the era of modern technol-
ogy, when students can individually and collectively create knowledge themselves,
outstanding quality without high fixed costs is both plausible and desirable’.
3. How does the entire learning ecosystem need to change to support alternative
providers and the future of work? (Barber, Donnelly, and Ritzvi 2013, p. 6)
The style of the report can be seen in this example of a somewhat apocalyptic
business style of language:
the new student consumer is king and standing still is not an option (ibid, p. 6).
The report cannot be thought of in the same terms as research led commentary,
rather it is an example of a call to action for policy makers across the higher educa-
tion system couched in neoliberal business rhetoric.
The imperative for change although based on the availability of new technologies and
the preexisting process of globalisation is the contemporary global financial crisis:
the global economy is also dealing with a trauma of the worst crisis in modern times, as the
consequences of two decades of irrational exuberance slowly unwind. (ibid, p. 11)
The financial crisis provides an incentive to examine the overall cost of universi-
ties and to argue that the costs of higher education are rising in an unsustainable
way. MOOCs are presented in this essay as a tipping point, a cause of sudden and
discontinuous change and a potential source of a solution to the problems arising
from that change. The way MOOCs are presented is an example of the solutionism
identified by Morozov (2013). Morozov argues that solutionism is the recasting of
complex social situations as either:
neatly defined problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident
processes that can easily be optimised (Morozov 2013, p. 5).
Solutionism goes further than supplying technological fixes for difficult or ‘wicked’
problems by finding problems in areas that are not actually problematic at all. In the case
of the argument for MOOCs it is the increasing cost of higher education. The European
University Association showed a fall in the percentage of GDP spent on university fund-
ing between 2008 and 2013 in ten EU countries and an increase in eight (EUA 2013). In
the United Kingdom (England and Wales) they found that university spending is falling
as a proportion of GDP. After rising from 2008 to 2011, expenditure fell to 0.46 % of
GDP, with only Hungary, Italy, Portugal and Greece having lower proportional expen-
diture. It would seem that in Europe the overall cost of higher education is hardly a
problem requiring radical institutional change in universities. In fact there has been a
nominal change in expenditure of −10 % between 2008 and 2012, increasing to −13 %
if inflation is taken into account.6 In the United States the debate has largely focused on
the cost of higher education and the fees paid in relation to earnings (Table 5.1).
6
Figures from: http://www.eua.be/publicfundingobservatory
The University and the Challenge of MOOCs 129
Table. 5.1 Public and private spending as proportion of GDP on tertiary education (2009 data last
updated 2012)
Tertiary education
% of GDP
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5 OECD average (total
2.0 expenditure)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Iceland
New Zealand
Argentina
Denmark
Ireland
Korea
United Kingdom
Belgium
Switzerland1
United States
Sweden
Australia
Estonia
Netherlands
Finland
France
Israel
Mexico
Portugal
Slovenia
Austria
Chile
Poland
Canada
Italy
Luxembourg
Spain
Germany
Slovak Republic
Japan
Czech Republic
Indonesia
Russian Federation
Brazil1
Norway1
South Africa1
Hungary1
India1
Source: OECD Stat Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932662599
7
All figures OECD from: http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/CN%20-%20United%20States.pdf
130 5 Networked Learning and Institutions
the next “big thing,” in the web and the social media by and large, they know what they are
doing. And there is a real buzz there and when Goldman Sachs are investing and Stanford
say it is significant and big players are coming in, my view is, this is a significant moment
in the spread of education, notably, but not only higher education (Willetts 2013)
The remarks made by Willetts illustrate the way that MOOCs mix together a US
centric mix of Silicon valley with large banking capital and Ivy League endorse-
ment. MOOCs are identified by Willetts as having the potential to increase interna-
tional recruitment, apply data analytics to large student numbers and develop
employment skills, specifically IT skills for large corporations e.g. Microsoft.
Although MOOCs may represent a further iteration in the technological platform
available for networked learning they are not really novel in either educational or
business terms. Daniel for example notes how little attention seems to have been
paid by those commenting on the MOOC phenomena to previous experiences,
either in the university expansion online in the dot com boom or in the open university
movement (Daniel 2012, p. 9). A question for networked learning will be to what
degree the principles that inform MOOCs will be drawn from the longer tradition of
Open and Distance learning, including networked learning, and to what degree they
will represent a degradation of these principles and a replication of an instructivist
model in xMOOCs.
The rise of MOOCs in terms of public attention and large-scale implementation
coincided with the adoption of austerity policies in advanced industrial countries
following the financial crash of 2008. This coincidence has meant that MOOCs have
been incorporated in agendas that are focused on the reduction of cost, both to the
prospective student and to the public purse. In pedagogic terms this has been marked
by a move away from a pedagogy informed by a notion of networked learning with
an emphasis on dialogue, which informed cMOOCs, to a more classically instruc-
tivist model based in the transmission of knowledge in xMOOCs. The MOOC
moment fitted into a more general debate amongst policy makers that advocated a
particular kind of educational reform based on the identification of new technology
as a source of ‘disruptive innovation’ that could lead to ‘unbundling’ the university.
These ideas are not exclusively linked to the rise of MOOCs and OER were also
discussed in these terms. This approach to change in universities will also be taken
up in Chap. 8 when the source of disruption is supposed to be a new generation of
digital native students. The relationship of MOOCs to the university may not be as
disruptive as many have thought and Brady writing in the New Inquiry argued that:
These MOOCs [xMOOCs] are just a new way of maintaining the status quo, of re-
institutionalizing higher education in an era of budget cuts, sky-rocketing tuition, and unem-
ployed college graduates burdened by student debt. If the MOOC began in the classroom as
an experimental pedagogy, it has swiftly morphed into a process driven from the top down,
imposed on faculty by university administrators, or even imposed on administrators by uni-
versity boards of trustees and regents. From within academia, the MOOC phenomenon is all
about dollars and cents, about doing more of the same with less funding. (Brady 2013)
The idea of a MOOC began with a notion of educational reform based on prin-
ciples familiar to those involved in the study of networked learning. Personally I
have always been somewhat sceptical and I am cautious about the kinds of radical
Conclusions 131
individualism that MOOCs seem to embody and I am equally sceptical about the
dismissiveness found in relation to MOOCs concerning the institutional form of
the university. The re-invention of the MOOC in the United States as the xMOOC
has been accompanied by a re-hashing of familiar and stale agendas based on a
largely transmissive pedagogy and private interests have reinforced a rhetoric that
diminishes choice and emphasises a determinist account of change. To highlight
the significance of choice in relation to MOOCs it is instructive to see what can still
be done within the confines of an xMOOC platform. The Edinburgh MOOC
‘E-learning and Digital Cultures’, although based on the Coursera platform applied
a pedagogy more usually associated with cMOOCs (Knox et al. 2012; Knox 2014).
The new xMOOC platforms are no more determinist than any other technology
and those interested in networked learning should experiment and explore the lim-
its that xMOOC platforms will allow.
Conclusions
The university is changing but the claims that disruptive technologies will sweep it
away are not just premature they are wrong because they ignore the strength of the
forces (assemblages of people and things) that will re-order, stabilise and renew
universities as institutions (see Chap. 6 for further development of this point).
The MOOC is the current favourite technological disruptor, but the MOOC is not
really a technological phenomenon, although it relies on a number of technological
features. MOOCs represent a certain kind of mobilisation of aspects of the new
technologies, but they are being mobilised by different groups for different pur-
poses, even within a single institution. Similarly big data and analytics are enabled
by the capacity of new technologies to track and trace their users, but the technology
does not determine the decisions that institutions have made and those they will
make about which data to capture and what uses it will be put to. The public nature
of universities is highlighted by the use of open educational resources because they
embody a notion of sharing that is distinctly different to market-driven notions of
intellectual property. The university is under pressure and that pressure comes from
political choices as much as it does from technological innovation. The decision in
England to introduce fees was justified by austerity and the financial crisis, even
though the changes may not save any money. The rhetoric that reduces universities
complex duties to businesses and students to consumers has little to do with tech-
nology, but it has a great deal to do with political choices about the kinds of eco-
nomic and educational systems that are preferred.
The university is a good illustration of the importance of levels and the need to
avoid a binary between universal structures and individual agency. Universities are
organisational points in which persons act in their organisational roles and not just
as individuals. Institutions are sites for action in which people acting collectively
and recursively can alter the conditions in which they find themselves. The organ-
isational actors take situated decisions in technological contexts, some of which are
132 5 Networked Learning and Institutions
locally determined and some of which are outside institutional control. These
decisions are also more than simply technical decisions and the technology is a
point of contestation between different visions of the university. Networked learn-
ing has a strong view about what ‘good’ learning might entail. Good learning
involves discourse, mediation and interaction between people and their learning
resources. As a consequence networked learning has a view about the university as
a public institution. This view of networked learning supports strong institutional
public provision, even though it may oppose particular institutional policies. This
separates this version of networked learning from those who see institutions as bar-
riers to good learning and technology as a means to undermine current institutional
provision (See Downes 2006, 2007a) and to a lesser degree Siemens (2005) for an
alternative view of networked learning as personal and de-institutionalised).
Institutions are intertwined with infrastructures which are the subject of the next
chapter. Levels and the intermediate mesolevel is one of the key ideas that can be
found in various chapters of this book, but they are a particular focus of the next
chapter. In terms of institutions levels are important in relation to the disciplinary
differences and research cultures that form the basis for academic tribes and territo-
ries (Becher and Trowler 2001 see also Chap. 7). Institutions do not form single
homogenous entities and they are better described in terms of an assemblage, a
sociomaterial complex with more than one centre. Discipline and subject area, pro-
vide opportunities for self-organisation within and beyond institutions and the func-
tional units for technical support and administration act as separable elements
within the university. Faculties, departments and schools all sit at mesolevels within
institutions but they vary considerably in terms of their structure. In some universi-
ties collegial forms of self-organisation remain, in others it is truncated or replaced
by a purely managerial hierarchy unanswerable to the academic community. The
use of learning analytics is another area in which institutional concerns are inter-
twined with infrastructure and where the issues can be viewed at various levels.
Buckingham Shum (2012), for example has discussed making use of the idea of
micro-, meso-, and macrolevels in terms of understanding the various uses of learning
analytics. The institution in all its complexity is enmeshed with a set of infrastruc-
tures. Some of these are largely external to the institution and beyond institutional
control. Other aspects of infrastructure are closely aligned with institutional struc-
tures and increasingly there are new hybrid forms, such as cloud computing, that
combine an institutional aspect with a universal service. It is this complex set of
relationships that forms the basis of the next chapter.
References
Anderson, C. (2008). The end of theory, will the data deluge make the scientific method obsolete?
Edge. Retrieved from http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/anderson08/anderson08_index.html
Andrade, A., Ehlers, U. D., Caine, A., Carneiro, R., Conole, G., Kairamo, A. K., Holmberg, C.
(2011). Beyond OER: Shifting focus to open educational practices. Open Educational Quality
Initiative. Retrieved from https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/
OPAL2011.pdf
References 133
Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., Ravid, G., & Geva, A. (2003). Network analysis of knowledge construction in
asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 1–23.
Barber, M., Donnelly, K., and Ritzvi, S. (2013). An avalanche is coming: Higher education and the
revolution ahead. London: IPPR. Retrieved from http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/10432/
an-avalanche-is-coming-higher-education-and-the-revolution-ahead
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.). Buckingham, England:
SRHE and Open University Press.
Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication &
Society, 15(5), 662–679.
Brady, A. (2013). The MOOC moment and the end of reform. The New Inquiry. Retrieved from
http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/zunguzungu/the-mooc-moment-and-the-end-of-reform/
Braverman, H. (1974). Monopoly capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Brown, M. (2011). Learner analytics: The coming third wave. Educause Learning Initiative brief. Retrieved
from Apr, 2011, http://www.educause.edu/Resources/LearningAnalyticsTheComingThir/227287
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Buckingham Shum, S. (2012). Learning analytics. UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies
in Education (ITTE), Policy Brief. Moscow: UNESCO ITTE. Retrieved from http://iite.unesco.
org/pics/publications/en/files/3214711.pdf
Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open content and open educational
resources: Enabling universal education. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/469
Clarà, M., & Barberà, B. (2013a). Learning online: massive open online courses (MOOCs),
connectivism, and cultural psychology. Distance Education, 34(1), 129–136.
Clarà, M., & Barberà, B. (2013b). Three problems with the connectivist conception of learning.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 197–206. doi:10.1111/jcal.12040.
Collini, S. (2012). What are universities for? London: Penguin Press.
Conole, G. (2012). Fostering social inclusion through open educational resources (OER). Distance
Education, 33(2), 131–134.
Daniel, J. (2012). Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox and Possibility.
Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Retrieved from http://jime.open.ac.uk/2012/18
De Laat, M., & Schreurs, B. (2013). Visualizing informal professional development networks:
Building a case for learning analytics in the workplace. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10),
1421–1438.
De Laat, M. F., Schreurs, B., & Nijland, F. (2014). Communities of practice: Balancing openness,
networking and value creation. In R. F. Poell, T. S. Rocco, & G. L. Roth (Eds.), The Routledge
companion to human resource development. London: Routledge.
Deleuze, G., & Guatarri, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London:
University of Minnesota Press.
Downes, S. (2006). Learning networks and connective knowledge. Instructional Technology
Forum: Paper 92. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper92/paper92.html
Downes, S. (2007a). Learning networks in practice. In: Ley, D., (ed.) Emerging technologies for
learning. London: BECTA. Retrieved from http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/ctrl?acti
on=rtdoc&an=8913424&lang=en
Downes, S. (2013). On the three or four problems of Connectivism. Retrieved from http://halfan-
hour.blogspot.ca/2013/10/on-three-or-four-problems-of.html
edX (2012). UC Berkeley joins edX. Retrieved from https://www.edx.org/press/uc-berkeley-
joins-edx
Ehlers, U. D. (2011). From open educational resources to open educational practices. Elearning
Papers, 23, 1–8. Retrieved from http://openeducationeuropa.eu/en/paper/open-education-
changing-educational-practices
Enders, J. (2012). The university and the public and private good. In C. Teelken, G. Ferlie, &
M. Dent (Eds.), Leadership in the public sector: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 195–213). Abingdon,
England: Routledge.
Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice.
Berlin, Germany: Lehmanns Media.
134 5 Networked Learning and Institutions
Lorenz, C. (2012). If you’re so smart, why are you under surveillance? Universities, neoliberalism,
and new public management. Critical Inquiry, 38(3), 599–629.
Manta, I. D. (2011). The puzzle of criminal sanctions for intellectual property infringement.
Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 24(2), 469–518.
McCluskey, F., & Winter, M. (2012). The idea of the digital university: Ancient traditions, disrup-
tive technologies and the battle for the soul of higher education. Washington, DC: Policy
Studies Organisation/Westphalia Press.
Merton, R. K. (1942). The normative structure of science. In N. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of
science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–278). Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Meyer, R. (2012). What it’s like to teach a MOOC (and what the heck’s a MOOC?). Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/what-its-like-to-teach-a-mooc-
andwhat-the-hecks-a-mooc/260000/.
Miles, E., & Trott, W. (2011). Collaborative working. London: Institute for Government.
MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). (2011). MIT announces online learning initiative.
Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/mitx-education-initiative-1219.html.
Moocs@Edinburgh Group (2013). Moocs@Edinburgh Report #1. Retrieved from http://hdl.
handle.net/1842/6683
Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything click here: Technology, solutionism and the urge to fix
problems that don’t exist. London: Allen Lane.
Murphy, A. (2013). Open educational practices in higher education: Institutional adoption and
challenges. Distance Education, 34(2), 201–217.
Neilson, J., Pritchard, B., & Yeung, H. W. (2014). Global value chains and global production net-
works in the changing international political economy: An introduction. Review of International
Political Economy, 21(1), 1–8.
Norris, D.M., and Baer, L.L. (2013). Building organisational capacity for analytics. Boulder, CO:
Educause. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/building-organizational-
capacity-analytics
O’Connor, J. R. (1973). The fiscal crisis of the state. New York: St Martins Press.
Pegler, C. (2011). Reuse and repurposing of online digital learning resources within UK higher
education: 2003–2010. Ph.D. thesis, The Open University. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.
uk/32317/
Pegler, C. (2013). The influence of open resources on design practice. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe
(Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning (2nd ed.,
pp. 145–161). London: Routledge.
Perkin, H. (2007). History of universities. In J. Forest & P. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook
of higher education (pp. 159–205). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Phelan, L. (2012). Politics, practices, and possibilities of open educational resources. Distance
Education, 33(2), 279–282.
Piore, M. J., & Sabel, C. F. (1984). The second industrial divide: Possibilities for prosperity.
New York: Basic Books.
Pollock, N., & Cornford, J. (2004). ERP systems and the university as a “unique” organisation.
Information Technology & People, 17(1), 31–52.
Pollock, N., & Cornford, J. (2005). Implications of enterprise resource planning systems for univer-
sities: An analysis of benefits and risks. London: The Observatory on borderless education.
Pollock, N., Williams, R., & D’Adderio, L. (2007). Global software and its provenance:
Generification work in the production of organizational software packages. Social Studies of
Science, 37(2), 254–280.
Ritzer, G. (1993). The MacDonaldization of society. London: Sage.
Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption: The nature of capitalism
in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13–36.
Sclater, N. (2011). Open educational resources: Motivations, logistics and sustainability. In N. F.
Ferrer & J. M. Alonso (Eds.), Content management for E-learning (pp. 179–193). London:
Springer.
136 5 Networked Learning and Institutions
Sclater, N. (2014). Snooping professor or friendly don? The ethics of university learning analytics.
Conversation. Retrieved from 26 Feb, 2014, https://theconversation.com/snooping-professor-
or-friendly-don-the-ethics-of-university-learning-analytics-23636
Scott, J. C. (2006). The mission of the university: Medieval to postmodern transformations.
The Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 1–39.
Scott, S. V., & Wagner, E. L. (2003). Networks, negotiations, and new times: The implementation
of enterprise resource planning into an academic administration. Information and Organization,
13(4), 285–313.
Selwyn, N. (2014). Distrusting educational technology: Critical questions for changing times.
London: Routledge.
Shattock, M. (2010). Managing mass higher education in a period of austerity. Arts and Humanities
in Higher Education, 9(1), 22–30.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: a theory of learning for the digital age. International Journal
of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/
Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm
Siemens, G. (2012). What is the theory that underpins our MOOCs? Elearnspace [blog]. Retrieved from
http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/06/03/what-is-the-theory-that-underpins-our-moocs/
Siemens, G. (2013). Learning analytics: The emergence of a discipline. American Behavioral
Scientist, 57(10), 1380–1400.
Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013). Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. American
Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1510–1529.
Stuart, M., Grugulis, I., Tomlinson, J., Forde, C., & MacKenzie, R. (2013). Reflections on work
and employment into the 21st century: Between equal rights, force decides. Work Employment
Society, 27, 379–395.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. (2010). Innovating the 21st century university: It’s time. Educause
Review, 45(1), 17–29.
Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: William Morrow.
Universities UK (2013). Massive open online courses: Higher education’s digital moment?
Retrieved from http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2013/Massive
OpenOnlineCourses.pdf
EUA (European Universities Association) (2013). EUA’s Public Funding Observatory Report
Spring 2013. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/Libraries/Governance_Autonomy_Funding/
EUA_PFO_report_2013.sflb.ashx
van Barneveld, A., Arnold, K.E., & Campbell, J.P. (2012). Analytics in higher education:
Establishing a common language. ELI Paper 1. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3026.pdf
Wagner, E., & Newell, S. (2005). Making software work: Producing social order via problem
solving in a troubled ERP implementation. ICIS 2005 Proceedings. Paper 37. Retrieved from
http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2005/37
Weller, M. (2007). Virtual learning environments: Using, choosing and developing your VLE.
Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Wiley, D., Bliss, T. J., & McEwan, M. (2014). Open educational resources: A review of the litera-
ture. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on
educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 781–789). New York: Springer.
Willetts, D. (2013). Address to QAA “We need to talk about quality: MOOCs,” 8th July 2013.
QAA podcast. Retrieved from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/Podcasts/Transcripts/Pages/
David_Willetts_MOOCS_speech_8July2013.aspx
Wittrock, B. (2012). The modern university in its historical contexts: Rethinking three transformations.
In M. Feingold (Ed.), History of universities (pp. 199–226). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wolff, A., and Zdrahal, Z. (2012). Improving retention by identifying and supporting “at-risk”
students. EDUCAUSE Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/
improving-retention-identifying-and-supporting-risk-students
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York: Basic
Books.
Chapter 6
The Infrastructures
The most recent infrastructure understood in this way, and most relevant to net-
worked learning is the infrastructure that supports the Internet and the Web. As
Edwards notes infrastructures though generally unnoticed come into sharp focus
when they fail. This way of thinking can lead to infrastructure being thought of as
an object, a set of artefacts that are built and maintained that usually remain rela-
tively unscrutinised and simply provide the background to everyday life. In Chap. 4
I introduced the idea of sociomateriality and the way the material and the social
were intertwined and imbricated with each other. Infrastructure in my view is a
strong example of an aspect of contemporary life that is best understood in these
terms. For example the practices of academic staff and students in relation to their
personal mobile devices are conditioned by the infrastructural provision of institu-
tions and service providers. If a networked learning pedagogy envisages the incor-
poration of mobile devices then the provision of a robust wireless infrastructure is a
necessary precondition for such an approach to be successful.
Infrastructure also raises questions concerning levels of activity. Infrastructures
are beyond local, small-scale and short-term interactions at a microlevel and they
involve activity at scale and with a significant duration at either meso- or macrolev-
els. Strong conceptions of actor-network theory have been used to inform under-
standings of sociomateriality and these are resistant to accepting the idea of levels
(Latour 2005). I make the case later in this chapter for a relational understanding of
levels, which I contend is compatible with a sociomaterialist outlook. In the view I
outline meso- and macrolevels of activity are central to thinking about infrastructure
concerning networked learning. In educational settings it is common for local and
small-scale interaction to be dependent on decisions about the infrastructural provi-
sion for connectivity and network access made beyond individual classes in depart-
ments, faculties, universities and beyond. Increasingly networked learning is less
reliant on single ‘lone ranger’ innovators and it has become more dependent on
collective actors, universities, governmental institutions and the corporate sector.
The first university course I researched in terms of networked learning the mid-
1990s was the initiative of a sole academic and it ran on a single basic Apple desk-
top PC running First Class computer conferencing (Jones and Cawood 1998; Jones
1998). The course relied on several infrastructural provisions, including computer
labs and the university’s dial in network for remote access, however it was very
much a personal innovation. Currently many academics still experiment with novel
and innovative ways of providing networked learning. However in contemporary
conditions there is an increased dependency on a range of infrastructural provisions,
from wireless connectivity to single sign on to a variety of university services
including remote access to resources via libraries to e-journals and books. Even the
selection of essential collaborative software has become centralised such that
courses designed with the features of one LMS in mind can be significantly altered
by a university level decision to move from one LMS provider to another. The infra-
structure in education has both a technical and a social character and the activity of
individual academic innovators is conditioned by the kinds of infrastructures for
learning that are provided for them.
Infrastructure 139
Infrastructure
Star and Ruhleder (1996) argue that infrastructure is something that emerges for
people in practice, and it is connected to activities and structures. This suggests a
relational understanding of infrastructure and one that is similar to the argument
presented in Chap. 2 about affordances. An infrastructure only emerges in relation
to those who use it and their purposes in the context of organised practices. Star and
Ruhleder:
…hold that infrastructure is a fundamentally relational concept. It becomes infrastructure
in relation to organized practices. Within a given cultural context, the cook considers the
water system a piece of working infrastructure integral to making dinner; for the city plan-
ner, it becomes a variable in a complex equation. Thus we ask, when—not what—is an
infrastructure. (Star and Ruhleder 1996, p. 113)
Information Infrastructures
I have been writing about infrastructure generally, in ways that include the electric-
ity supply, road and rail systems and a variety of other physical systems. In this
section I want to develop a little further the idea of infrastructure that is of greater
relevance to networked learning, the infrastructure based on digital and networked
technologies. The most commonly used term for this kind of infrastructure is an
information infrastructure:
Superadded to the term ‘information,’ infrastructure refers loosely to digital facilities and
services usually associated with the internet: computational services, help desks, and data
repositories to name a few. In the same vein but in a broader sweep, the Global Information
Infrastructure (GII) refers to worldwide information and communication systems that pro-
cess and transport data inside and outside national boundaries. (Bowker et al. 2010, p. 98)
It is this self-governing capacity to monitor and regulate that gives software its
governing power and suggests that code not only reflects the world but shapes it.
Relevant to the use of infrastructure in this chapter is the level Kitchen and Dodge
identify as the coded assemblage, which comprises more than one infrastructure and
includes both those elements that use coded process and those that do not.
Coded assemblages occur where several different coded infrastructures converge, working
together—in nested systems or in parallel, some using coded processes and others not—and
become integral to one another over time in producing particular environments, such as
automated warehouses, hospitals, transport systems, and supermarkets. For example, the
combined coded infrastructures and coded processes of billing, ticketing, check-in, bag-
gage routing, security screening, customs, immigration, air traffic control, airplane instru-
ments, and so on work together to create a coded assemblage that defines and produces
airports and passenger air travel (Kitchen and Dodge 2011, p. 7).
The initial concept of an infrastructure that I have introduced has now been
extended into the digital and network domain and to both information and knowledge.
It points towards the out-of-sight, naturalised elements that allow the normal practices
of learning and education to take place. It suggests that to research networked learning
an infrastructural inversion is necessary—to make visible that which usually resides
in the background. It also suggests an evolutionary parallel with the development of
technology because infrastructure also has a modular and evolutionary pattern of
development (Arthur 2009). An evolutionary perspective, allows for change to take
place in modular elements within an infrastructure in a gradual way that can occasion-
ally lead to rapid change in a form of punctuated equilibrium (Eldridge and Gould
1972; Gould 2007). There are some additional key ideas that arise from research
arising from this conception of infrastructure that are especially relevant to net-
worked learning. At a general level infrastructures are emergent systems that rely
on: (a) scale, (b) transfer and translation from one time or place to another (c) stan-
dards and protocols to provide gateways forming networks, internetworks and Webs
between heterogeneous systems (Jackson et al. 2007).
This view of infrastructure as having a long duration stands in contrast to the
revolutionary rhetoric that often surrounds new technologies (see for example
Barber et al. 2013; Tapscott and Williams 2010). A key issue identified by examin-
ing sociotechnical systems as infrastructures is the question of time. Infrastructures
are often modular and develop incrementally (in their parts and sub-systems) as
much as they do by way of sharp periods of change. As infrastructures develop they
can face points at which significant choices have to be made that depend on prior
decisions and historical inheritances. Once the choice has been taken the effects are
then evident as the infrastructure develops further.
…one needs to elaborate more of a theory of path-dependency in higher education institu-
tions. With this, one might reach a new understanding about the extent to which learning the
‘new, new thing’ necessarily borrows from the past. This would engender an appreciation
of the continuity of adaptation processes, to complement the one-sided emphasis on discon-
tinuity and change that now prevails in the literature. (Krücken 2003, p. 334)
The final linked point is about the importance of lock-in, the kind of inertia that
affects infrastructure once a technology has been adopted. Such an approach does not
dismiss occasional radical change, but as with natural evolution infrastructural change
has a pattern of punctuated equilibrium (Eldridge and Gould 1972; Gould 2007).
Edwards et al. (2013) summarised the evolutionary nature of infrastructural change:
Key to the infrastructure perspective is their modular, multilayered, rough-cut character.
Infrastructures are not systems, in the sense of fully coherent, deliberately engineered, end-
to-end processes. Rather, infrastructures are ecologies or complex adaptive systems; they
consist of numerous systems, each with unique origins and goals, which are made to inter-
operate by means of standards, socket layers, social practices, norms, and individual behav-
iors that smooth out the connections among them. This adaptive process is continuous, as
individual elements change and new ones are introduced—and it is not necessarily always
successful. (Edwards et al. 2013, p. 5)
Punctuated equilibrium allows for periods of rapid change in this kind of evolu-
tionary process and as such it provides a distinctly different view of change to
claims of radical or revolutionary ruptures determined by technological change.
Information Infrastructures 143
Because these systems are emergent their histories are critical to their development
and the way change happens in infrastructures can be described in terms of (a) starting
conditions, (b) path dependency and (c) lock-in. These ideas suggest that very minor
differences in the start conditions for a process can lead to significant differences in
outcomes. If I take an example from one of the change processes I was involved in
at The Open University I can illustrate some of these points. The university began a
process of change under the banner of the OU VLE (The Open University Virtual
Learning Environment) in 2004. A report was published and a change manager
appointed in 2005 at the same time that I began my appointment at the university
(Sclater 2008a). The OU VLE was a large-scale institutional change that aimed to
deploy new tools and technologies (e.g. blogs, wikis and e-portfolio tools) and the
integration of a range of existing tools and technologies into a recognisable and uni-
fied whole. The start conditions were important because the initial report that sets
the projects start conditions envisaged an open, service-oriented architecture based
around web services however this was amended after the Phase 1 project setting out
the aims was concluded to focus on providing the backbone of the new OU VLE
using the open source Moodle LMS. This decision was then ratified when the new
Director of the OU VLE project was appointed. The process was path dependent
and the decision to adopt Moodle then had a series of knock-on consequences. Path
dependency is the condition in which what happens next is related to what happened
previously. These may not be start conditions but also include events that take place
at various points over an infrastructure’s history. I noted in an evaluation report on
the process that the Moodle platform was a course-based system and in many ways
it was based on the metaphor of the lone academic, or a small course team produc-
ing and presenting courses to a cohort of students in a relatively simple and small-
scale process. This was of course radically different to the large-scale distance
processes embedded in The Open University and it required the OU to revise and
customise Moodle and for the university to amend procedures when Moodle
couldn’t cheaply or efficiently be amended.
Where Moodle was deficient was in the actual tools within it, as the functionalities of the
tools were very basic. It was also very much designed for—in effect—classroom online. It’s
a single academic teaching to a cohort of students. Everything’s based around the course
rather than the individual student. So it’s teaching to a cohort rather than to an individual,
so a lot of the work has gone in developing, for example, a much more sophisticated roles
and permissions capability. There really are only three roles administrator, instructor, and
student, but we have multiple roles and we want people to play the way we’ve used confer-
encing. For example, the First Class system where a tutor might want to group a number of
students together, multiple ways of aligning students together, and we have got eight differ-
ent models that the conference infrastructures within First Class [allow], that course teams
part pay for and get set up, so it was really extending that—which allowed it to fit better to
our other teaching model. (Open University Senior Manager)
The process also illustrated the lock-in effect of previous systems. The FirstClass
computer conferencing system was replaced on courses by Moodle, but FirstClass
was also the system that was used for student email for over 200,000 students.
It took several years to migrate student email out of FirstClass, which was eventu-
ally achieved by adopting a Google mail solution. The OU example illustrates how
large-scale institutional processes concerning infrastructure impact on the boundaries
144 6 The Infrastructures
within which courses are planned and designed and they also impacted on the
possibilities for the interpersonal engagement and connections necessary for net-
worked learning.
There are numerous examples of lock-in in education in the Learning Management
Systems, library systems and administrative systems that have been adopted by a
university at one point in time that remain in place, not because they are the best
available option, but because the costs in effort and resources involved in exiting the
system is too much to contemplate. Lock-in can involve the economic costs in terms
of vendor lock-in, but it can also involve network effects such as the lock-in involved
in the widespread use of the QWERTY keyboard (David 1985). The QWERTY key-
board illustrates most of the issues of lock-in. Although not universal because it is
transferred and translated into a variety of national (e.g. AZERTY, QWERTZ) and
technological contexts (Computer keyboard), the open standard remains prevalent.
The start condition was ensuring that the most used keys did not lock up a manual
typewriter, but once set out these start conditions led to infrastructural outcomes
involving both technologies and practices that make the replacement of the standard
keyboard impractical, despite better keyboards having been designed and marketed.
Infrastructures are in these ways historical phenomena that need to be understood
using concepts that capture these large-scale processes.
like those mentioned above (i.e. electric power at a certain voltage, access to telephone
networks, water in a pipe, etc.) (Hanseth and Lundberg 2001, p. 348)
This usage of the term infrastructures for learning has similar characteristics to
the discussion of infrastructures in general, but it has a specific relationship to the
practices of education, learning and the development of knowledge. Guribye has
argued that infrastructures for learning, unlike either universal service infrastruc-
tures or work oriented infrastructures, are commonly designed by a variety of actors
and not simply engineers or their users (Guribye 2005). To add to this complexity I
have previously argued that infrastructures for learning are becoming increasingly
intertwined with universal service architectures (Jones and Dirckinck-Holmfeld
2009). The experience I had of moving student email at The Open University from
local provision using FirstClass to a Gmail service provided a strong example of
this. At one level this intertwining of universal infrastructures with learning is
beyond the scope of the institution and it concerns the use of search engines, social
networks and some more closely aligned universal services such as Google Scholar.
At another level there are now universal services that have been incorporated in
institutional settings such as in the institutional adoption and often branding of ser-
vices. These developments are blurring the lines between institutional infrastruc-
tures in the form of ‘walled gardens’ and the universal provision of infrastructure
that characterises social life in general.
It should be noted that the term infrastructure has been used by other authors in
relation to learning but in significantly different ways (Bielaczyc 2001, 2006;
Lakkala et al. 2008, 2010). Lakkala et al. make an explicit reference to the notion of
infrastructure in the way it has been developed in this chapter, but they locate the
level of activity quite differently because they do not consider infrastructure to be a
matter of scale.
In a complex learning setting, the elements that build affordances for students’ actions, designed
by the teacher or based on the conventions of the educational institution, can similarly be said
to consist of components that form a pedagogical infrastructure to afford and facilitate certain
types of learning activity. Pedagogical infrastructure mediates cultural practices and directs
students’ activity both explicitly and implicitly… (Lakkala et al 2008, p. 37)
These authors use infrastructure mainly to indicate the way aspects of the setting
fade into the background and they offer frameworks for the use of design features to
146 6 The Infrastructures
increase the visibility of these factors. Bielaczyc (2001, 2006) concentrates on four
dimensions of social infrastructure in the classroom including cultural beliefs, prac-
tices, socio-techno-spatial relations and interaction with the outside world. Lakkala
et al. (2008) expand on this by introducing further components including a cognitive
infrastructure. Infrastructure in both of these accounts is at a local classroom or
course level of design. This use of infrastructure in the context of learning does not
engage with the idea that infrastructures bridge between the local and global. Nor
do these authors consider infrastructure as consisting of large historical systems set
at a different levels of scale to local micro interactions. The differences between this
microlevel of pedagogic design in the classroom and the concept of infrastructure
used in this chapter are explored below in relation to the idea of scale and the terms
micro, meso and macro applied to different levels (Jones et al. 2006; Jones and
Dirckinck-Holmfeld 2009).
I have argued previously that networked learning needs to attend to the different
levels of sociomaterial organisation that can be described using the terms micro-
meso-macro (Jones et al. 2006; Jones and Dirckinck-Holmfeld 2009). The meso-
level is of particular interest in the context of this chapter because it is institutions
and infrastructures that are most commonly identified as being at the meso- or mac-
rolevel of organisations and the mesolevel is the one which is most open to routine
collective action. Often research in distance learning and educational technology
has focused on the learning that takes place in the classroom and at the level of small
groups, courses and modules, with limited attention being placed on macro- and
mesolevel issues (Zawacki-Richter 2009). A similar limitation can be seen in those
fields of research that are most closely related to networked learning such as
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning in which the focus has often been on
collaboration in small groups (Stahl 2006). Overall this primary focus on the local
and micro is not a universal pattern and there are good examples of approaches
which link different levels of analysis. For example in CSCL:
The understanding of collaborative learning requires both a microanalysis of group interactions
and a macro analysis with regard to the socio-cultural context in which learning occurs.
(Dillenbourg in Strijbos et al. 2004, p. xvii)
The mesolevel helps to differentiate between the actions of persons and the activity
of organisations, institutions and infrastructures and large-scale and at times global
processes that extend over significant distances and times. This analytic focus can
148 6 The Infrastructures
Although they do not use the term mesolevel I think their reflections on CSCW
research are relevant to both networked learning and CSCL. The focus of their paper
is on the conception of Information Infrastructures which was introduced earlier in
this chapter (Hanseth et al 1996; Bowker 1996; Bowker et al. 2010). They argue that
when research focuses on a single locale or a specific time period important influ-
ences from other levels and other moments in time during the design and evolution-
ary processes may be lost. To counter this restricted research focus they suggest
supplementing the local view with what they describe as an extended design per-
spective. The idea of extended design is intended to examine how technologies are
shaped across multiple contexts and over extended periods of time. The conclusions
they draw from their review are as applicable to networked learning and CSCL as
they are to CSCW. They suggest that CSCW would benefit from being moved away
from restricted and specialised forms of cooperation to a more open agenda with a
new research emphasis on infrastructural problems. Early CSCW research drew
attention to the gap between formalised representations of organisational processes
and the actual diversity of circumstances. They also drew attention to the difficulties
of formalising the heterogeneity in organisational practices, which were so serious
that in some cases systems had to be built around the unique circumstances of
Infrastructure and Levels 149
provider. The meso nature of infrastructures for learning arises from their activity in
bridging between educational and technical requirements which are often set at a
national or global level and the day-to-day operations of educational activity, taking
place in classrooms, Learning Management Systems and libraries. It is the rela-
tional position of infrastructures at points of negotiation that have a potential for
design that makes them so important for networked learning.
Institutional Infrastructures
Weller defines an LMS/ VLE as a software system that combines aspects of the
delivery of materials and of communication with the latter being clearly identified
as enabling facilitation of learning around content. Weller describes the tensions
between these aspects of delivery and communication in the LMS/VLE as being
between the broadcast and discussion viewpoints (Weller 2007). In this way the
technological features of the LMS/VLE mirror the broader debate between trans-
mission models of learning and participative models. Sfard (1998) for example has
discussed these issues in terms of two metaphors for learning and argued that there
is a danger in just choosing one. The contrast Sfard makes is between what she calls
an ‘acquisition’ metaphor and a ‘participation’ metaphor, but like Weller she argues
that the metaphors are not mutually exclusive and that real strength lies in combining
the two perspectives rather than relying on one.
Weller (2010) has also argued that there is a cyclical trend in the organisational
adoption of LMS/VLE with the cycle moving between centralisation and decen-
tralisation in institutional systems. From the early decentralised ‘Lone Ranger’ and
‘Boutique’ approaches to innovation (Bates 1995; Taylor 1999) the cycle moved on
to greater centralisation and institutional provision of the LMS/VLE. The context
for Weller’s article was the challenge to these centralised systems by Web 2.0 tech-
nologies and services (Sclater 2008b). Web 2.0 environments seemed to offer
greater choice and the possibility of personalisation in learning and Web 2.0 pro-
vided a contrast to the institutional and centralised approach embedded in the LMS/
VLE systems provided by most universities. Sclater noted that Weller had argued
that the LMS/VLE as a large application was unsustainable and that the future pro-
vision of services by universities was likely to be an assemblage of a range of com-
ponents built by different companies or projects which interacted with each other
over the Internet (or an intranet) via web services in the form of a distributed learning
environment (Sclater 2008b).
Weller (2010) usefully summarised the choices that arise between the centralised
LMS/VLE and more personalised systems in terms of a cyclical process moving
between centralisation and decentralisation. Weller himself is personally identified
with the advocacy of decentralised and personalised systems but he concludes that
a fully individualised personal learning environment (PLE) may not be either pos-
sible or desirable in higher education. The fundamental issue identified by Weller as
placing a systemic restriction on the full development of personalisation and decen-
tralisation is the need for institutional control in higher education. Previously Brown
and Duguid (2000) had identified what they considered to be the core functions of
universities as ‘Degree Granting Bodies’. They argued that it is because universities
need to maintain this core function (by providing credentials, such as degrees and
certificates, and standing behind these awards by warranting the procedures) that
152 6 The Infrastructures
centralised control is maintained and essential to the university’s mission. The cyclical
movement between centralisation and decentralisation described by Weller is
related to both technological change and the political and institutional choices made
in relation to this core social function of the university.
Weller also noted some of the disadvantages of assembling a learning environment
from many sources noting student confusion with multiple systems and log-ins
and the concerns of teaching staff that the system was an unstable assembly of
components only loosely aggregated together. He concluded that:
There is clearly a balance to be struck between using pedagogically appropriate tools, giving
students experience of a range of tools while also ensuring the proliferation of technologies
do not become a barrier to learning. (Weller 2010, p. 5)
In the footnote that accompanies this quote Lewthwaite noted that many of the
students she studied used communal computing facilities but that for students using
assistive technologies, especially those requiring privacy such as voice recognition,
assistive technology was provided in specialised suites that required advance book-
ing or face-to-face contact to collect a key. Other students when they were doing
serious work relied on a specialised screen in their residence even when they had a
portable device. These issues when taken together make disabled students particu-
larly reliant on a stable university infrastructure both on campus and in university
residences. The issues raised by the institutional need for rough equality of experi-
ence between students will be taken up again in the following section in relation to
universal service infrastructures.
The idea of a personal learning environment rests on assembling together for insti-
tutional purposes services that are available generally to the public outside of the
institutional boundaries. The kinds of services that are (at least in principle) avail-
able to all have been described as universal service infrastructures by Hanseth and
Lundberg (2001). At a fundamental level networked learning is based on the avail-
ability of a universal infrastructure provided by the Internet and the Web. When
Hiltz and Turoff wrote Network Nation in 1978 their work was prescient because it
was written in a world in which computers were not on the desktop and networks
Universal Service Infrastructures 153
were mainly separated from each other not interconnected into an Internet (Hiltz
and Turoff 1978). Indeed the revised edition in 1993 only contains five references to
the Internet and only two in the main body of the text. Both of these references men-
tion events following the first edition. The infrastructure they refer to in this early
book is based on computer conferencing systems, some of which were designed by
Turoff himself, and the social forms that were enabled by them, which were envis-
aged in terms of online community. Hiltz and Turoff (1978), even at this early stage
argued that:
…to understand computer mediated communications at all, you must see them as a social
process. (Hiltz and Turoff 1978, p. 27)
The Web changed the possibilities available via the Internet by the inclusion of
simple access to multimedia resources. However the Web developed some other
ways that can be seen as negative and Manovich (2001) for example drew attention
to the preprogrammed nature of the software which prompted the user to select from
predefined options which could restrict choices and interactions with media form
and content. The infrastructure of the Internet prior to the Web was seen in terms of
a communication network and the educational applications focused on communica-
tion, collaboration and community. In contrast the Web had been designed as a
means to access resources (Berners-Lee and Fischetti 1999). Commenting on its
original design Berners Lee reported that it was originally called Enquire, derived
from Enquire within Upon Everything, a Victorian book his parents had kept at
home. It led to his notion for a portal to a world of information:
The vision I have for the Web is about anything being potentially connected to anything
(Berners-Lee and Fischetti 1999, p. 1)
154 6 The Infrastructures
cultural codes of the new Social Media are not necessarily conducive to education
as Friesen and Lowe note:
These services [Twitter and Facebook], by design, clearly serve interests and priorities
other than (and in many cases opposed to) those of learning. If anything, they represent a
new way of selling viewers to advertisers, rather than a ‘2.0’ version of social or connective
learning or education. (Friesen and Lowe 2012, p. 193)
The cultural codes framing interaction in Social Media are not educational in
origin and set priorities that might even threaten the forms of dialogue central to the
idea and practice of networked learning.
One of the key claims in educational literature concerning Web 2.0 has been the
potential for participation and the development of a participatory culture in Web 2.0
environments (Jenkins 2009). The participatory aspects of Web 2.0 technologies are
seen as having a connection to the participation metaphor of Sfard (1998) and the
knowledge building approaches of Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006), and knowledge
construction of Paavola and Hakkarainen (2005). Lewis et al. (2010) argue that
social media in learning may offer the potential to foster collaborations at scale and
in tighter time cycles. However these potentials rely on the capacity of commercial
social networks to be supportive of educational priorities and aims because as
Friesen and Lowe noted the participatory metaphor may sometimes obscure the
commercial interests of the service suppliers, who are more interested in users data
than in genuine participation. Furthermore Web 2.0 and educational practices may
implicitly represent divergent understandings of knowledge and learning because
education implicitly embodies the acquisition metaphor of learning whereas Web
2.0 embodies the participation metaphor (Dohn 2009). Participation may also be
something of a minority activity as the long tail characteristic of scale-free networks
implies that only a small number of active users will participate fully whereas a
large number of other users will participate at very low levels (see Chap. 4).
Personally I tend to agree with Goodyear et al (2014) who argue that the opposition
drawn by Dohn between Web 2.0 and education is excessive and binary and follow-
ing Sfard they argue that education requires the use of both participation and acqui-
sition metaphors (Sfard 1998). Web 2.0 can be seen as tilting the balance towards
participation but in a way that is not in contradiction with educational practice, even
though it embodies commercial rather than educational priorities. The architecture
of participation is an architecture of scale and Web 2.0 suggests that the value of a
service increases with the number of users that share that service. As a consequence
design in Web 2.0 may need to take place at the level of the social and technical
infrastructures in which participatory cultures and new forms of collaboration take
place (Fischer and Giaccardi 2006).
The specific design of sites and digital architectures are recognised as increas-
ingly important in understanding social practice in Web 2.0 environments. Design
has become a focus of attention in cultural studies of Social Media (Boyd 2011;
Papacharissi 2009, 2011; Zhang and Wang 2010 and Langlois et al. 2009; Langlios
2011). These authors draw attention to the infrastructure of communication and how
Social Media are configured by the wider technological infrastructure, software
engineers and Web designers and that Social Media are part of a wider network
156 6 The Infrastructures
ecology in which their designs embody a politics reflecting the strategic decision
making of particular interests (Jones 2013). Boyd (2011) examined the intermesh-
ing of digital network infrastructures and contemporary networked social forms and
argued that the emergence of networked publics is related to the architectural fea-
tures and potential affordances of digitally networked media. Papacharissi (2011)
suggests that these digital architectures provide a conceptual lens to explore struc-
tural differences in the ways digital technologies relate to practice. She defines the
architecture of virtual spaces as the ‘composite result of structure, design and organ-
isation’ (Papacharissi 2009, p. 205). Langlois argues that:
…we should not focus on the content of what users are saying online, but rather on the
conditions within which such a thing as user expression is possible in the first place. That
is, this article argues that we should focus less on signification, and more on the question of
regimes of the production and circulation of meaning. (Langlios 2011, p. 1)
The implication of this approach is that users of Social Media have to learn to
work within the constraints and possibilities of the designed media infrastructure
(Boyd 2011).
Zhang and Wang (2010) illustrate the ways variations in the features found on
various sites interweave with practice. Zhang and Wang (2010) analysed two differ-
ent Chinese Social Network Sites (SNS) (Douban.com and Xianonei.com) and con-
sidered the implications specific design features had for different types of networking
activity, in particular forms of collective action. Zhang and Wang argued that collec-
tive action was related to the crossing of public and private boundaries and that the
two sites provided users with different means for privacy control with important
implications for the nature of the networked connections that were forged. Zhang
and Wang compared Douban, which took the form of an interest-orientated SNS
and encouraged new ties amongst strangers with Xiaonei, which had a relationship-
orientated form which supported the formation of strong ties. Zhang and Wang’s
analysis of the technical design of the sites showed that there was an interactive
process between the actual use of the two sites and their structures. Structural fea-
tures encouraged certain patterns of practice, but active users interpreted and inter-
acted with the site structures in ways that reflected both individual differences and
organisational and collective purposes and processes.
The comments about the technical design of SNS may remind readers of the
discussion of technological features and affordances (Chap. 2) and the importance
of indirect design in networked learning (Chap. 3). The relationship between pat-
terns of interaction and the structural features of a designed infrastructure for learn-
ing are areas that are beginning to receive some attention. Williamson (2015) argued
that there were two emerging developments in educational governance requiring
empirical documentation and analysis. The first of these were the network structures
that criss-crossed borders and boundaries between education, politics and digital
R&D. Secondly he drew attention to the way this system of dispersed governance
was related to the delegated forms of ‘socio-algorithmic’ and ‘zero-touch’ proce-
dures that involve massive data collection and machine learning in the anticipation
and formation of future subjectivities. Networked learning needs to describe and
Universal Service Infrastructures 157
The key in relation to this chapter is that the use of universal service infrastructures
carries risks for educational provision in general and the development of networked
learning in particular. Although social networks are becoming essential to student
life (See Chap. 8) not all students have the same access to them. The danger of
infrastructures developed outside education being used widely within an educa-
tional context is that they introduce an unnecessary digital divide. Lewthwaite also
points out that social networks redefine some divides:
…the networks represent a redefinition of dis/ability, where some students with impairments
experience non-disabled subjectivities, or may adopt non-disabled interactions. As a result,
however, diversity remains suppressed, arguably leading to a situation where an exclusion-
ary divide is maintained and those who are unable or unwilling to access the networked
public are further marginalised. In this respect, students disabled by the network are doubly
disadvantaged as disability is rendered invisible and the digital and social divide of the
network is reinforced. (Lewthwaite 2011, p. 346)
158 6 The Infrastructures
One of the ways the distinction between the kinds of universal service infrastructures
represented by Social Media is being blurred is in the institutional adoption of infra-
structures. Not in the way discussed above, in which educational practice includes
technologies universally available but by an active organisational adoption of insti-
tutional variants of what otherwise might be universal. These hybrids of institu-
tional and universal services can make provision for some of the deficiencies
identified in universal provision, but they also present a danger because they can
act as a Trojan horse introducing external commercial interests and objectives into
educational institutions.
Hybrid Infrastructures
The kind of change that took place with the introduction of the DNER/IE was
described by the evaluation team as a kind of punctuated equilibrium with discon-
tinuous change that would be difficult in terms of staff development and organisa-
tional planning. This was because the patterns of change varied in different
disciplines and with the different technologies, because adoption or enthusiasm for
Cloud Computing and Hybrid Infrastructures 159
one technology did not automatically transfer to another (Kemp and Jones 2007).
The DNER/IE was an example of a large-scale infrastructural development at a
national scale involving both institutional and universal service infrastructures.
A second example of these developments of hybrid infrastructures is in the
spread of national and international academic networks. Often led by research con-
cerns the backbone infrastructures that universities rely on are now supplied by a
mixture of government initiatives and corporate sector developments (Abbate
2010). This was the outcome of a choice between a government sponsored system
and a privatised Internet which led to a set of unintended consequences because the
Internet itself had to be privatised prior to a process of re-regulation:
Perhaps the most important historical lesson is that virtually all the visions cherished by
participants were abandoned or transformed. Scientists did not get a special-purpose, inte-
grated computing system. Commercialization did not solve the congestion problem that had
been a major rationale for privatization. (Abbate 2010, p. 19)
There are also concerns about the storage of sensitive staff and student data and
to deal with this issue some universities have resorted to blanket bans on the use of
cloud services. The concerns about data storage are of particular concern where
there are different legal regimes in place where the service is accessed and where
the data is stored, for example if storage is located in the United States and the ser-
vice is accessed within the EU with its own strict data protection laws. Such con-
cerns have of course recently been exacerbated by the Snowden revelations about
government surveillance by the NSA in the United States and GCHQ in the United
Kingdom. Cloud service providers are of course keen to claim that student data will
be held in compliance with local laws, and generally companies have privacy poli-
cies which restrict or prohibit data sharing with third parties and data mining of
individuals’ information, but as the Google data mining case shows, such assur-
ances cannot be taken at face value (Hern 2014). Furthermore large corporate sup-
pliers of cloud services are not immune from service disruptions and a single cloud
supplier is potentially a single point of failure, even if the data centres themselves
are distributed (Sclater 2010). Importantly there are still accessibility issues for dis-
abled users, demonstrated by tests at the OU (UK) particularly with regard to screen
readers, and in addition both Google and Microsoft systems do not function equally
well on all Web browsers (Sclater 2010). There are also lingering usability issues
that may be addressed in later versions of HTML, such as the ability to drag a docu-
ment from the desktop to a Web browser window.
Cloud computing when incorporated with university systems in a hybrid infra-
structure can offer some significant advantages in terms of cost, dealing with uneven
demand, and the potential for scalability. However for institutional reasons the tech-
nical availability of cloud computing has to be balanced against the needs of the
university in providing services to all potential students regardless of variations in
ability and the need to provide secure data storage that respects staff and student
requirements for confidentiality. These university requirements are not necessarily
at the forefront of the issues that suppliers and designers confront when developing
commercial services and universities have a number of significant choices to make
if they wish to make use of the commercial benefits of cloud computing.
Conclusions
tangible effects. Digital and network infrastructures are in this way twice invisible
being both hidden in the background and dependent on relatively invisible code.
Digital and network infrastructures have an historical dimension because infrastruc-
tures are emergent and evolve over time. In particular infrastructures display char-
acteristics that can be described as path dependency and lock-in. That is small
differences in the start conditions of an infrastructure can lead to large divergences
in terms of outcomes and the features that are highly contingent in their origins can
become fixed and very difficult to change once the infrastructure is established.
Infrastructures also require standards and processes of standardisation to allow for
extension and interconnectivity of infrastructural elements. The demands for stan-
dardisation can be implicated in an organisational pressure to centralise and a dia-
lectical tension between centralisation and decentralisation rooted both in
technological requirements and separately in New Public Management strategies
promoting the idea of ‘freedom within boundaries’ (Hoggett 1991).
The complex nature of infrastructures and their emergent properties imply the
need to examine infrastructures in terms of time and scale. This chapter has argued
that the mesolevel, sitting between top-down and bottom-up is the most productive
location for future analysis and research and I have argued that research on infra-
structure needs to be focused on multiple contexts and research studies that take
place across locations and involve analyses that have a longer temporal duration.
Discriminating between different levels of scale involves qualitative differences
between levels and the adoption of a relational standpoint because levels do not
exist alone but only in relation to each other. The chapter has identified areas key for
research in CSCW that are also relevant to networked learning from the work of
Monteiro et al (2013). These include aspects of cloud computing and the provision
of Software as a Service (SaaS), ideas about social computing that integrate hybrid-
human computer information systems, and the establishment of platforms for eco-
systems/ecologies (e.g. Apple App Store, iTunes etc). Infrastructures generally
occur at meso- and macrolevels and they are concerned with more complex systems
than artefacts, tools and devices. However in the context of networked learning it is
mesolevel systems that are institutionally, professionally or sectorally bounded
which are the primary focus. Infrastructures for learning are most likely to be found
at a mesolevel, bridging between educational and technical requirements which are
often set at a national or global level and day-to-day educational activity. It is the
mesolevel relationships of infrastructures for learning that make them so important
for networked learning and the design of networked learning settings.
The relationships between infrastructures for learning and institutions are becom-
ing more complex. Universities have incorporated open source and commercially
provided systems to manage various key functions and some of these are more or
less institutionally bounded, even when they have a more or less global reach. The
current dominance of Learning Management Systems such as Blackboard and
Moodle are examples of these kinds of institutional infrastructures. Some universal
services have also been incorporated into the institutional practices of educational
institutions and the use of search engines such as Google and the more specific
searches via Google Scholar are examples of this kind of integration. There are also
References 163
References
Abbate, J. (2010). Privatizing the internet: Competing visions and chaotic events, 1987–1995.
IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 32(1), 10–23.
Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. London: Allen Lane.
Atkins, D. E., Droegemeier, K. K., Feldman, S. I., Garcia-Molina, H., Klein, M. L., &
Messerschmitt, D. G., et al. (2003). Revolutionizing science and engineering through
Cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel
on Cyberinfrastructure. NSF. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10150/106224
Barber, M., Donnelly, K., & Ritzvi, S. (2013). An avalanche is coming: Higher education and the
revolution ahead. London: IPPR. Retrieved from http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/10432/
an-avalanche-is-coming-higher-education-and-the-revolution-ahead
Barbera, E., Gros, B., & Kirschner, P. (2014). Paradox of time in research on educational technology.
Time and Society. Retrieved from Mar 2014, 10.1177/0961463X14522178
Bates, A. W. (1995). Technology, open learning and distance education. London: Routledge.
Berners-Lee, T., & Fischetti, M. (1999). Weaving the web: The original design and ultimate destiny
of the world wide Web, by its inventor. New York: Harper Collins.
Bielaczyc, K. (2001). Designing social infrastructure: The challenge of building computer-
supported learning communities. In P. Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.),
European perspectives on computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 106–114). The
Proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in creating learning environments
with technology. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301–329.
Bowker, G. C. (1996). The history of information infrastructures: The case of the international
classification of disease. Information Processing & Management, 32(1), 39–61.
164 6 The Infrastructures
Bowker, G. C., Baker, K., Millerand, F., & Ribes, D. (2010). Toward information infrastructure
studies: Ways of knowing in a networked environment. In J. Hunsinger, L. Klastrup, & M. Allen
(Eds.), International handbook of internet research (pp. 97–117). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer.
boyd, D. (2011). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implica-
tions. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social
network sites (pp. 39–58). London: Routledge.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business
School.
Collis, B. (2002). Information technology for education and training. In H. H. Adelsberger,
B. Collis, & J. M. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook on information technologies for education and
training (pp. 1–20). New York: Springer.
David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75(2),
332–337.
Demchenko, Y., van der Ham, J., Ngo, C., De Laat, C., Matselyukh, T., & Escalona, E., et al.
(2013). Open cloud exchange (OCX): Architecture and functional components. IEEE
International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science. Retrieved from http://
ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/home.jsp
Dohn, N. (2009). Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. International
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 343–363.
Dohn, N. (2010). Teaching with wikis and blogs: Potentials and pitfalls. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld,
V. Hodgson, C. Jones, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Networked Learning, (pp. 142–150), Aalborg, Denmark, 3–4 May 2010.
Lancaster, England: Lancaster University.
Dopfer, K., Foster, J., & Potts, J. (2004). Micro meso macro. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,
14, 263–279.
Ducate, L., & Lomicka, L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog writers.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 9–28.
Dysthe, O., & Engelsen, K. S. (2011). Portfolio practices in higher education in Norway in an
international perspective: Macro‐, meso‐ and micro‐level influences. Assessment & Evaluation
in Higher Education, 36(1), 63–79.
Edwards, P. N. (2010). A vast machine: Computer models, climate data, and the politics of global
warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Edwards, R., & Carmichael, P. (2012). Secret codes: The hidden curriculum of semantic web
technologies. Discourse, 33(4), 575–590.
Edwards, P. N., Jackson, S. J., Chalmers, M. K., Bowker, G. C., Borgman, C. L., & Ribes, D. et al.
(2013). Knowledge infrastructures: Intellectual frameworks and research challenges. Ann
Arbor, MI: Deep Blue. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/97552
Eldridge, N., & Gould, S. (1972). Punctuated equilbria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism in
models of paleobiology. In T. J. M. Schopf (Ed.), Models in paleobiology (pp. 82–115). San
Fransisco: Freeman, Cooper.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental
research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy. Retrieved from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/
Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm
Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice.
Berlin, Germany: Lehmanns Media.
Engeström, Y. (2007). From communities of practice to mycorrhizae. In J. Hughes, N. Jewson, &
L. Unwin (Eds.), Communities of practice: Critical perspectives (pp. 41–54). Abingdon,
England: Routledge.
Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learn-
ing at work. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2009). Expansive learning: Toward an activity-theoretical reconceptualization.
In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists… in their own words
(pp. 59–73). London: Routledge.
References 165
Farmer, B., Yue, A., & Brooks, C. (2008). Using blogging for higher order learning in large cohort
university teaching: A case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2),
123–136.
Fischer, G., & Giaccardi, E. (2006). Meta-design: A framework for the future of end user develop-
ment. In H. Lieberman, F. Paternò, & V. Wulf (Eds.), End user development: Empowering
people to flexibly employ advanced information and communication technology (pp. 427–457).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Friesen, N., & Lowe, S. (2012). The questionable promise of social media for education: Connective
learning and the commercial imperative. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(3),
183–194.
Galloway, A. R. (2012). The interface effect. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
GÉANT Expert Group (2011). Knowledge without borders: GÉANT 2020 as the European com-
munication commons. Report of the GÉANT Expert Group October 2011. Brussels. Belgium:
European Commission. Retrieved from http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/e-infrastructure/docs/
geg-report.pdf
Goodyear, P., & Jones, C. (2003). Implicit theories of learning and change: Their role in the devel-
opment of e-learning environments for higher education. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and
teaching with technology: Principles and practices (pp. 25–37). London: Routledge.
Goodyear, P., Jones, C., & Thompson, K. (2014). Computer-supported collaborative learning:
Instructional approaches, group processes and educational designs. In J. M. Spector, M. D.
Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications
and technology (4th ed., pp. 439–451). New York: Springer.
Gould, S. J. (2007). Punctuated equilibrium. Cambridge, MA: Belnap Press of Harvard University
Press.
Guribye, F. (2005). Infrastructures for learning—Ethnographic inquiries into the social and
technical conditions of education and training. Doctoral thesis, University of Bergen, Bergen,
Norway.
Guribye, F., & Lindström, B. (2009). Infrastructures for learning and networked tools: The intro-
duction of a new tool in an inter-organisational network. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones,
& B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and con-
tinuing professional development (pp. 103–116). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense
Publishers, BV.
Hannon, J. (2013). Incommensurate practices: Sociomaterial entanglements of learning technol-
ogy implementation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 168–178.
Hanseth, O., & Lundberg, N. (2001). Designing work oriented infrastructures. Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, 10, 347–372.
Hanseth, O., Monteiro, E., & Hatling, M. (1996). Developing information infrastructure: The tension
between standardization and flexibility. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(4), 407–426.
Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. New York: Routledge.
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teach-
ing and learning online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hern, A. (2014). Google faces lawsuit over email scanning and student data. The Guardian 19
March 2014. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/19/
google-lawsuit-email-scanning-student-data-apps-education
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via computer (1st
ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley [Revised Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.].
Hoggett, P. (1991). A new management in the public sector? Policy & Politics, 19(4), 243–256.
Jackson, S. J., Edwards, P. N., Bowker, G. C., & Knobel, C. P. (2007). Understanding infrastruc-
ture: History, heuristics, and cyberinfrastructure policy. First Monday, 12(6). Retrieved from
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_6/jackson/index.html
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the
21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
JISC (1999). Developing the DNER for learning and teaching, JISC Circular 5/99. Retrieved from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/fundingopportunities/funding_calls/2000/01/circular_5_99.aspx
166 6 The Infrastructures
Jones, C. (1998). Evaluating a collaborative online learning environment. Active Learning, 9, 31–35.
Jones, C. (2013). Designing for practice: A view from the social sciences. In H. Beetham &
R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning
(2nd ed., pp. 204–217). London: Routledge.
Jones, C., & Cawood, J. (1998). The unreliable transcript: Contingent technology and informal
practice in asynchronous learning networks. In Networked lifelong learning; innovative
approaches to education and training through the Internet. Proceedings of the 1998
International Conference, (pp. 1.9–1.14). Sheffield, England: University of Sheffield.
Retrieved from http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc1998/Proceedings/
Jones-1.9-1.14.pdf
Jones, C., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2009). Analysing networked learning practices: An introduc-
tion. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learn-
ing practices in higher education and continuing professional development (pp. 1–27).
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, BV.
Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Lindström, B. (2006). A relational, indirect, meso-level
approach to CSCL design in the next decade. International Journal of Computer Supported
Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 35–56.
Kafai, Y. B., & Peppler, K. A. (2011). Beyond small groups: New opportunities for research in
computer-supported collective learning. In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law (Eds.),
Connecting computer-supported collaborative learning to policy and practice: CSCL2011
Conference Proceedings: Vol. I—Long papers. (pp. 17–24). Hong Kong, China: The University
of Hong Kong.
Kemp, B., & Jones, C. (2007). Academic use of digital resources: Disciplinary differences and the
issue of progression revisited. Educational Technology & Society, 10(1), 52–60.
Kitchen, R., & Dodge, M. (2011). Code/space: Software and everyday life. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Konstantinidis, A., Tsiatsos, T., Terzidou, T., & Pomportsis, A. S. (2010). Fostering collaborative
learning in second life: Metaphors and affordances. Computers & Education, 55(2), 603–615.
Krücken, G. (2003). Learning the ‘New, New Thing’: On the role of path dependency in university
structures. Higher Education, 46, 315–339.
Lakkala, M., Ilomäki, L., & Kosonen, K. (2010). From instructional design to setting up
pedagogical infrastructures: Designing technology-enhanced knowledge creation. In B. Ertl
(Ed.), Technologies and practices for constructing knowledge in online environments:
Advancements in learning (pp. 169–185). New York: Information Science Reference.
Lakkala, M., Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2008). Designing pedagogical infrastructures in
university courses for technology-enhanced collaborative inquiry. Research and Practice in
Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(1), 33–64.
Langlios, G. (2011). Meanings, semiotechnologies and participatory media. Culture Machine, 12.
Retrieved from www.culturemachine.net
Langlois, G., Elmer, G., McKelvey, F., & Deveroux, Z. (2009). Networked publics, the double articu-
lation of code and politics on facebook. Canadian Journal of Communication, 34, 415–434.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network theory. London:
Routledge.
Lewis, S., Pea, R., & Rosen, J. (2010). Beyond participation to co-creation of meaning: Mobile
social media in generative learning communities. Social Science Information, 49(3),
351–369.
Lewthwaite, S. (2011). Disability 2.0: Student dis/connections: A study of student experiences of
disability and social networks on campus in higher education. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Nottingham, Nottingham, England. Retrieved from http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/2406/
Liljenström, H., & Svedin, U. (Eds.). (2005). Micro, meso, macro: Addressing complex systems.
London: World Scientific.
Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mbale, J., Kadzamina Z. D., Martin, D., & Kyalo, V. (2012). Ubuntunet alliance: A Collaborative
Research Platform for sharing of technological tools for eradication of brain drain. International
References 167
Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, iJET, 7(4), 65–74. Retrieved from http://
online-journals.org/i-jet/article/view/2285
Minocha, S., & Thomas, P. G. (2007). Collaborative learning in a wiki environment: Experiences
from a software engineering course. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 13(2),
187–209.
Monteiro, E., Pollock, N., Hanseth, O., & Williams, R. (2013). From artefacts to infrastructures.
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 22(4–6), 575–607.
Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor: An emergent epistemo-
logical approach to learning. Science and Education, 14(6), 535–557.
Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: A comparative analysis of
facebook, LinkedIn and a small world. New Media & Society, 11, 199–220.
Papacharissi, Z. (2011). Conclusion: A networked self. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self:
Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 304–318). London: Routledge.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier (2nd ed.).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy and technology.
In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Schatzki, T. R. (1996). Social practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the
social. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Schatzki, T., Knorr-Cetina, K., & von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contempo-
rary theory. London: Routledge.
Sclater, N. (2008a) Large-scale open source E-learning systems at the Open University (UK).
(Research Bulletin Issue 12). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.
Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ecar
Sclater, N. (2008b). Web 2.0, personal learning environments and the future of learning manage-
ment systems. Educause (Research Bulletin Issue 13). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for
Applied Research, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ecar
Sclater, N. (2010). e-learning in the cloud. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning
Environments, 1(1), 10–19.
Seale, J., Draffan, E. A., & Wald, M. (2010). Digital agility and digital decision-making:
Conceptualising digital inclusion in the context of disabled learners in higher education.
Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 445–461.
Selwyn, N. (2010). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. London: Continuum.
Selwyn, N. (2011). Schools and schooling in the digital age: A critical analysis. London: Routledge.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational
Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access
for large information spaces information systems research. Information Systems Research,
7(1), 111–134.
Strijbos, J.-W., Kirschner, P., & Martens, R. (Eds.). (2004). What we know about CSCL: and imple-
menting it in higher education. Boston: Kluwer.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. (2010). Innovating the 21st century university: It’s time. Educause
Review, 45(1), 17–29.
Taylor, P. G. (1999). Making sense of academic life: Academics, universities and change.
Buckingham, England: SRHE/Open University Press.
Vaquero, L., Rodero-Merino, L., Caceres, J., & Lindner, M. (2009). A break in the clouds: Towards
a cloud definition. Computer Communication Review, 39(1), 50–55.
Weller, M. (2007). Virtual learning environments: Using, choosing and developing your VLE.
Abingdon, England: Routledge.
168 6 The Infrastructures
Weller, M. (2010). The centralisation dilemma in educational IT. International Journal of Virtual
and Personal Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–9.
Williamson, B. (2015). Governing software: Networks, databases and algorithmic power in the
digital governance of public education. Learning Media and Technology, 40(1), 83–105.
doi:10.1080/17439884.2014.924527.
Zawacki-Richter, O. (2009). Research areas in distance education: A Delphi study. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10, 3. Retrieved from http://
www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/674
Zhang, W., & Wang, R. (2010). Interest-oriented versus relationship-oriented SNSs in China. First
Monday. 15, 8. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org
Chapter 7
Academics and Digital Networks
The previous chapters in this section have dealt with the sociomaterial contexts
within which people interact and co-constitute their contexts. In this chapter and the
next the focus shifts towards the people, the human elements in these sociomaterial
assemblages. This shift is of course only one of emphasis, human actors remain com-
ponent parts of sociomaterial assemblages and the individual human is just as impor-
tantly always a social actor. We are dealing with persons in positions, and roles in
sociotechnical systems, not simply individual actors. Furthermore learning includes
the biological and material person and when we are dealing with knowledge and
learning something, as Ellis and Goodyear note, happens ‘between the ears’ (Ellis
and Goodyear 2010, p. 6). The brain between the ears is embodied and the whole
person is imbricated with the external material world of objects, artefacts and tech-
nologies and with other people via discourses, emotions, organisations and cultures.
This chapter examines the position of the academic in networked learning. It begins
from the premise that the academic role is broader than either a single or a combined
focus on teaching or research would imply. Secondly this chapter is interested in the
interactions between academics and academic work, and the emergent practices that
are co-configured by academic actors and those material and technological features
enabled by digital and network technologies. In order to do this the chapter begins by
examining the pressures on academic work and it explores a number of different
approaches that have developed to explain the changing role of the academic.
There has been considerable research conducted examining the changing
academic profession (Altbach 2000; Altbach, Reisberg, and Pacheco 2013b;
Altbach, Reisberg, Yudkevich, Androushchak, and Kuzminov 2013a; Enders 2012;
Locke and Teichler 2007). This body of research has focused on a number of significant
drivers of change:
…the academic profession now faces enormous challenges, including ‘massification’
unprecedented growth), increased student diversity, privatization, pressures for account-
ability, global competition for talent, and the economic downturn. (Altbach, Reisberg, and
Pacheco 2013b, p. 89)
A summary including these same factors can be found in many other policy
documents and research-based publications over a number of years. Perhaps the one
new factor to be added to these factors is the economic downturn following the 2008
financial crisis. There has also been work focused on the changes in the academic
workforce (Musselin 2011; Rhoades 2005; Mills and Rath 2012). From a somewhat
different perspective similar issues have been approached from a policy standpoint
because the academic workforce is acknowledged to be in transition for the pur-
poses of planning for the future workforce in higher education (Bexley et al. 2011;
Blass et al. 2010; Locke and Bennion 2010). A particular concern in this regard has
been the preparation and development of early career academics and the problems
that can arise for the development of an academic identity as a consequence of the
growth of precarious part-time employment and the decline of tenure track and
equivalent career paths into the academic profession (Sutherland and Taylor 2011).
The formation of identity in early career academics emphasises the social and situ-
ated nature of their role:
Across disciplines, institutions, and national boundaries, the formation of an academic
identity, and the sense of agency that motivates academics to live and develop that identity
were mediated by the departmental and institutional cultures in which they pursued their
work. (Sutherland and Taylor 2011, p. 185)
In these ways change in the academic profession is closely related to the changes
taking place in the university and the institutions and infrastructures involved in
networked learning. Notably absent from this synopsis is the rapid technological
change that has happened over the past 40 years, affecting both academic work
practices and the world which the academic world interacts with (for an exception
see Rhoades 2011).
The academic profession includes teaching and the mentoring and supervision of
post-graduate students and post-doctoral early career academics. Depending on the
higher educational system some aspects of this work are treated as teaching, others
(e.g. doctoral supervision) are treated as research, whilst further aspects (such as the
mentoring of early career academics) can be treated as an aspect of management or
administration. Perhaps the most discussed division in academic life is that between
teaching and research (Boyer 1990). Within the academic profession it is regularly
argued that research is the most important indicator of status and position and that
teaching has a subsidiary place (e.g. Boyer 1990; Locke and Bennion 2009). The
proportion of academic work dedicated to research varies between different national
systems of higher education and between the diverse kinds of institution within vari-
ous national systems. In some higher education systems there are an increasing
number of ‘teaching only’ or primarily teaching institutions (Locke and Bennion
2009). In addition to teaching and research, and to varying degrees, most higher
education systems recognise a varied collection of activities as forming a third
aspect of an academic career.
Almost all colleges pay lip service to the trilogy, teaching research and service, but when it
comes to making judgments about professional performance, the three rarely are assigned
equal merit. (Boyer 1990, p. 15)
Disciplines, Scholarship and Digital Technology 171
‘Service’ can include the functions of the invisible college, such as reviewing for
conferences and journals, external examining, and acting as external referees on
appointment panels (Wagner 2008). Some aspects of a traditional service role would
be playing an active role in collegial management, for example acting as a head of
department and sitting on various university committees, although increasingly
such positions are filled by management appointment rather than collegial election
(Altbach 2000). Service also included leadership in research and teaching, for
example by work in the organisation of inter-institutional professional societies,
academic conferences, symposia and workshops. Many higher education institu-
tions also included civic or community missions and academic work has been
expected to include (often voluntary) work in wider society at local, regional and
national levels.
Most recently there has been an increased requirement to be relevant and have
impact, often tied to notions of entrepreneurialism (Slaughter and Leslie 1997; Clark
1998; Bok 2004). The three more traditional aspects of academic work, research,
teaching and service have been expanded to include what is often confusingly termed
a ‘third mission’ (Molas-Gallart et al. 2002). It is confusing because the third mission
is not synonymous with service, but it includes some areas of activity that are close
to or overlap with traditional service work, for example community engagement.
The third mission differs from service in so far as it is explicitly and centrally con-
cerned with entrepreneurship and business related activity (Laredo 2007; Zawdie
2010). The third mission began with a strong focus on the relationship with research
activities in universities, largely in the natural sciences. A further issue related to the
contemporary emphasis on an entrepreneurial third mission is the connection to open
access, especially open access to data originating in universities (Vendetti et al. 2013).
For certain parts of the commercial world universities hold extensive resources that
open access can make freely available to business.
This brief summary shows that work in the academic profession contains a variety
of roles and these roles are unevenly distributed between individual post holders,
disciplines and institutions. There is no singe or universal academic role, although
there are regular and recognizable patterns within a diverse profession, nor is there
a standard template for academic life. The academic profession is subject to many
pressures from a variety of directions and it is currently undergoing a process of
change that has no clearly defined endpoint. The future for the academic profession
is another site of struggle in which digital and networked technologies play various
parts but they do not determine any particular outcome.
sub-units (Trowler and Knight 2000). However beyond the day-to-day activities of
work many academics identify with their discipline or subject area (Becher and Trowler
2001). Research concerning disciplinary differences takes place at the mesolevel:
Intermediate between these two categories—enquiries that concentrate on global issues and
those which direct themselves to individual concerns—lies a further group of studies
located at what may be termed the meso level. These embody a distinctive set of social and
cognitive considerations relating to academic communities clustered around common intel-
lectual interests. (Becher and Trowler 2001, p. 21)
and experiences that people are expected to know about and to make use of’ (Säljö 2010,
p. 56) leads onto three issues relevant to academic practice:
1. The role of the technology as a tool for storing information and building up a
social memory;
2. The consequences of the recent developments in our abilities to have access to
social memory; and
3. The increasing capacity of technologies to perform analytical, cognitive-like
operations that were previously made by people. (Säljö 2010, p. 56)
These consequences are not at the periphery of academic practice, they are cen-
tral to the core activities of academic work. The sections that follow examine the
ways in which digital technologies open up new possibilities and the ways that digi-
tal scholarship, however defined, remains an area of struggle and choice. Academic
engagement with the kinds of open practices that digital technologies are said to
enable are subject to choices made at various levels including the university, the
state and the market. Currently it is not clear what kinds of practice are emerging
from this complex of interacting influences on new academics but the outlines of
what is currently known are set out below in sections dealing with pedagogy and
teaching, e-research and digital disciplinarity, digital scholarship and the claim that
we are witnessing the emergence of a new invisible college.
Also in Chap. 2 I noted how the expansion of higher education (HE) and the
emergence of ‘knowledge societies’ have seen the perceived economic importance
of HE grow because the university is seen as a site for the creation, dissemination
and accreditation of knowledge. At the same time the academic profession has often
experienced a reduction in social status, an increase in workload and a loss of auton-
omy (Enders 2006). The place of autonomy, academic freedom and the growing
role of accountability and managerialism in HE are issues that have a degree of
independence from the changes taking place in relation to new technology but at
times they are also intertwined with these changes through issues such as the growth
of Enterprise Resource Management (ERP) systems (see Chap. 5) and the audit and
accountability culture in contemporary universities which are enabled and enhanced
by the development of forms of data analytics applied to university systems
(McCluskey and Winter 2012). In this way core academic values are brought into
tension with large-scale social processes which involve, to varying degrees, the
deployment of digital and network technologies. Take the current example of learn-
ing analytics, a broad movement which is currently stabilising as an academic field
with a conference series and a journal dedicated to the emergent domain. Learning
analytics as I argued in Chap. 5 involves different social actors and the particular
versions of learning analytics that are developed and deployed will reflect the
choices of the dominant social actors or alliances between a number of key actors.
These actors can choose what will be measured and what will be rendered invisible
or insignificant in the new analytic systems. Once deployed analytic systems will
empower some and displace decisions from others. What are now academic decisions
about student progress may become administrative decisions informed by analytics
174 7 Academics and Digital Networks
dashboards. A question this raises is—‘How free is the academic to pursue their
academic judgment when an administrator can judge the academic for the judg-
ments they make using metrics and an analytics framework?’ Annual academic
appraisals and review processes can be transferred from personal and qualitative
evaluations to impersonal numeric and outcome-based measurements.
Simultaneously new emergent professions are developing that are not fully aca-
demic but retain certain academic features. These new para-academics are sometimes
employed in technical positions e.g. learning technologists, but they also include aca-
demic developers and enhanced forms of librarians dealing with digital and network
technologies (Sutherland and Taylor 2011; Hudson 2009, Conole et al. 2007). In the
UK the Dearing Report (Dearing 1997) a study of administrative and support staff
(Report 4) identified a group of jobs with some common characteristics. The charac-
teristics included being held typically by younger staff (under 35) with five or less
years of experience with qualifications often unrelated to the posts they held and with
roles that were generally ill-defined (See Oliver 2002). Oliver suggests that learning
technologists are just one group of ‘new professionals’ emerging at the turn of the
century in academic work. Para-academics are not assumed to have the same position
with regard to academic freedom or autonomy as traditional academics and they are
often hired on administrative rather than academic contracts of employment. The idea
of a profession and even more so ‘new’ professions is a contested area and profes-
sionalisation of a group or of a job role can be seen as a dynamic social process in
which the claim to be a professional can be a political act by those working in the job
role or by others seeking to manage or control that group (for a fuller discussion of the
contested nature of professions in this context see Hudson 2009). An early study of the
career paths of learning technologists found that the group was engaged in ten central
activities of which the most important was to keep up to date with developments in
learning technology (Beetham 2000). Perhaps surprisingly the other nine were related
to educational development and communication but they were not technical in char-
acter (Oliver 2002). At that time it was not clear if the development of the new profes-
sions was an international phenomenon or restricted to the United Kingdom. In the
years that followed the growth of organisations supporting and representing the new
professions has made it clear that this is a global development and the current nature
and development of the new professions will be developed more fully later in this
chapter. At this point is important to note that the new professions have a distinct rela-
tionship to disciplines and often form part of an institutional core of central services
and they also have a distinct relationship to knowledge because they resemble techni-
cal workforces which make use of scientific knowledge but are less concerned with its
generation (Barley and Orr 1997).
Digital Scholarship
Digital scholarship has a number of different definitions and I agree with Weller
who argues that a simple definition of digital scholarship should probably be resisted
(Weller 2011). Instead Weller notes that due to the ubiquitous availability of new
Digital Scholarship 175
technologies all scholars are digital now and the digital had affected his personal
academic practice in three ways which were:
• The quantity of digital content
• The role of the social network,
• The types of information sources
These three issues affect academic practice generally and they suggest that while
the practices of digital scholarship are currently a minority concern, the issues affect
scholarship more broadly. Digital scholarship in all its various forms points towards
the historic term ‘scholarship’ which locates the practices of scholarship largely, if
not exclusively, in the university or other academic institutions (Boyer 1990).
Scholarship connects to the employment relations of the academic workforce and
scholarly behaviour, including public engagement, is enforced by institutional poli-
cies with regard to permanent employment and tenure, promotion and recognition
(Ellison and Eatman 2008). Scholarship is also defined by a set of values and moral
claims that set out how proper academic work should be carried out and that sepa-
rate academic knowledge from other kinds of knowledge claims. Academic knowl-
edge is based on specific work practices, such as peer review, which separate
academic output from policy documentation (which may be written by the same
people). Goodfellow (2013) summarises the relationship of scholarship to academic
work in this way:
This orientation [scholarship] values critical reflection, the cumulative aggregation of
knowledge and understanding, distinct modes of operation relating to evidence and the war-
ranting of its reliability, and the ethic of enquiry as a primary motivation (Andresen 2000;
Cowan et al. 2008; Courant 2008). The combination of these characteristics is what distin-
guishes the construction of academic scholarly knowledge from other kinds of knowledge
production (factual knowledge, practical knowledge, common-sense, morality, the ‘wisdom
of crowds’, etc.). The existence of communities dedicated to these values in a general sense
also distinguishes the sites of production of academic scholarly knowledge (universities,
research institutes, museums) from most other arenas of social knowledge practice.
(Goodfellow 2013, p. 69)
Borgman (2009) uses digital scholarship as a broad term covering a range of disci-
plines, reserving digital humanities for the practices of digital scholarship in that
particular disciplinary domain. Borgman’s (2007) focus is at scale and even when
concerned with the practices of individual digital scholars she is concerned with
their activity in the context of institutions and infrastructures. It is in this broad
sense of digital scholarship that the term is used here, rather than alternative uses
which may refer more narrowly to either the practices of individuals or the curation
and collection of digital resources.
Borgman’s (2007) focus on infrastructural questions includes the design, devel-
opment and use of digital repositories and archives and various digital media
enabled by the Internet as a means for scholarly communication and the sharing of
data. Borgman’s work focuses on digital scholarship in the context of large distrib-
uted teams and large-scale infrastructure rather than individual or ‘lone ranger’
adoption of specific digital tools.
‘The internet lies at the core of an advanced scholarly information infrastructure to facilitate
distributed, data and information-intensive collaborative research.’ (Borgman 2007, p. xvii)
Others are more circumspect about committing themselves to the full implica-
tions of the argument (for example Weller 2011), but they are often still entranced
by the possibility that there is a significant change in academic practice brought
about by digital and network technologies:
In conclusion, then, there is some moderate evidence that there are some differences in the
expectations of net generation learners and possibly an increase in dissatisfaction with edu-
cation. (Weller 2011, p. 17)
determinism in that it argues scholars are not forced to change by the technology,
but that in order to do things well they ought to do them using the new technologies.
I have argued elsewhere (Jones 2011, 2012) that the net generation and digital native
arguments do not stand up to empirical scrutiny and that the determinist logic that
sits behind them is fundamentally flawed. This same argument applies to the soft
determinism and the broad generalisations about technology that Weller uses to sup-
port his argument. Simply because technologies change and these technologies are
in widespread use does not translate into specified or necessary changes in practice.
Indeed I would argue that the idea that we don’t have to wait for the case to be
proven is an argument which is in itself antithetical to scholarly practices.
Goodfellow (2013) compared the approaches to digital scholarship taken by
Borgman and Weller using a discourse analytic approach. He argues that both
Borgman and Weller are engaged in a rhetorical project that aims to persuade as well
as inform and that despite their shared object of study, and an apparent agreement on
many of the facts, they construct the central ‘issues’ of digital scholarship differently
(Goodfellow 2013). In particular he concludes that Borgman is trying to make schol-
arship more scholarly whilst Weller is trying to make it more digital. The idea of
digital scholarship as Weller construes it is closely related to the development of
‘openness’ and Goodfellow (2013) contrasts their approaches.
At some points in the texts the motivations of the authors do converge, on the importance of
peer review, the efficiency of self-archiving, the need to widen access, etc., but at other points
we can see real and divergent foci of concern: the responsibility of ‘the digital’ towards the
accuracy of the scholarly record (Borgman) versus the responsibility of ‘the scholarly’ towards
the media creativity of the digital academic (Weller). (Goodfellow 2013, p. 75)
Goodfellow’s argument points to a real dichotomy and the values and assump-
tions informing that division concern a) the establishment of new kinds of ‘truth
values’ for academic knowledge disrupted by new technologies and alternatively b)
new ‘use values’ for academic knowledge involving new means of communication,
new ways of participation and new media in the process of production and distribu-
tion of the final outputs of scholarly activity. The first outlook concerning truth
values is explored below in relation to the ‘new invisible college’. The second outlook
which Goodfellow associates with Weller is linked to the idea of openness. In this
case an openness of scholars to:
• New sites of production of academic knowledge (for example in citizen science)
• New ways to interact with audiences
• New ways to produce academic outputs including outputs in new formats and
new media
• New low or zero cost ways of reproducing both academic outputs and the data
from which those outputs are produced
In Weller’s (2011) view it is the affordance of easy replication of a variety of
media which particularly enables new forms of scholarly practice and these can
affect significant debates regarding controversial issues such as climate change and
genetic research. Disputes in these areas demonstrate the ways that the inclusion of
new forms of debate, and new kinds of engagement enabled by digital and network
technology, allow sections of the public to become involved in discussions about
178 7 Academics and Digital Networks
these important areas of scientific research and public policy (Holliman 2012). The
argument that digital and network technologies afford new ways of working is rein-
forced in Weller’s approach by an advocacy of new ways of structuring reward
schemes and regimes of accountability to recognise digital scholarship and promote
the new ways of working (Weller 2011). He argues that increasing the recognition
of digital scholars would act as in indication of the value that the institution placed
on these new ways of working. Such recognition would act as a spur to other aca-
demics and it would help to encourage institutional innovation. It also provides a
link between digital scholarship and the regime of accountability and new manage-
rialism found in many universities.
Weller’s approach illustrates two features of the digital scholarship debate. While
digital technologies open up new possibilities they also constrain other, perhaps
older and more established practices. This tension is one of the reasons I reject the
idea that academic change should proceed before a case has been proven. Digital
scholarship remains subject to choices and in Weller’s view the reluctance of aca-
demics to engage fully with the open practices that digital technologies enable is
seen as a barrier and he argues for the use of rewards and recognition to support his
preferred academic work practices. I argue that such an approach involves political
and policy choices which have the potential to be used by governments and manage-
ments to apply undue pressure on staff to adopt one academic practice above others.
It may still be important to ensure that a place remains in digital scholarship for a
lone academic to cut away from current trends, to pursue academic paths that are
currently out of fashion. Perhaps this would involve some academics in a seques-
tered, more monastic working life and a refusal to engage closely and routinely with
the public. Some of the digital scholar’s ways of working fit some forms of aca-
demic practice more than others, and they may prove to be a threat to the idea of
academic freedom. Public pressure in socially and politically sensitive areas can
lead to a narrowing of intellectual debate, to a playing down of academic and scien-
tific criteria for judgment and to the introduction of populist, religious or overtly
political standards into academic work. In line with the arguments made throughout
this book, academic practices are not a determined outcome of technological
change, nor are there specific ways of working that are the best or better suited to
using new technology. Rather I think the future of scholarship should be open to the
choice. Choices are made at various levels of organised social life, including the
university, civil society, the market and the state as well as the individual scholar.
Choice has also got to be exercised by academics collectively through their profes-
sional self-organisation in conferences and associations, in trade unions and in the
democratic and accountable bodies found in some universities.
In Goodfellow’s (2013) view there are two underlying approaches to digital scholar-
ship found in the work of Borgman (2007) and Weller (2011). Borgman’s approach
is to make scholarship more scholarly using digital and network technologies and to
A ‘New’ Invisible College? 179
establish new truth values to fit the changed conditions for academic work. Related
to this search for revised ways of working that reinforce scholarly values while
incorporating the affordances of new technologies Wagner (2008) has argued that
the networked nature of modern science could lead to the emergence of a ‘new’
invisible college (Wagner 2008). Wagner (2008) drew on the history of the emer-
gence of scientific disciplines and peer review procedures in the seventeenth century
to suggest that digital technologies may have a similar profound effect on contem-
porary academic practices. Her point of departure is somewhat different to the argu-
ments about digital scholarship because she really begins from the standpoint of
globalisation and her concerns are with the way science has moved beyond the
nation-state to take on an internationalised network structure. The reference back to
the seventeenth century is intended to evoke the elusive network of people who
were largely outside of academic institutions and hence developed their own ‘invis-
ible’ college. In the twenty-first century the change is one that moves away from a
professionalised science captured by the nation-state and looked on it as a national
asset and a means to national development.
The new global network is described by Wagner as a complex adaptive system.
That is there are many different interacting parts and each of these is capable of
adapting to its context, even if that component part is not itself conscious. The system
contains multiple levels and although not entirely predictable it can be described in
terms of probability, regulation and rules. This description is very close to the
emergent properties of networks discussed in Chap. 4 and the suggestion that such
systems while not open to absolute control are open to regulation and design in
ways that encourage some kinds of developments over others. Like scale-free net-
works these are open systems in the sense that they are extensible and new actors
can join, but they are not flat and there is structure and there are centres of influence
and power built into the network structure. This is the point of the ‘new’ invisible
college, it is invisible because these structures and power relations while obvious to
those active in the network can remain invisible to those outside and Wagner stresses
this aspect specifically in relation to developing countries (Czerniewicz and Wiens
2013). One of the problems with this relative invisibility is that excellent work can
be conducted in developing economies but the flow of the network means that the
benefits are likely to flow out externally to the established nodes in the network,
those largely in advanced industrial countries. To correct these imbalances national
governments in developing countries need to do more than support science, they
need to develop the infrastructure that supports science.
They must broaden their focus to encompass the infrastructure that supports scientific
capacity. Without this basic scaffolding, attempts to build science capacity by focusing on
research and development are doomed to crumble—knowledge creating activities cannot be
sustained without the services and functions of related science and technology services
such as metrology or extension. (Wagner 2008, p. 94)
relationships between the institution and the workforce and the balance between
different sections of the workforce, specifically the relationships between manage-
ment and administration and the academics organised collectively in the college.
The academic role of the teacher has been affected by:
• Changes to student access to resources
• The inclusion of new media in teaching resources
• The development of institutional infrastructures and virtual learning environments
• Pressures to include more cooperative and collaborative methods
• The introduction of social media and mobile technologies
• Innovative and disruptive technologies (e.g. Massive Open Online Courses/
MOOCs)
Taken together, the pressures set out above the amount to a restructuring of the
academic role in teaching (Beetham and Sharpe 2013).
There are two key aspects that I will deal with here, the changing organisational
role of the academic as teacher and secondly the shift in pedagogy and the pressures
that influence the direction of the changes in pedagogy. The role of the teacher and
the teaching function associated with networked and digital technology is an issue
as old as educational technology itself. From Skinner’s teaching machines (Skinner
1958) to Sugata Mitra’s minimally invasive education (Mitra 2000) and MOOCs
(Daniel 2012), various forms of technology have held out the prospect of being able
to advance learning without a) the skill and craft of the embodied teacher and b) the
numbers of teachers previously required. In some cases instructional technologies
and the promise of Artificial Intelligence suggested that ‘teaching’ could be pro-
grammed and the machine could replace aspects of direct human labour, for exam-
ple by acting as a learning guide or explainer (Holmes 2005). Mass communications
and later the Internet and Web suggested that a star professor located somewhere
else, possibly anywhere, could engage many students at a distance, thus reducing
the demand for professors and increasing the excellence of the teacher in a single
move (Harasim et al 1995; Daniel 2012). The teaching function in these approaches
is one that differs sharply from the idea contained in the seminal definition of net-
worked learning. Networked learning is concerned with connections and it is less
concerned with the medium through which these connections are maintained.
Professors can be at a distance, mediated by way of a range of technologies, but a
key to their role is having the time and organisational and technical capacity to make
a variety of connections with their students. To do this involves the design of tasks
and environments which can encourage students to engage in productive activities
and develop congenial locales. The idea that teaching could be replaced either by a
machine or by a distant professor dealing with large numbers of students does not
make good sense in terms of networked learning or when designing networks for
learning (Carvalho and Goodyear 2014).
One of the most persistent slogans that has emerged to characterise the changing
role of the teacher in relation to network and digital technology is that the teacher
must move ‘from the sage on the stage to the guide on the side’ (King 1993).
Although the origin of the phrase is disputed it has had an extensive life and it is still
182 7 Academics and Digital Networks
Critiques of the use of these phrases are long-standing (Jones 1999) but the case
continues to have to be made. In the context of CSCL and TEL Dillenbourg argued
against their use to dismiss or downgrade the role of the teacher:
In technology-enhanced learning, the slogan ‘from the sage on the stage to the guide on the
side’ became a commonplace to stress the evolution of the teacher’s role. This vision was
even stronger in CSCL because the idea that students learn from each other in some way
weakens the teacher’s role as knowledge provider. However, most CSCL scholars would
agree that socio-constructivism does not mean ‘teacherless’ learning, but changes the role
of the teacher to be less of a knowledge provider and more of a ‘conductor’ orchestrating a
broad range of activities; this role is becoming a central concern in CSCL. (Dillenbourg
et al. 2009, pp. 16–17)
The connection between collaboration and cooperation and the early develop-
ment of networked learning is acknowledged to be strong (Goodyear 2014;
Physically situated
Space
Place
Tasks Outcomes
(Emergent) Activity
Community
Organisational forms
Socially situated
McConnell et al. 2012 and Chap. 2 this volume) and the issue of the changed role of
the teacher is in many ways common to both traditions. The advice from Dillenbourg
et al (2009) and from Carvalho and Goodyear (2014) set out some of the ways that
design and ‘orchestration’ of teacher like activities can take place. The design, expe-
rience and practice of the teaching function in networked learning are also addressed
in Hodgson et al. (2014). Carvalho and Goodyear (2014) set out an analytic frame-
work and in their conclusions they emphasise two areas of importance in the con-
nection between design elements, firstly between set design and activity and
secondly between epistemic design, tasks and activity Fig. 7.1.
The academic role in this framework conforms to the idea of indirect design
introduced in Chap. 3. Importantly for the discussion of academic work the idea of
the designer does not map directly on to the traditional academic and a learning
designer might be drawn from the new professions of learning technologist or edu-
cational developer.
The distance universities that have fully engaged with new technologies, such as
The Open University in the UK (OU UK) and the Open Universiteit in the
Netherlands (OU NL) organise their workforces in a non-standard division of labour
(Jones, Aoki, Rusman, and Schlusmans 2009). The OU (UK) has course teams
which include representatives of Learning Teaching Solutions1 a large internal unit
that is separate from the academic departments and states its aim on the University
web site in the following way:
LTS is a modern centre for the development, production and delivery of creative and cost
effective distance learning materials. It employs highly skilled teams who provide the
expertise and experience to ensure that OU learning materials are delivered to the
appropriate standards. (http://www.open.ac.uk/about/open-educational-resources/what-
we-do/learning-and-teaching-solutions)
The position of LTS is at the border of academic content, quality control and
university publication. The centralisation and standardisation implicit in this model
is not a prerequisite of distance education and other models co-exist with the course
teams models found in both the OU (UK) and the OU (NL), for example in the Open
University (Japan) and Athabasca University in Canada, which have very different
backgrounds but both have a greater focus on the individual academic in course
delivery and development. The division of labour in distance education accentuates
a tendency apparent across most of the sectors because new media increases the role
of groups and teams in teaching and learning practices. Teaching which in a tradi-
tional form often involved a single academic as the creative force in lecturing,
assessing and organising the work of teaching is now more likely to be part of a
course/module team who develop their courses with the support of a technical team
and educational development advisers (This is not universally the case and in
Australia ‘flexible learning’ is more reliant on individual lecturers rather than
1
The History timeline records the origins of LTS in this way: 2000: Learning and Teaching Services
(LTS) is created through the merger of Operations and part of the Academic Computing Service. The
new unit is created to be the University’s learning media development, production and delivery centre.
http://www.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/historyofou/story/the-early-21st-century-the-ou-brief-history
184 7 Academics and Digital Networks
course teams see Tynan et al. 2013). The academic is also likely to have absorbed
administrative functions that were once separate, such as collecting work for assess-
ment and making announcements to the cohort of students. These functions are now
part of the LMS/VLE and attended to by academic staff. The introduction of new
technology has in this way assisted in the decomposition of the traditional aca-
demic’s practice and helped to recompose it in a new and more collective enterprise
(Sappey and Relf 2010). One conclusion is that a persistent feature accompanying
the introduction of network and digital technologies has been a tendency towards
the disaggregation and re-composition of the teaching function.
The emphasis on moderation rather than content presentation has been accompa-
nied in some national systems by the growth of adjunct or sessional staff who are
contracted in precarious ways, often by more than one institution (Altbach, Reisberg,
and Pacheco 2013b). The idea behind moderation was not to downgrade or deskill
academic staff, but it is one factor that has given the opportunity to university man-
agers to turn away from fully staffed courses and modules to modules designed by
experienced and permanent staff which are then delivered by staff on a variety of
inferior contracts (zero hours, temporary, part-time etc.). In this way place-based
universities are beginning to mirror the core-periphery workforce already developed
in the OU (UK) with a core of whole time professional staff and a periphery of part-
time associates who conduct the day-to-day contact with students. Altbach com-
ments on this worldwide phenomenon of the growth in adjunct and sessional staff
in this way:
The professoriate is changing in many parts of the world, and developing countries are not
free from these changes. In developing countries, a higher proportion of academics work on
part-time contracts or are subject to irregular hiring practices. In many developing coun-
tries, a large part of the profession is composed of part-time staff who teach a few courses
and do not have regular academic appointments or real links to the university… In many
countries, tenure is not guaranteed, and even full-time academics have little formal job
protection, although, in fact, relatively few are actually fired. Clear guarantees of academic
freedom or the assurance of a stable career are often missing. (Altbach 2011, p. 213)
Such developments raise serious questions about academic identity and the pos-
sibility of academic freedom. They are also changes that while they are loosely
coupled to the deployment of new technologies they are not dependent on them and
show a strong link to the general development of a casual and precarious workforce
and the dominance of neoliberal economic models (Fuchs 2008).
As noted above an aspect of the changing teaching role has been an increased
emphasis on cooperative and collaborative approaches to teaching. These approaches
have had to contend with the actual provision of technologies within universities
and the corporate sector. The dominance initially of computer conferencing systems
and business inclined groupware in education was followed by a concentration on
the development of Learning Management Systems (LMS/VLE) (see Chap. 6). The
introduction of LMS/VLEs by institutions has led to a changed role for academic
staff, but one that does not obviously assist the development of collaborative or
cooperative forms of teaching. The design of LMS/VLEs varies and Moodle for
Para-Academics and the Emergence of the New Professionals 185
The rise of the new professionals, the para-academics, is related to a number of factors
but in teaching and learning it is focused on the twin dynamic of the introduction of
new technology and the effects of neoliberalism in the form of the managed entre-
preneurial university. In this process the new professionals are themselves an active
component because they are both brought into being to advance the new agendas
and in that process they advance themselves. The new functional units they belong
to frequently cut across traditional disciplinary boundaries and blur the boundaries
between management and administration. The very precariousness of their position
in new areas of work and unstable organisational units make them more susceptible
to management pressure and the demands of those holding power and influence in
186 7 Academics and Digital Networks
It is their focus on change and innovation that links the two groups and it is also
linked to funding because both areas of work are either dependent on external
funding or top sliced academic funding within the institution. This separation from
core funding separates these groups from traditional academic staff (Hudson 2009).
The vulnerability of their funding is not reflected in the influence that both groups
can have on institutional strategy, particularly in helping to determine strategies for
teaching and learning and the role of technology.
In addition their often, central physical location in the university has placed them at the
interface of management, faculty and departments. However, long-standing tensions for
both groups concern their positioning between management and university teachers, and
their increasingly politicised role which may, in the future, lead either to an increase in
power or a reduction in influence and agency for one or other groups. (Hudson 2009, p. 222)
They can also exert external influence in the sector beyond individual universi-
ties via emergent professional bodies that can lobby independently. These new pro-
fessional groups are one of the key reference groups for networked learning. The
new professionals often provide the recruits to Masters and Doctoral programmes in
which academics associated with networked learning work. While networked learn-
ing is conceived of as a critical and research led field it relies on the indirect support
of this layer of new professionals in the academy. As a consequence it is critically
important for networked learning to understand the intertwined relationship between
the research field and the practice of the new professionals who are often driven by
concerns and motivations that are distinct from the traditional academic.
The language used to describe the issues raised in the following sections is still
immature so each section will take a slightly different slice from a topic which in
many ways covers similar ground. Unlike the relationships between teaching and
learning and digital and network technologies the relationships between academic
work in research and service have not generated a single vocabulary and a wide
range of terms are currently in use. Some of these are more aligned with the natural
sciences such as Cyberinfrastructure, e-infrastructure and Grid technology. Ribes
and Lee noted the early bias towards the natural sciences in this field in the introduc-
tion to a special edition of CSCW:
Cyberinfrastructure (CI), eScience and eInfrastructure are the current terms of art for the
networked information technologies supporting scientific research activities such as
E-Research and the Digital Humanities 187
collaboration, data sharing and dissemination of findings. These are the computational
infrastructures that enable, for instance, global climate modelers to compile heterogeneous
information sources in order to understand environmental change or the tools that make the
massive quantitative data emerging from the Large Hadron Collider into tractable scientific
visualizations. Within the US and Europe these ventures have garnered significant momen-
tum in terms of funding and technological development. The greater funding of CI for the
physical and biological sciences has led to a proliferation of CI studies in those areas (a bias
reflected in our own special issue) with CI studies of humanities, arts, and social sciences
growing more slowly. (Ribes and Lee 2010, p. 231)
Since that time other terms have grown up that focus more closely on the human-
ities and social sciences such as digital humanities and digital scholarship, and
e-research itself has shifted from a concern of the natural sciences to a concern for
all academic disciplines (Jankowski 2009; Meyer and Schroeder 2009). The general
phenomenon that these terms point to is the way in which digital and networked
technologies are impacting on the research process and academic work. There is
something wonderful about the reflexive way that the Web began at CERN with the
requirements for sharing in big science projects and has subsequently brought about
significant changes to science practices across the world. The new digital and
networked technologies affect the research process and academic work in several
distinct ways. Digital and networked technologies:
• Open up new sources of data (see Chap. 5 for a discussion of ‘Big Data’ in
universities)
• Changes the ways data can be stored, preserved and shared (digital documentation
standards and archiving)
• Enable new and more dispersed forms of working (virtual labs, collaboratories)
• Enable new entrants to access the research process (e.g. citizen science)
• Enable new forms of publication (open access, blogs)
• Enable new forms of public engagement and scholarly communication (beyond
publication)
The academic diversity associated with different fields of knowledge and the
disciplinary and subject divides formalised in the academy are also found in new
forms of research. This section examines the topic using two of these terms, e-research
and digital humanities and the following sections examine the somewhat different
framings of closely related topics in terms of digital scholarship and the ‘new’ invisi-
ble college. Digital scholarship explicitly references back to the work of Boyer and the
issues of scholarship, combining teaching with research and focused broadly on the
academic role, including the public profile of the academic and the way knowledge is
circulated as well as produced (Weller 2011). The idea of a new invisible college
points forward and asks questions connected to the nature and forms of validation of
knowledge available in relation to new technologies (Wagner 2008).
The development of e-research has implications for the development of aca-
demic practices in ways that resemble the discussion about teaching and learning.
Some researchers have related these changes to alleged generational differences in
the population of younger researchers and their information-searching behaviour
(Rowlands et al. 2008), but these kinds of claims about research workers are as
disputed as those concerning a net generation of digital native students (see Chap. 8).
188 7 Academics and Digital Networks
Proctor et al. summarise their work examining the relationships between e-research
and academic staff in the United Kingdom in this way:
…e-Infrastructure is often seen by users (both current and potential) as complex and chal-
lenging. It is also clear that current users often experience frustrations, while potential users
may be unaware of its benefits and of how to take the first steps towards exploiting them.
The findings highlight the scale of problems arising from the failure of the human infra-
structure—the networks (both formal and informal) of actors essential to effective exploita-
tion of innovations—to develop and keep pace with the technical infrastructure. (Procter,
Voss, and Asgari-Targhi 2013, p. 1668)
This description reminds the reader that e-research and cyberinfrastructures are
not ‘things’ that are to hand, simply available for study, rather they are the ongoing
achievements and outcomes of collective activity by humans and machines. Ribes
and Lee propose seven themes for the study of cyberinfrastructure and these themes
align closely to the suggestions in this book for the use and development of the idea
of infrastructure for research and analysis. The seven themes are:
1. Relationality
2. Integration of heterogeneity
3. Sustainability
4. Standardisation
5. Scaling up or extension of infrastructure
6. The distribution between human work and technological delegation
7. Cyberinfrastruture as always already social (adapted from Ribes and Lee 2010)
This brief listing does not do justice to the work supporting these themes but the
reader can find elaboration of several aspects of the themes in other parts of this
volume. Importantly in the context of academic work the list points to a changing
set of relations between humans and machines and a shift in the appropriate levels
needed for understanding the new phenomena. In particular infrastructure suggests
E-Research and the Digital Humanities 189
a focus that includes mesolevel arrangements and methods that go beyond single
site and small-scale interpretive research projects.
Cyberinfrastructure resides at the intersection of many of these methodological entangle-
ments: it is technical (often doubly so, requiring a handle on information technologies and
a domain science); it is distributed (nationally and often internationally); it is long term, at
times stretching years into the past and prospecting into a future of decades; and brings
together multiple heterogeneous expert actors. (Ribes and Lee 2010, p. 239)
In the article Borgman (2009) identified a number of challenges facing the devel-
opment of digital humanities including:
• What are data in the humanities?
• What are the infrastructure requirements?
• Where are the social studies of digital humanities?
• What is the humanities laboratory of the twenty-first century?
The challenges Borgman identifies have significant implications for academic
work and have great similarities to the general challenges faced across all aspects of
e-research. The disciplinarity noted by Becher and Trowler (2001) affects e-research
and digital humanities because the discussions about digital humanities are recon-
stituting preexisting disciplinary boundaries after the new infrastructure has dis-
rupted them. In particular the terms being used seem to reinforce the two cultures
identified by Snow (1959).
Across the various disciplines the development of e-research has implications for
the development of academic practices in ways that resemble the discussion about
teaching and learning. E-research requires new large-scale infrastructures and net-
worked, cooperative and collaborative forms of working (Ribes and Lee 2010).
190 7 Academics and Digital Networks
Conclusions
The kinds of measures and measurements applied to academic work are being
reviewed and that review is taking place in the context of discussion about what a
digital scholar might mean and what incentives can be applied to induce more ‘digi-
tal’ scholarship (Weller 2011). A problem with this kind of argument is the way it
re-opens an argument that lay at the heart of Boyer’s earlier work. Boyer noted that:
[at] the very heart of the current debate—the single concern around which all others pivot
is the issue of faculty time. What is really being called into question is the reward system
and the key issue is this: what activities of the professoriate are most highly prized (Boyer
1990, p. xi)
Networked learning prizes certain kinds of relationships, and these form the
basis of a critical stance in relation to some of the pressures on academic work.
Digital scholarship can open a range of possibilities up in terms of new ways of
working. However it can also be integrated into new managerial schemes of surveil-
lance and accountability that pressure academic staff to perform in ways that destroy
the autonomy that is symbolic of academic freedom.
The growth of the invisible college took place beyond the boundaries of the
university. It gave rise to academic practices that are now bedrock formations for
academic work within universities. Academic journals, the system of peer review,
and experimental research emerged from this ferment. An interesting question for
future years is what academic practices might emerge from the new invisible college
and in the tension between academic life that stretches out into the new networks
and brings into universities the life outside institutional boundaries. Peer review
References 191
may not be the best form of validation and it has many known weaknesses, but it is
possibly the least bad system. Networks enable the widespread circulation of ideas
and there is no easy way to discriminate between materials in circulation. Will the
‘new’ invisible college develop rules of thumb concerning the validation of online
materials? In journalism some aspects of these practices are beginning to emerge,
for example in the verification procedures used to assess the stream of online mate-
rial from conflict zones. The work of the blogger Brown Moses was seminal in this
development and his work has led to the development of a web site dedicated to citi-
zen journalism, Bellingcat.2 A new invisible college will need to consider how aca-
demic practices can develop to deal with the stream of academic online content and
provide methods for effective discrimination between resources. In the next chapter
ideas about how students are changing in relation to new technologies are exam-
ined. The net generation and digital native discourse suggests young people are
naturally attuned to the new technology but empirical work shows that students
are often ill-equipped to search for and evaluate materials using the Internet. What are
the kinds of academic practices emerging from the ‘new invisible college’ that we
need to develop to manage the availability, and ease of production, of materials
circulated via the Internet?
References
2
https://www.bellingcat.com/
192 7 Academics and Digital Networks
Blass, E., Jasman, A., & Shelley, S. (2010). The future of higher education provision in the UK:
Workforce implications: A review of the literature: A report to HEFCE. Bristol, England:
Higher Education Funding Council for England.
Bok, D. (2004). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialisation of higher education.
Woodstock, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Borgman, C. (2003). From gutenburg to the global information infrastructure. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Borgman, C. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the internet.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Borgman, C. L. (2009). The digital future is now: A call to action for the humanities. Digital
Humanities Quarterly, 3(4). Retrieved from http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ:
Carnegie Foundation.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business
School.
Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (Eds.). (2014). The architecture of productive learning networks.
London: Routledge.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organisational pathways of transfor-
mation. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Conole, G., White, S., & Oliver, M. (2007). The impact of e-learning on organisational roles and
structures. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research
(pp. 69–81). London: Routledge Falmer.
Courant, P. (2008). Scholarship: The wave of the future in the digital age. In R. Katz (Ed.), The
tower and the cloud: Higher education in the age of cloud computing, Educause. Retrieved
from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7202t.pdf
Cowan, W., Cowan, R., & Llerena, P. (2008). Running the Marathon. Working papers of BETA
2008-10, Bureau d’Economie Théorique et Appliquée, ULP, Strasbourg, France. Retrieved
from http://ideas.repec.org/p/ulp/sbbeta/2008-10.html
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Czerniewicz L., & Wiens, K. (2013). The online visibility of South African knowledge: Searching
for poverty alleviation: Building the information society. African Journal of Information and
Communication, 13, 30–41. Retrieved from http://reference.sabinet.co.za/sa_epublication_
article/afjic_n13_a4
Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of Myth, paradox and possibility.
Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Retrieved from http://jime.open.ac.uk/2012/18
Davis, W. E., & Chandler, T. J. L. (1998). Beyond Boyer’s scholarship reconsidered: Fundamental
change in the university and the socioeconomic systems. The Journal of Higher Education,
69(1), 23–64.
Dearing, R. (1997). Higher education in the learning society. Report of the National Committee of
Enquiry into Higher Education. London: HMSO. Retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/edu-
col/ncihe/
Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer supported
collaborative learning: From design to orchestration. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. De
Jong, A. Lazonder, S. Barnes, & L. Montandon (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning
(pp. 3–19). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Dougiamas, M., & Taylor, P. C. (2002). Interpretive analysis of an internet-based course con-
structed using a new courseware tool called Moodle. Non refereed paper presented at 25th
Conference of HERDSA (The Higher Education Research and Development Society of
Australasia), 7–10 July, Perth, Western Australia.
Ellis, R., & Goodyear, P. (2010). Students experiences of e-learning in higher education: The ecology
of sustainable innovation. New York: Routledge.
References 193
Ellison, J., & Eatman, T. K. (2008). Scholarship in public: Knowledge creation and tenure policy
in the engaged university. Syracuse, NY: Imagining America.
Enders, J. (2006). The academic profession. In J. F. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International
handbook of higher education (pp. 5–22). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Enders, J. (2012). The university and the public and private good. In C. Teelken, G. Ferlie, &
M. Dent (Eds.), Leadership in the Public Sector: Promises and Pitfalls (pp. 195–213).
Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Ferguson, R., Clough, G., & Hosein, A. (2010). Shifting themes, shifting roles: The development of
research blogs. In L. Creanor, D. Hawkridge, K. Ng, F. Rennie (Eds.), ‘Into something rich and
strange’: Making sense of the sea-change. Proceedings of the 17th Association for Learning
Technology Conference (ALT-C 2010) (pp. 111–117), 7–9 September 2010, Nottingham, England.
Retrieved from http://repository.alt.ac.uk/797/3/Conference_Proc_webv2_2010121510.pdf
Fuchs, C. (2008). Internet and society; social theory in the information age. New York: Routledge.
Goodfellow, R. (2013). The ‘literacies’ of digital scholarship: Truth and use values. In
R. Goodfellow & M. Lea (Eds.), Literacy in the digital university: Critical perspectives on
learning, scholarship, and technology (pp. 67–78). London: Routledge.
Goodyear, P. (2014). Productive learning networks: The evolution of research and practice. In
L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks
(pp. 23–47). London: Routledge.
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teach-
ing and learning online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hodgson, V. E., De Laat, M., McConnell, D., & Ryberg, T. (Eds.). (2014). The design, experience
and practice of networked learning. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Holliman, R. (2012). The struggle for scientific consensus: Communicating climate science
around COP-15. In B. Wagoner, E. Jensen, & J. A. Oldmeadow (Eds.), Culture and social
change: Transforming society through the power of ideas (pp. 185–207). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age.
Holmes, J. (2005). Designing agents to support learning by explaining. Computers and Education,
48(4), 523–547.
Hudson, A. (2009). New professionals and new technologies in new higher education?
Conceptualising struggles in the field. Ph.D. Thesis, Language: English. Umeå University,
Department of Interactive Media and Learning (IML), SE-901 87, Umeå, Sweden. Retrieved
from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:236168/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Jankowski, N. W. (Ed.). (2009). E-research: Transformation in scholarly practice. New York:
Routledge.
Jones, C. (1999). From the sage on the stage to what exactly? description and the place of the
moderator in cooperative and collaborative learning. The Association for Learning Technology
Journal, 7(2), 27–36.
Jones, C. (2011). Students, the net generation and digital natives: Accounting for educational
change. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Deconstructing digital natives (pp. 30–45). New York:
Routledge.
Jones, C. (2012). Networked learning, stepping beyond the net generation and digital natives. In
L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy
and practice of networked learning (pp. 27–41). New York: Springer.
Jones, C., Aoki, K., Rusman, E., & Schlusmans, K. (2009). A comparison of three Open Universities
and their acceptance of Internet technologies. M-2009: Proceedings of the 23rd ICDE World
Conference on Open Learning and Distance Education including the 2009 EADTU Annual
Conference, 7–10 June 2009, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.ou.nl/
Docs/Campagnes/ICDE2009/Papers/Final_paper_081jones.pdf
King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35.
Laredo, P. (2007). Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of
university activities? Higher Education Policy, 20, 441–456.
194 7 Academics and Digital Networks
Locke, W., & Bennion, A. (2009). Teaching and research in English higher education: New divi-
sions of labour and changing perspectives on core academic roles. In The changing academic
profession over 1992–2007: International, comparative, and quantitative perspectives, 13–14
January 2009, Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE), Hiroshima University,
Hiroshima, Japan. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/16924/2/EFA2D834.pdf
Locke, W, & Bennion, A. (2010). The changing academic profession: The UK and beyond. UK
Research Report. London: Universities UK. Retrieved from http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/
highereducation/Documents/2010/TheChangingHEProfession.pdf
Locke, W., & Teichler, U. (Eds.). (2007). The changing conditions for academic work and careers
in select countries. Kassel, Germany: International Centre for Higher Education Research.
Mason, R., & Kaye, A. (1990). Towards a new paradigm for distance education. In L. Harasim
(Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment. New York: Praeger.
McCluskey, F., & Winter, M. (2012). The idea of the digital university: Ancient traditions, disrup-
tive technologies and the battle for the soul of higher education. Washington, DC: Policy
Studies Organisation/Westphalia Press.
McConnell, D., Hodgson, V., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). Networked learning: A brief history
and new trends. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the
theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 3–24). New York: Springer.
Meyer, E. T., & Schroeder, R. (2009). Untangling the web of e-research: Towards a sociology of
online knowledge. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 246–260.
Mills, D., & Rath, J. (2012). Academia as a workplace (editorial to a special edition). Higher
Education Quarterly, 66(2), 129–134.
Mitra, S. (2000). Minimally invasive education for mass computer literacy. Paper presented at the
CRIDALA 2000 conference, Hong Kong, China, 21–25 June 2000. Retrieved from http://
www.hole-in-the-wall.com/docs/Paper01.pdf
Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., & Duran, X. (2002). Measuring third stream
activities. Final report to the Russell group of universities, SPRU. Brighton, England: University
of Sussex.
Musselin, C. (2011). The academic workplace: What we already know, what we still Do Not know,
and what We would like to know. In D. Rhoten & C. J. Calhoun (Eds.), Knowledge matters:
The public mission of the research university (pp. 423–456). New York: Columbia University
Press.
Nguyen, L., Barton, S. M., & Nguyen, L. T. (2014). iPads in higher education—Hype and hope.
British Journal of Educational Technology. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12137
Oliver, M. (2002). What do learning technologists do? Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 39(4), 245–252.
PA Consulting Group. (2010). The future workforce for higher education. A Report to HEFCE by
PA Consulting Group February 2010. Retrieved from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/
content/pubs/2010/rd0310/rd03_10.pdf
Pearce, N., Weller, M., Scanlon, E., & Ashley, M. (2010). Digital scholarship considered: How
new technologies could transform academic work. Education, 16, 1. Retrieved from http://inedu-
cation.ca/ineducation/article/view/44
Procter, R., Voss, A., & Asgari-Targhi, M. (2013). Fostering the human infrastructure of e-research.
Information, Communication & Society, 16(10), 1668–1691.
Rhoades, G. (2005). Cogs in the classroom factory: The changing identity of academic labor.
Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 477–479.
Rhoades, G. (2011). Whose educational space? negotiating professional jurisdiction in the high-
tech academy. In J. C. Hermanowicz (Ed.), The American academic profession: Transformation
in contemporary higher education (pp. 92–110). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Ribes, D., & Lee, C. P. (2010). Sociotechnical studies of cyberinfrastructure and e-research:
Current themes and future trajectories. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 19, 231–244.
References 195
Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P., Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., et al. (2008).
The Google generation: The information behaviour of the researcher of the future. Aslib
Proceedings, 60(4), 290–310.
Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies,
social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
26(1), 53–64.
Sappey, J., & Relf, S. (2010). Digital technology education and its impact on traditional academic
roles and practice. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 7:1, Article 3.
Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol7/iss1/
Sclater, N. (2008a). Large-scale open source E-learning systems at the Open University (UK).
(Research Bulletin 12). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved
from http://www.educause.edu/ecar
Selwyn, N. (2007). The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: A critical
perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 83–94.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational
Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128(3330), 969–977.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism—politics, policies and the entrepre-
neurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Sutherland, K., & Taylor, L. (2011). The development of identity, agency and community in the
early stages of the academic career. International Journal for Academic Development, 16(3),
183–186.
Trowler, P., & Knight, P. T. (2000). Coming to know in higher education: Theorising faculty entry
to new work contexts. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(1), 27–42.
Tynan, B., Ryan, Y., & Lamont-Mills, A. (2013). Examining workload models in online and
blended teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, Retrieved from Nov 2013,
10.1111/bjet.12111
Vendetti, M., Reale, E., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Disclosure of university research to third parties:
A non-market perspective on an Italian university. Science and Public Policy, 40(6), 792–800.
Wagner, C. S. (2008). The new invisible college: Science for development. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Weller, M. (2007). Virtual learning environments: Using, choosing and developing your VLE.
Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming academic practice.
London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Woolgar, S. (2003). Social shaping perspectives on e-science and e-social science: The case for
research support. A consultative study for the economic and social research council (ESRC).
Swindon, England: ESRC.
Zawdie, G. (2010). Knowledge exchange and the third mission of universities: Introduction:
The triple helix and the third mission—Schumpeter revisited. Industry and Higher Education,
24(3), 151–155.
Chapter 8
The Learner and Digital Networks
learner, young people and technologies has been theorised. It concludes by locating
the learner in the discourse around the student experience.
In the context of networked learning the learner is always considered in relation
to the development of digital and networked technologies, however the chapter also
discusses the learner relative to the broader idea of the student or learner experience.
The student experience is currently affected by the global financial crisis and the
consequent austerity policies adopted by many governments. This age of austerity
has had, and continues to have, profound consequences for academic life and the
position and experience of students in educational systems, especially in the devel-
oped economies. Because of this shift the chapter examines the idea of the learner
experience in relation to networked and digital technologies and it locates this
historic account in the contemporary context of austerity.
At the beginning of the millennium, two research studies were conducted in the United
Kingdom which shed some light on the conditions for student learning at the time
when digital and network technologies were becoming embedded in universities.
Crook conducted research focused on what was then a novel group of students which
he described as ‘partially virtualised’ learners located in a traditional residential cam-
pus (Crook 2002). At about the same time the networked learning in higher education
project was also reporting its findings (Goodyear, et al. 2005; Jones and Bloxham
2001; Jones and Asensio 2001). In that period there was relatively little research that
examined undergraduate use and experiences of networked and digital technologies in
contexts in which networked technologies were supported by face-to-face contact.
The assumption was still common that learning would either be face-to-face or virtual
rather than an integration of the two forms of learning. The extensive networking of
student residences and campuses was relatively new and much of the rhetoric focused
on the virtual campus, and the potential threat that such developments posed to
place-based and campus-located education.
Crook reported that the use of computer-based collaboration was modest and the
joint activity that took place between students was in their study bedrooms or
located around routine social interactions, such as over a meal. He found that the
majority of students discussed their work in and around time-tabled sessions such
as walking between classes and lectures or in chance encounters. Formal meetings
with staff and other students were rare and the formal use of discussion boards, text
conferencing and email for debate was limited. The heaviest use of networked tech-
nology was of ICQ (an Instant Messenger) to exchange short messages, though
Crook suggested that ‘the use of this tool was largely limited to playful purposes’
(2002, p. 302). Crook noted that the focus on the networked computer, and the
graphical interface on a screen, which provided a single site for work and social
interaction, might lead to greater distraction and that intensive use of a networked
computer would not always be focused on the curriculum.
Early Work on Students and Technology 199
The networked learning in higher education project found that there were no strong
links between students’ judgments about their experience of networked learning and
either their conceptions of learning or their approach to study. A practical implication
of this research was that they argued that it was reasonable to expect all students to
have positive experiences on well-designed and well-managed networked learning
courses, and positive experiences were not likely to be restricted to those students with
more sophisticated conceptions of learning or deep approaches to study (Goodyear
et al. 2003). A key finding was that students’ views were generally positive at the start
and remained so at the end of each course, though their attitudes became more moder-
ated over time. The structure of students’ reported feelings remained relatively stable
and there was no evidence to suggest that male or younger students had more positive
thoughts about networked learning. The thoroughness with which new technologies
were integrated into a networked learning course appeared to be a significant factor in
explaining differences in students’ opinions and a well-integrated course was associ-
ated with more positive experiences (Goodyear, et al. 2005). Both studies provided
no evidence in England of a generational divide. The most prominent factor affect-
ing the attitudes and experiences of students was the course context, and the degree
to which networked learning was embedded in the course. Crook found little evi-
dence that the practices of lecturers were strengthening a participatory approach.
He argued that the question as to whether networks were to become a conduit for
delivery, or an arena for participation, depended on a deeper pedagogic discussion
amongst university management (Crook 2002).
These projects completed over 10 years ago reported on a population of students
that would have been born in the early 1980s at the beginning of the age group that
are now frequently described as the net generation or digital natives. Broadband
network connections were still a novelty and ADSL, broadband connections using
copper wire subscriber lines, was only launched commercially in 2000. When Crook
reported the provision of wired broadband in student study bedrooms was still
unusual and almost certainly unavailable, beyond some workplaces, for distance
learners (see also Jones and Healing 2010b). Mobile phones were relatively new and
while Vodafone took the first mobile call in 1985 the GSM 2G phone system, enabling
SMS text messaging, was only introduced in the 1990s. Mobile broadband internet
connections were only introduced with the 3G networks which were deployed after
the millennium. This raises a significant question for generational arguments because
it is unclear why if young people are affected by their exposure to new technologies
students growing up at the start of this period (around 1980) would be similar to
those born later (from the mid-1990s) and exposed to mobile technologies.
Even the most mobile students taking advantage of contemporary mobile com-
munications and broadband networks are still located somewhere. Nardi and O’Day
(1999) proposed the idea of ‘local habitation’ to describe settings in which individu-
als have: ‘an active role, a unique and valuable local perspective, and a say in what
happens’ (Nardi and O’Day 1999, p. ix). It is in these micro settings that local
knowledge and authority allow people to act and to develop different meanings for
technologies and services appropriate for divergent local conditions. The way local
participants co-construct the identity of technologies resonates with the idea of levels
200 8 The Learner and Digital Networks
and the way different levels afford different kinds of choices. The capacity to influence
the way technologies are appropriated is at its greatest at a microlevel and still quite
extensive in the mesolevel, but it becomes very limited when considered in relation
to macrolevel factors. Jones and Healing (2010b; Healing and Jones 2011) returned
to the work by Crook (2002) and his notion of a ‘learning nest’ and used more cur-
rent data to explore how students’ use of technologies had altered in subsequent
years in relation to the spaces they used. What these two studies showed was that in
some ways little had changed with regard to students’ locations and uses of space in
the decade since Crook’s original work. Care should be taken at this point because
of the continued speed of change in the years following this research. In the research
conducted between 2008 and 2010 there was only limited evidence of change,
which may have become more widespread in the following years, specifically
because of the increasing use of smartphones in teaching spaces and in the use of
broadband mobile phone data connections.
The learning preferences of these students were set out in his work as if they were
already known and common to all young students. They included bite size learning,
the use of new media and high levels of social interaction including collaboration.
It was because of these assumed changes among students that teachers were told
that they had to modify their teaching practices to accommodate the learning needs
of their technologically sophisticated students. It is remarkable that these pressures
were not identified by the empirical studies of students reported above which took
place at roughly the same time. The generational nature of the argument about stu-
dents’ preference and learning ‘style’ leads directly to a deficit model of professional
development for teachers (Bennett et al 2008). Teachers because they are older and
grew up prior to the deployment of ubiquitous digital and networked technologies are
described as strangers to the new world, in Prensky’s terms they are digital immi-
grants. Prensky argues that teachers have to try and imitate their digital native
students, but however hard they try they will always retain a digital immigrant
‘accent’. Other writers are less rigid, for example Tapscott argues that teachers can
learn new skills, but notably this is under the guidance of their students.
Needless to say, a whole generation of teachers needs to learn new tools, new approaches,
new skills. This will be a challenge… But as we make this inevitable transition, we may
best turn to the generation raised on and immersed in new technologies. Give the students
the tools and they will be the single most important source of guidance on how to make their
schools relevant and effective places to learn. (Tapscott 1999, p. 11)
From this point of view digital native students just grow up that way and their
digital immigrant teachers have relatively fixed characteristics that are already
established. The digital native and net generation arguments are a form of standardi-
sation which relies on an excessive and overgeneralised description of the positions
and characteristics of both the student and the teacher. This argument introduces a
rigidity that leads to an unusual version of the deficit model because teachers are
required to change, to learn new skills and approaches, even though they can never be
fully successful in this endeavour. There is also an inversion of the teacher–student
relationship because it is the digital native students who teach their teachers and
become their source of guidance.
Despite the rhetoric of transformation and inevitability the idea that a new
generation of students would force change has been slow to have an effect:
It is inevitable … that change would finally come to our young peoples’ education as well,
and it has. But there is a huge paradox for educators: the place where the biggest educa-
tional changes have come is not our schools; it is everywhere else but our schools. (Prensky
2010, p. 1)
Slow change despite revolutionary rhetoric is not the only weakness identified by
the originators of these ideas and Prensky (2009, 2011) has also recognised that the
original distinction he drew between digital natives and digital immigrants might
have become less relevant because, since he wrote the original articles, an increasing
proportion of society has grown up exposed to digital and networked technology.
To accommodate these changes he proposed an alternative way to describe the
transformation using the term ‘digital wisdom’.
The Net Generation and Digital Natives 203
Although many have found the terms useful, as we move further into the 21st century when
all will have grown up in the era of digital technology, the distinction between digital
natives and digital immigrants will become less relevant… I suggest we think in terms of
digital wisdom. (Prensky 2009, p. 1)
opposing evidence and arguments. White and Le Cornu wanted to recognise the
usefulness of typologies and retain this potential strength and to acknowledge the
importance of the debate and the simple framework that Prensky offered.
We therefore argue that tools, places and spaces are the three key metaphors that most aptly
describe the experience of computer users in a world where social media are becoming
more and more prevalent. (White and Le Cornu 2011 Online)
Residents are described as those people who spend a (large) proportion of their
lives online and for whom online spaces are ‘like a park or a building in which there
are clusters of friends and colleagues’. Visitors by contrast are those who use tech-
nology as a tool to address their specific needs and inhabit a space ‘akin to an untidy
garden tool shed’. The spatial metaphor is an improvement on the original but still
retains its highly restrictive binary form. It is also unclear to me why the typology
used to describe young people and their use of technology still has to adopt this
binary. The empirical evidence would suggest that life is far more complex than any
binary account would allow for and the oversimplification that simple typologies
and binary distinctions lead to result in bad policy decisions and poor practice.
The persistence of the net generation and digital native discourse is a concern for
those interested in networked learning because some of the prescriptions for change
are familiar to those engaged in networked learning. However the arguments used
by proponents of networked learning to support such changes are of a very different
type. Networked learning is interested in cooperation and collaboration as a form of
dialogue between teachers and learners because it is an effective and desirable peda-
gogic approach that develops critical thinking (McConnell et al. 2012). The educa-
tional reforms proposed by Tapscott and Prensky have very different roots despite
the similarity in some if the vocabulary.
A Generational Divide?
A central claim of the digital native and net generation arguments is that there is a
generational divide, a sharp break between young people born into a digital world
and those older people who were not. Howe and Strauss wrote the book Millennials
Rising (2000) several years after they co-authored a book that argued a general case
about generations in the United States (Howe and Strauss 1991). Although it would
be unreasonable to argue that those who use the term net generation or digital native
endorse the cyclical view of generations found in Howe and Strauss it has had a
clear influence both directly through Howe and Strauss’ later work and through
Oblinger and Oblinger who built on Howe and Strauss’ work when discussing edu-
cation (Oblinger and Oblinger 2005). The generational argument can be read as a
general case affecting all young people of a certain age, or it can be seen as gener-
alising the experience of the advanced industrial countries and the United States in
particular. In other countries different characteristics have been used to define age
groups and generations. In China the single child policy and the funnelling of
A Generational Divide? 205
resources from a whole family to one child led to the term ‘Little Emperor’ to
describe the characteristics of the young. In South Africa the end of apartheid led to
the description of the young as ‘born free’ and there is no reason to suggest that
responses to technology in South Africa will mirror those in the United States
(Brown and Czerniewicz 2008; Thinyane 2010; Brown and Czerniewicz 2010). The
generational divide based on technology alone can be thought of as an extrapolation
from a narrow cultural and national base.
Empirical research has also found that there are variations among students within
the age group identified with the net generation, and that young people in this cohort
can be clustered into different user groups with different interests, preferences and
lifestyles (Bullen et al. 2011; Jones et al. 2010a; Jones and Hosein 2010; Kennedy
et al. 2010; Schulmeister 2010; Van Beemt, et al. 2010b). There is good evidence,
even in the rich industrial states, to show that there is no simple generational divide
(Bullen et al. 2011; Kennedy et al. 2008, 2010; McNaught et al 2009; Pedró 2009;
Salajan et al. 2010; Waycott et al 2009). Pedró’s (2009) meta-analysis of studies from
countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
concluded that there were differences in students’ technology adoption and use and
a variety of digital divides persist between different kinds of students (Pedró 2009;
Schulmeister 2009; Hargittai (2010). Hargittai et al. (2010) showed that socioeco-
nomic factors were related to the complexity and variation in people’s use of the
Internet and students’ online skills. Other broad demographic influences affected
students’ interaction with technology and these included gender and ethnicity along-
side social class (Hargittai 2010; Jones et al. 2010a; Smith and Caruso 2010; Kennedy
et al. 2010; Selwyn 2008). Research in China has also found evidence that there are
variations in information searching and levels of competence amongst the young
(Li and Ranieri 2010; Li and Kirkup 2007). Access to technology is still unevenly
spread and access relies on young people having the necessary digital literacies
rather than simply the availability of new technology (Schulmeister 2010; Palfrey
and Gasser 2008). Jones and Shao (2011) concluded their review of international
literature by stating that there was no empirical evidence for a new generation of
young students entering higher education and the terms net generation and digital
native did not capture the processes of change that were taking place.
There are two implications that can be drawn from this. The first is that the
alleged divide between native students and immigrant academic staff has been over-
drawn. The second is that the use of a generational metaphor and an exaggerated
claim for a ‘singularity’ separating one age defined generation from another
obscures the actual age-related changes that are taking place. Jones and Shao (2011)
argue that the complex changes identified in extensive empirical work show an age-
related component, particularly with regard to newer technologies such as social
networking site use (e.g. Facebook), the uploading and manipulation of multimedia
(e.g. YouTube) and the use of handheld devices to access the mobile Internet. The
relationship to age is itself complex because it is affected by how recently a particu-
lar technology has been introduced. Secondly it is influenced by the dynamics of
particular age cohorts, for example by the stage of life they are currently passing
through. An example of this would be first-year university students at residential
206 8 The Learner and Digital Networks
universities that take them away from home. Such students show a pattern of social
network use that includes contact with home while they are at university and contact
with university friends when they return home. Such a pattern is related to the
transition from home to university and while it is enabled by the technology of
social networks it is not caused by their availability.
A further complicating factor undermining the idea of a generation of digital
natives is that demographic factors interact with age to pattern students’ responses
to new technologies and that the most important of these are gender, socioeconomic
background, academic preference (major) and year of study (grade), mode of study
(distance or place-based) and the international or home-based status of the student
(Brown and Czerniewicz 2008; Caruso and Kvavik 2005; Dahlstrom and Bichsel
2014; Dahlstrom et al. 2013; Gros et al. 2012; Hosein et al. 2010a; Jones et al.
2010a; Kvavik 2005; Krause 2007; McNaught et al. 2009; Selwyn 2008; Smith
et al. 2009; Smith and Caruso 2010; Van den Beemt, et al. 2010a). Jones and Shao
(2011) concluded their review by stating that there was no evidence that a genera-
tion of students was entering university with demands for new technologies that the
universities and their teachers could not meet (see also Salajan et al 2010; Waycott
et al 2009).
While there has been considerable growth in students’ access to computing tech-
nologies and online tools the take-up of these technologies has often been for social
and entertainment purposes rather than for learning (Oliver and Goerke 2007;
Selwyn 2009). Furthermore students’ use of technology for social and leisure pur-
poses has been shown to be different to their use of technologies for academic pur-
poses (Corrin et al 2010; Jones et al. 2010a; Jones and Ramanau 2009; Hosein et al.
2010b). A key distinction needs to be attended to when discussing students’ uses of
technology and that is that educational use and use more generally for learning has
its own characteristics and simply because technologies are used by young people it
does not mean that the familiarity with new technology in one area will transition
seamlessly into learning and education. The distinction between social uses and
educational uses of technology should not be thought of as a separation in relation
to the student’s live experience. Jones and Healing (2010b) report that students
often have multiple applications open at one time, some of them for academic work
and some for leisure. Jones and Healing described the ways students managed the
distraction that occurred in these circumstances, often involving issues of time man-
agement. Gourlay (2014) also noted that students’ academic use of the technologies
is intertwined with leisure uses and she related this with time issues, the complex
relationships between networked devices, digital materials and practices, and the
broader questions of course requirements and the curriculum.
Relationships Between Technology Use in Society and in Education 207
Because young people use new technologies and have relatively high general
levels of skill using them it should not be assumed that this level of use and skill
translates into preferences for an increased use of technology in educational con-
texts. In contrast to net generation and digital native theories researchers report that
a large number of students still hold conventional attitudes towards teaching
(Kennedy et al. 2007; Gabriel and Wiebe 2009; Garcia and Qin 2007; Lohnes and
Kinzer 2007; Margaryan et al. 2011). There is also a consistent and long-standing
finding that students prefer a moderate use of technology in the classroom, although
care needs to be taken with this finding because the idea of moderate in 2004 may
not correspond with current views about what constitutes moderate use (Jones 2012;
Kennedy et al. 2007; Kvavik 2005; Salaway and Caruso 2007; Smith and Caruso
2010). More recently it has been claimed that technology has become ‘omnipresent
in the lives of students’ Dahlstrom and Bichsel 2014, p. 34). In relation to the chang-
ing technological context early work showed little evidence that students were sig-
nificant users of either Web 2.0 or the more recent or most advanced technologies
(Kennedy et al 2007). There is some evidence that some uses of new technologies
in education can be contrary to student wishes (Jones, Blackey et al. 2010). Selwyn
(2009) reviewed literature with a particular focus on information sciences, educa-
tion and media/communication studies and he concluded that young people’s
engagements with digital technologies were varied and often unspectacular. He also
highlighted the misplaced determinism and concluded that while there is a need to
keep in mind the changing lifeworlds of young people it would be helpful to steer
clear of the excesses of the digital native debate.
Students have a pragmatic and instrumental way of using technologies and they
only use those technologies that are useful to them for communication and informa-
tion searching (Schulmeister 2010). Nagler and Ebner (2009) found that use varied
between common services and Wikipedia, YouTube and social networking sites
were commonly used while social bookmarking, photo sharing and microblogging
were much less popular at that time. Schulmeister (2009) argued that many of the
claims about the effects of technology on cognitive development were overstated or
unsupported and noted that studies did not always distinguish between the types,
contents or functions of media activities or include anything about the motives of
the users. However evidence that students do not exhibit a natural take-up of some
technologies does not mean students will not make use of similar technologies if
they are requirements for their studies (Dahlstrom and Bichsel 2014; Jones,
Ramanau, Cross, and Healing 2010a; Smith and Caruso 2010; Kennedy et al. 2007).
Taken together this evidence shows significant changes in the technologies that are
available and in their use by learners, but the diversity of that use and the active
appropriation of technologies informed by a variety of factors contrasts with net
generation and digital native rhetoric which claims that a uniform generation of
students become advanced users of new technology and force educational change.
There is no real evidence of a significant break between young people and the
rest of society and educationalists should approach net generation and digital native
literature with extreme caution.
208 8 The Learner and Digital Networks
The net generation and digital native arguments are flawed but they have a remarkable
persistence. One of the reasons for this persistence is the simplicity of the argument
and the way that the prescriptions translate directly to clear answers and locate with
key policy agendas, which suggest that actions must be taken and there is one best
way to deal with the changes that are taking place amongst students. A further rea-
son for the persistence of these arguments is that commercial interests have been
active in perpetuating the idea of a new net generation (Bayne and Ross 2011).
A clear danger that flows from this persistent influence is that universities follow the
flawed advice and reasoning found in these discourses and frame their actions accord-
ing to their simplistic agendas. The arguments of this book have been that learning is
part of a complex sociotechnical assemblage in which institutions and infrastructures
are key actors. This section examines a small number of key issues and theoretical
approaches to the questions raised by the changing engagements of young students
with new technologies. The intention is to provide alternative approaches to student
engagements with technology which can help readers understand the processes of
change that are taking place without resorting to the generational and determinist
accounts found in the net generation and digital native literature.
Stoerger (2009) proposed one of the more useful alternative metaphors, ‘the
Digital Melting Pot’ with an aim to redirect attention away from ‘assigned’ genera-
tional characteristics to the diverse technological capabilities young people have
and to focus on the digital skills they might gain through experience. The Melting
Pot metaphor emphasised integration rather than the segregation of digital natives
and digital immigrants into distinct populations. Stoerger (2009) went on to argue
that by gaining technology experience, those with low levels of competency could
be transformed. One of the key findings of the early networked learning in higher
education studies had been the moderating effect of exposure to networked tech-
nologies in education. Students with little expertise or prior knowledge of new tech-
nologies would become more positive, increase their capacity and express more
confidence while those who were most enthusiastic about the technology would
moderate their opinions (Goodyear et al 2003). Educational experience can play a
significant role in developing both capacity and a positive attitude towards new
technologies by providing guidance concerning the acquisition and enhancement of
technological skills.
Educators, as well as their corresponding institutions, could be major players in the digital
melting pot assimilation process. Together they could provide all individuals the chance to
acquire, refine, and update technology skills. The digital native–digital immigrant metaphor
serves to place individuals into separate silos based on over–generalized and oftentimes
inaccurate characteristics. (Stoerger 2009 Online).
Stoerger also made an important point about the way the technological environments
experienced by digital natives were designed and developed by previous generations.
Someone had to design, build, and upgrade the technologies that have evolved into the
electronic spaces that the natives now inhabit. Interestingly, very few educational technology
advocates mention that the digital immigrants were the creators of these devices and envi-
ronments. (Stoerger 2009 Online).
There are potentially two different arguments about the changes that are taking
place amongst young people and their relationship to networked and digital tech-
nologies (Jones 2011). The first argument and the one, that is most associated with
the idea of the Net Generation and Digital Natives, is that:
1. The ubiquitous nature of digital and networked technologies has affected the
outlook of an entire generation in advanced economies.
A second related but distinct argument is that:
2. The new digital and networked technologies emerging in the lifetime of young
people have particular characteristics that afford certain types of social
engagement.
My argument is that it is the first of these arguments that we need to abandon in
the face of the empirical evidence. First we need to abandon the idea that the changes
are generational in character and second we need to abandon the determinist
argument that technologies, in and of themselves, cause definite effects in the young.
The argument based on affordance tries to retain the rational kernel of an argument
about changes in young people related to their exposure and experience of new tech-
nologies. It draws attention to the affordances of technology as discussed in Chap. 2.
One good reason why the net generation and digital native arguments persist is
because they draw attention to the ways new technologies are changing the approaches
that young people take in ways that are significant and often related to age. The kinds
of change that are taking place require careful observation and assessment because
technologies do not have effects that can be read off from the features or characteris-
tics of the devices and technologies themselves. Students actively appropriate avail-
able technologies and they do so in ways that are related to their understandings of
their position as a student and in the world, and their choices are related to the
opportunities and constraints that educational institutions and infrastructures place
on them. To borrow an idea from Marx—students make their own technological
conditions but they do so in circumstances that are not of their own making.
210 8 The Learner and Digital Networks
The importance of location has been understood since the earliest writing about
networked learning because learning networks allowed groups of people to use
computer-mediated communication ‘to learn together, at the time, place, and pace
that best suits them and is appropriate to the task.’ (Harasim et al. 1995, p. 4). The
increasing availability and use of digital and networked technologies since that time
has led to an increasing variety of spaces in which students can learn and to a pres-
sure on universities to increase the flexibility of their provision, in terms of both the
digital infrastructure and the physical estate of the institution (Ellis and Goodyear
2010). From the early provision of cable-connected computer laboratories and
library provision of computers, universities have moved to the establishment of
extensive wireless networks, remote access via broadband connections to the Web
Spaces and Places 211
and more recently making provision for students to bring their own devices (BYOD).
In his original conception of indirect design (Goodyear 2001, 2005, see Chap. 3
this volume) space and place were two factors considered in relation to learning,
alongside task and activity, and organisation and community. Goodyear argued
spaces could be designed but it was the activity of people (students and teachers) in
those spaces that enacted the places in which learning took place. I have previously
argued for a distinction to be made:
between space, which is understood as a relatively stable and potentially designed environ-
ment, and place, understood as contingent and locally inhabited… fostering a sense of place
in networked learning environments is necessary in order to develop a social and emotional
context to sustain social interactions and collaboration, whether these interactions are com-
posed of either strong or weak ties. (Jones and Dirckinck-Holmfeld 2009, p. 22)
As the spaces in which learning takes place increase so does the design complexity
due to the variety of ways that students can actively appropriate the possibilities and
circumvent the constraints that the designed spaces afford them. Carvalho and
Goodyear (2014) have analysed the key components of learning networks
and illustrated the ways that learning networks have allowed learning to move out
into networks and areas of everyday life including both leisure activities and work.
The mobilities paradigm has questioned traditional approaches to society and
examined mobility in ways that are important in terms of an understanding of geo-
graphical location, space and place (Urry 2007. In particular mobilities research
points to the ‘fixtures’ that allow movement, and the firm, material and located
infrastructures that underpin the apparent ease of movement. Think for example of
the airports that allow mobility by air and the motorway networks that enable auto-
mobility. In educational contexts the mobility of students via digital networks also
needs to be located in the infrastructural and material locations through which
mobility takes place. On the one hand students have increasing access to various
devices, smartphones, tablet computers, e-book readers and a number of hybrid
devices that are WiFi enabled and often linked via mobile broadband to the Internet.
On the other their use of these devices often hinges on university infrastructures that
have already integrated wired communications, and a variety of Internet-based
services, but which now face a new range of challenges as staff and students access
university networks using their own devices and universal service infrastructures
impinge on the institutional setting. The emergent ecology of mobile devices in
higher education that results from these changes is complex and poorly understood,
even though there has been considerable effort to theorise mobile or m-learning
(Kukulska-Hulme and Traxler 2013; Pachler et al. 2010; Sharples et al. 2007;
Sharples et al 2009; Roschelle 2003).
Jones and Healing (2010b) found that the common locations for students were
still their dedicated work spaces in their term time homes. These were usually either
within the student’s permanent residence or in a student study bedroom. In some
cases these spaces were dedicated to study but in others the spaces were multifunc-
tional, with a study area set aside from the other activities that took place in the larger
area. The university library, multimedia centres, lecture theatres and computer labs
all remained common spaces in which students did their academic work. Students
were well connected and most were connected to their networks all the time, often
212 8 The Learner and Digital Networks
sleeping next to their phone in order to keep in touch with other students and friends
from home. One university involved in the research had equipped an area that was
open 24 h a day 7 days a week with access to wireless networking, loan laptop com-
puters and a comfortable and informal working area. This change in the physical
campus infrastructure had begun to alter some students’ use of mobile technologies
on campus. In the period 2008–2010 students already seemed permanently con-
nected to their networks and there was a blurring of activities from their student
working life and their social life and leisure.
The settings that students reported are local habitations in the sense that students have a
degree of control in make use of available resources by negotiating the meaning and rele-
vance of a technology within their own life space and the flow of their lives. They are active
agents because each student has their own study practices, subject area and network of
relationships and they don’t act uniformly in relation to the technologies and services they
are presented with. (Jones and Healing 2010b, p. 382)
I am convinced that the increasing mobile technologies and the drive to increase
the mobility of learning requires a continued strong focus on location, on the spaces
that are provided in which learning can take place. This will require a degree of
methodological innovation to track and trace learning activity in a wide variety of
locations. One possible way of accomplishing this is to adopt the ANT approach
and ‘follow the actor’ via the traces they leave in digital networks and by developing
innovative ways for actors to record their own activity. It is also important to recog-
nise that calls for a complete overthrow of traditional forms of place-based learning
in the face of ‘disruptive’ technologies ignore the ways that disruption at one point
of time is only one part of a continuing sequence. Campus universities and city-
based locations may become reinvigorated as nodes in the wider network which are
valued because there are substantial intrinsic attractions to them, even as they are
interpenetrated with networked and digital technologies.
The learner is located in physical space but they also stretch outward across digital
networks which are re-presented to them at the interface. This process preceded the
development of mobile technologies but it is amplified by it.
In this society, work and leisure activities not only increasingly involve computer use, but
they converge around the same interfaces. Both work applications (word processors,
spreadsheet programs, database programs) and ‘leisure’ applications (computer games,
informational DVD) use the same tools and metaphors of GUI. The best example of this is
a Web browser employee both in the office and at home, both for work and play. (Manovich
2001, p. 65)
Much of the locus of learner interaction is now at the interface and their interaction
is often with services supplied via the network. The interface and the device are act-
ing as portals to a network of resources, service and people that reside ‘elsewhere’.
As Manovich puts it ‘we are no longer interfacing with a computer but to culture
Student Experience and Design 213
encoded in digital form’ (Manovich 2001 pp. 69–70). Galloway expands on this
understanding of the interface in a way that resonates with ANT in the way that it
sees ‘effects’:
Interfaces are not simply objects or boundary points. They are autonomous zones of
activity. Interfaces are not things but rather processes that effect a result of whatever kind.
(Galloway 2012 vii)
This interpretation of the interface means that less attention is placed on objects
such as screens and keyboards and more on the effects of interfaces both in terms of
the way that interfaces change material states and in the way that they are them-
selves the effects of larger forces that generate them.
The learner appropriates the networked services and the technological devices that
are available to them in active way and it has been repeatedly noted that this active
interaction with technologies separates out uses for social life and leisure and educa-
tional use (Corrin et al. 2010; Kennedy and Judd 2011; Bennett and Maton 2011).
Kennedy and Judd (2011) argue that students use of information seeking and com-
munication technologies is driven by a shallow ‘satisficing’ strategy and that while
they use such technologies routinely they are challenged by scholarly uses. The term
satisficing is used to suggest a strategy that provides satisfactory results but the results
do not have to be the best available. Kennedy and Judd also draw attention to the way
‘satisficing’ can be linked to the idea of deep and surface learning. Students do not
develop sophisticated approaches to information seeking or learning in their interac-
tions with technology ‘in the wild’, academic and scholarly uses are learned and
require educational processes, if not always formal education. The research on stu-
dents’ relationships with digital and networked technologies illustrates a contradictory
process in which students are working with technologies relevant to their social life
and leisure via the same interfaces that they use for academic and scholarly work.
However students actively manage this common interface and discriminate between
uses that are for academic purposes and those that are not. The evidence suggests that
students do not naturally adopt the most useful approaches to technologies appropri-
ate for academic work, such as information seeking, but that they will take-up new
technologies and engage with them if there are good pedagogical reasons to do so.
The interface is a critical site as important as the spaces and places for learning because
it is at the interface that students navigate their networks and there is a need for
researchers to understand the increasingly complex interactions between the embodied
location of students and the interfaces that they use to:
a) bring the network connections and resources to them and
b) extend their learning network outwards into the world.
Networked learning has emphasised the way that design attention has moved from
direct design of learning to indirect design (Carvalho and Goodyear 2014) and
focused on those points indirectly related to learning (often at the mesolevel)
214 8 The Learner and Digital Networks
where choices can be made between the variety of tools, services and resources
because both digital and material forms become available as alternatives (Goodyear
2005). In previous chapters in this volume I have noted how networked learning
takes place in learning infrastructures (Chap. 6), which are assemblages of humans,
digital and material forms (Chap. 4). I have previously argued that this leads to an
increasing complexity of design (Jones and Dirckinck-Holmfeld 2009; Jones and
Healing 2010b). The apparently simple choices between online and (offline) face-
to-face, or between distance and local, become increasingly complex as educa-
tional designs blend a variety of components in what I have described as a variable
geometry and others as an ecology (Dillenbourg 2008; Ellis and Goodyear 2010).
Ellis and Goodyear argue that the binary distinctions found in the contrast between
digital natives and immigrants and between transmission (acquisition) and student-
centred (participation) approaches to teaching and learning are not found in practice.
Rather the say the reality ‘is that beliefs represent a melange of the teacher-centred
and the student-centred’ (Ellis and Goodyear 2010, p. 187). They propose that an
ecology of learning should be informed by a sense of ‘good learning’ which they
define as:
…a set of tensely adjusted beliefs and constructs emerging from the experiences and values
of students, teachers, employers, community groups, experts in pedagogy and researchers
in the learning sciences. (Ellis and Goodyear 2010, p. 187)
The sense of good learning Ellis and Goodyear speak about is rooted in change
and the periods of calm in which universities can share a sense of purpose are
described in terms of provisional stabilities. This dynamic and complex picture is
more in tune with the early twenty-first century findings about student experiences
with technology than the standard simple binaries of digital natives and immigrants.
By being located in design processes, and the possibility of managing the risks that
come with change and uncertainty, this approach offers a better way of thinking
about the relationships between students, their experiences and digital and networked
technologies. Within this ecological perspective the student experience is one part
of a complex and changing set of relations at all levels. At the macrolevel university
leaders are dealing with large infrastructural questions. At the mesolevel the devel-
opment of design-like practices in departments and educational programmes can
help provide iterative adjustments and coordinate a cyclical process of improve-
ment. Finally at the microlevel of day-to-day interaction it is good (successful and
effective) learning and the experiences of students in their routine interactions that
holds this ecology together and gives it purpose.
The early work in networked learning reported earlier in this chapter was connected
with the need to include the lived experience of students in the discussion that
surrounded the incorporation of network and digital technologies in education.
The Student/Learner Experience 215
One of the sources for thinking about networked learning arose from a series of EU
and UK-funded projects (Goodyear 2014; McConnell et al. 2012). These projects
and in particular the 2-year JISC-funded project concerning students’ experiences
of networked learning (1999–2000) had a key role in formalising and stabilising the
developing field of networked learning in continental Europe and the United
Kingdom (Carvalho and Goodyear 2014). That project had as its main aim:
To help the UK HE sector come to a better understanding of the potential and problems of
networked learning, particularly by attending to the student experience and to learning and
teaching issues (Goodyear 2000, p. 3)
At this stage there was a clear link between networked learning and the student
experience and that understanding was informed by a clear approach based on a
relational view of learning and the phenomenographic tradition in particular (see
Jones and Asensio 2001).
The phenomenographic tradition (see Chap. 3) has provided something of a bridge
between academic research investigating students’ experience and more recent policy
initiatives. Key individuals have been involved in both academic research and the
policy developments in terms of the student experience (e.g. Paul Ramsden1 and Mike
Prosser2). The quantitative branch of phenomenographic research had independently
developed a number of instruments such as the approaches to study inventory (ASI)
and later variants such as the approaches and study skills inventory for students
(ASSIST) which provided a starting point for some of the work developing survey
instruments with a direct link to national policy (e.g. Entwistle and Ramsden 1983).
The fundamental understanding of phenomenography was that there are a limited
number of qualitatively different ways to experience a phenomena and that these
could be related to each other (often in a hierarchical manner) (Marton and Säljö
1976a, b; Marton 1981, 1994; Marton et al 1993; Marton and Booth 1997). Marton
defined the approach as:
…the empirical study of the differing ways in which people experience, perceive, apprehend,
understand, or conceptualize various phenomena in, and aspects of, the world around them.
(Marton 1994, p. 4424)
A second key aspect of this approach, which has informed research and policy
concerning the student experience, has been the idea that the qualitatively different
experiences of learning could be related to different learning outcomes (Prosser and
Trigwell 1999). An additional step was also made which argued that some ways of
teaching and of experiencing learning led to surface approaches to learning, whereas
others led to a deep approach:
The relation between teachers’ experiences and their students’ experiences is such that
university teachers who adopt a conceptual change/ student-focused approach to teaching
are more likely to teach students who adopt a deep approach to their learning, while teachers
1
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/consultations/paulramsden_teaching_and_
student_experience
2
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/teachingandresearch/Interpretingstudentsurveys_
Nov_2005.doc
216 8 The Learner and Digital Networks
In the competition for league position and status, universities worldwide are drawn
into the measurement of the student experience in generic and market-oriented ways.
This international competition has been sharpened by the financial crisis of 2008 and
the austerity politics that followed in many developed economies.
The student experience is important to a networked learning perspective but it
has a very different character because it focuses on the complex empirical makeup
of actual student experiences rather than generic notions of ‘the’ student experience
3
For example in the USA see http://nsse.iub.edu/; in the UK see http://www.hefce.ac.uk/what-
wedo/lt/publicinfo/nss/; in Ireland http://studentsurvey.ie/wordpress/about-the-survey/
Students and Their Experiences of Technology 217
(See Ellis and Goodyear 2010). From a networked learning perspective researchers
are interested in the ways that students engage in learning, through their connec-
tions with people, enabled by a variety of media and in relation to material artefacts
and the resources they use for learning. One of the ways that technology has changed
the kinds of environments in which learning takes place is in the way variety has
been increased in both the kinds of devices that students use and in the kinds of
networks they have access to. Not only has the technological environment diversi-
fied but students engage with universities in different ways, for example on full- or
part-time programmes, and with varying provision in terms of distance and online
methods of teaching and learning. The idea that there is a clearly defined, singular
‘student experience’ is clearly nonsense, but it has powerful political and institu-
tional support.
References
Bavelier, D., Green, C. S., & Dye, M. W. G. (2010). Children, wired: For better and for worse.
Neuron, 67(5), 692–701.
Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2011). ‘Digital native’ and ‘digital immigrant’ discourses: A critique. In
R. Land & S. Bayne (Eds.), Digital difference: Perspectives on online learning (pp. 159–169).
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2011). Intellectual field or faith-based religion: Moving on from the idea
of ‘digital natives’. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Deconstructing digital natives: Young people, technol-
ogy and the new literacies (pp. 169–185). New York: Routledge.
Bennett, S., Matton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the
literature. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(9), 775–786.
Biggs, J. B. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes.
Higher Education, 8, 381–394.
References 219
Biggs, J. B. (1998). Learning from the Confucian heritage: So size doesn’t matter? International
Journal of Educational Research, 29, 723–738.
BIS (Department for Business and Skills) (2011). Higher education: Students at the heart of the
system. Department for Business and Skills White Paper. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32409/11-944-higher-education-
students-at-heart-of-system.pdf
Brown, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2008). Trends in student use of ICTs in higher education in South
Africa. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Conference of WWW Applications, Cape Town,
South Africa, 3–6 September 2008. Retrieved from http://www.cet.uct.ac.za/files/file/
ResearchOutput/2008_wwwApps_UseTrends.pdf
Brown, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Debunking the ‘digital native’: Beyond digital apartheid,
towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 357–369.
Bullen, M., Morgan, T., & Qayyum, A. (2011). Digital learners in higher education: Generation is
not the issue. Canadian Journal of Learning Technology, 37(1).Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.
ca/index.php/cjlt/issue/view/71
Caruso, J. B., & Kvavik, R. B. (2005). ECAR study of students and information technology 2005:
Convenience, connection, control and learning: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://www.edu-
cause.edu/ECAR/ECARStudyofStudentsandInformat/158586
Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (Eds.). (2014). The architecture of productive learning networks.
London: Routledge.
Corrin, L., Lockyer, L., & Bennett, S. (2010). Technological diversity: An investigation of students’
technology use in everyday life and academic study. Learning Media and Technology, 35(4),
387–402.
Crook, C. (2002). The campus experience of networked learning. In C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.),
Networked learning: Perspectives and issues (pp. 293–308). London: Springer.
Czerniewicz, L., Williams, K., & Brown, C. (2009). Students make a plan: Understanding student
agency in constraining conditions. Research in Learning Technology, 17, 75–88.
Dahlstrom, E., & Bichsel, J. (2014). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information tech-
nology, 2014. Research report. Louisville, CO: ECAR. Retrieved from http://www.educause.
edu/ecar
Dahlstrom, E., Walker, J .D., & Dziuban, C. (2013). ECAR study of undergraduate students and
information technology, 2013. Research report. Louisville, CO: ECAR. Retrieved from http://
www.educause.edu/ecar
Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility.
Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Retrieved from http://jime.open.ac.uk/2012/18
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for ‘neomillennial’ learning styles: Implications for investments in
technology and faculty. In J. Oblinger & D. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation
(pp. 226–247). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Integrating technologies into educational ecosystems. Distance & Education,
29(2), 127–140.
Ellis, R., & Goodyear, P. (2010). Students experiences of e-learning in higher education: The ecology
of sustainable innovation. New York: Routledge.
Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Gabriel, M. A., & Wiebe, S. (2009). Net generation expectations for technology-mediated learning
at the university level. In A. Mendez-Vilas (Ed.), Research, reflections and innovations in
integrating ICT in education (Vol. 1, pp. 996–1000). Badajoz, Spain: Formatex.
Galloway, A. R. (2012). The interface effect. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Garcia, P., & Qin, J. (2007). Identifying the generation gap in higher education: Where do the dif-
ferences really lie? Innovate, 3(5).
Goodyear, P. (2000). Final report, volume 1: Networked learning in higher education project
(JCALT). Retrieved from http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/
Goodyear, P. (2001). Effective networked learning in higher education: Notes and guidelines
(Deliverable 9). Bristol, England: Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). Retrieved
from http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/docs/Guidelines_final.doc
220 8 The Learner and Digital Networks
Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and
design practices. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 21, 82–101.
Goodyear, P. (2014). Productive learning networks: The evolution of research and practice. In
L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks
(pp. 23–47). London: Routledge.
Goodyear, P., Asensio, M., Jones, C., Hodgson, V., & Steeples, C. (2003). Relationships between
conceptions of learning, approaches to study and students’ judgements about the value of their
experiences of networked learning. The Association for Learning Technology Journal, 11(1),
17–27.
Goodyear, P., Jones, C., Asensio, M., Hodgson, V., & Steeples, C. (2005). Networked learning in
higher education: Students’ expectations and experiences. Higher Education, 50(3), 473–508.
Gourlay, L. (2014). Creating time: students, technologies and temporal practices in higher educa-
tion. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(2), 141–153.
Gros, B., Garcia, I., & Escofet, A. (2012). Beyond the net generation debate: A comparison of digi-
tal learners in face-to-face and virtual universities. International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning, IRRODL, 13(4). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/
irrodl/article/view/1305/2311
Harasim, L. (Ed.). (1990). Online education; perspectives on a new environment. New York:
Praeger.
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teach-
ing and learning online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital Na(t)Ives? variation in internet skills and uses among members of the
‘net generation’. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92–113.
Hargittai, E., Fullerton, L., Menchen-Trevino, E., & Thomas, K. Y. (2010). Trust online: Young
adults’ evaluation of Web content. International Journal of Communication, 4, 468–494.
Retrieved from: http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/download/636/423.
Healing, G., & Jones, C. (2011). Learner experience advancement project (LEAP) phase 2, stage
2 final report. Milton Keynes, England: The Open University.
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via computer (1st
ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley [Revised Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.].
Hosein, A., Ramanau, R., & Jones, C. (2010a). Are all Net Generation students the same? The
frequency of technology use at University. Paper presented at the IADIS E-learning Conference
July 2010. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/24114/
Hosein, A., Ramanau, R., & Jones, C. (2010b). Learning and living technologies: A longitudinal
study of first-year Students’ frequency and competence in the use of ICT. Learning Media and
Technology, 35(4), 403–418.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future and the fourth turn-
ing: An American prophecy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next greatest generation. New York:
Vintage Books.
Jones, C. (2011). Students, the net generation and digital natives: Accounting for educational
change. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Deconstructing digital natives (pp. 30–45). New York: Routledge.
Jones, C. (2012). Networked learning, stepping beyond the net generation and digital natives. In
L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy
and practice of networked learning (pp. 27–41). New York: Springer.
Jones, C. (2013). The new shape of the student. In R. Huang & J. M. Kinshuk Spector (Eds.),
Reshaping learning—The frontiers of learning technologies in global context (pp. 91–112).
New York: Springer.
Jones, C., & Asensio, M. (2001). Experiences of assessment: Using phenomenography for evalu-
ation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(3), 314–321.
Jones, N., Blackey, H., Fitzgibbon, K., & Chew, E. (2010a). Get out of MySpace! Computers &
Education, 54(3), 776–782.
Jones, C., & Bloxham, S. (2001). Networked legal learning: An evaluation of the student experi-
ence. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 3(15), 317–329.
References 221
Jones, C., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2009). Analysing networked learning practices: An intro-
duction. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked
learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development (pp. 1–27).
Rotterdam, England: Sense Publishers, BV.
Jones, C., & Healing, G. (2010a). Net generation students: Agency and choice and the new tech-
nologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 344–356.
Jones, C., & Healing, G. (2010b). Networks and locations for student learning. Learning Media
and Technology, 35(4), 369–385.
Jones, C., & Hosein, A. (2010). Profiling university students’ use of technology: Where is the Net
generation divide? The International Journal of Technology Knowledge and Society, 6(3),
43–58.
Jones, C., & Ramanau, R. (2009). Collaboration and the net generation: The changing characteristics
of first year university students. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reiman & A. Dimitracopoulou
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning: CSCL2009: CSCL Practices (pp. 237–241). Rhodes, Greece: University of the Aegean.
Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S. J., & Healing, G. (2010b). Net generation or digital natives: Is
there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54(3), 722–732.
Jones, C., & Shao, B. (2011). The net generation and digital natives: Implications for higher edu-
cation. New York: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/
resources/detail/evidencenet/net-generation-and-digital-natives
Jöns, H., & Hoyler, M. (2013). Global geographies of higher education: the perspective of world
university rankings. Geoforum, 46, 45–59.
Jorgensen, B. (2003). Baby boomers, generation X and generation Y?: Policy implications for
defence forces in the modern era. Foresight, 5(4), 41–49.
Kember, D. (1996). The intention to both memorise and understand: Another approach to learning.
Higher Education, 31(3), 341–354.
Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Bennett, S., Judd, T., Gray, K., & Chang, R. (2008). Immigrants and
natives: Investigating differences between staff and students’ use of technology. In Hello!
Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings of ascilite Melbourne
2008. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/kennedy.pdf
Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., & Bennett, S., et al. (2007). The net
generation are not big users of Web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings. In ICT: Providing
choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007. http://www.ascilite.
org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/kennedy.pdf
Kennedy, G. E., & Judd, T. S. (2011). Beyond Google and the ‘Satisficing’ searching of digital natives.
In M. Thomas (Ed.), Deconstructing digital natives (pp. 119–136). New York: Routledge.
Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Dalgarno, B., & Waycott, J. (2010). Beyond natives and immigrants: explor-
ing types of net generation students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 332–343.
Knox, J. (2014). Digital culture clash: ‘massive’ education in the E-learning and digital cultures
MOOC. Distance Education (Special Issue on Massively Open Online Courses), 35(2),
164–177.
Krause, K.-L. (2007). Who is the e-generation and how are they fairing in higher education. In
J. Lockard & M. Pegrum (Eds.), Brave new classrooms: Democratic education and the Internet
(pp. 125–139). New York: Peter Lang.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (2013). Design principles for mobile learning. In H. Beetham
& R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning
(2nd ed., pp. 244–257). London: Routledge.
Kvavik, R. (2005). Convenience, communications, and control: How students use technology. In
D. G. Oblinger, & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 82–101). Retrieved
from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf.
Li, N., & Kirkup, G. (2007). Gender and cultural differences in internet use: A study of china and
the UK. Computers & Education, 48(2), 301–317.
Li, Y., & Ranieri, M. (2010). Are ‘digital natives’ really digitally competent?—A study on Chinese
teenagers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 1029–1042.
222 8 The Learner and Digital Networks
Lohnes, S. & Kinzer, C. (2007). Questioning assumptions about students’ expectations for technol-
ogy in college classrooms. Innovate, 3(5).
Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University
students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429–440.
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—describing conceptions of the world around us.
Instructional Science, 10, 177–200.
Marton, F. (1994). Phenomenography. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international
encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 4424–4429). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of
Educational Research, 19, 277–300.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning 1: Outcome and process.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning 11: Outcome as a function
of the learner’s conception of task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.
McConnell, D., Hodgson, V., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). Networked learning: A brief his-
tory and new trends. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring
the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 3–24). New York: Springer.
McNaught, C., Lam, P., & Ho, A. (2009). The digital divide between University students and teachers
in Hong Kong. In Same places, different spaces. Proceedings of Ascilite, Auckland, New Zealand.
Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/mcnaught.pdf
Nagler, W., & Ebner, M. (2009). Is your university ready for the Ne(x)t-Generation?. In Proceedings
of 21st World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications
(EDMEDIA) (pp. 4344–4351), 22–26 June, Honolulu, HI.
Nardi, B. A., & O’Day, V. L. (1999). Information ecologies: Using technology with heart.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-xers and millennials: Understanding the new students.
Educause Review, 38(4), 37–47.
Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Educating the net generation. EDUCAUSE Online book.
Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf
Oliver, B., & Goerke, V. (2007). Australian undergraduates’ use and ownership of emerging tech-
nologies: Implications and opportunities for creating engaging learning experiences for the net
generation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 171–186.
PA Consulting Group. (2014). Charting a winning course: How student experiences will shape the
future of higher education. Retrieved from http://www.paconsulting.com/our-thinking/
download-pas-2013-report-charting-the-course/
Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., Cook, J., & Kress, G. (Eds.). (2010). Mobile learning: Structures,
agency, practices. New York: Springer.
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives.
New York: Basic Books.
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2011). Reclaiming an awkward term: What we might learn from ‘digital
natives’. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Deconstructing digital natives (pp. 186–204). New York:
Routledge.
Pedró, F. (2009). New millennium learners in higher education: Evidence and policy implications.
Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI).
Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 2: Do they really think differently?
On the Horizon, 9(6), 1–6.
Prensky, M. H. (2009).Sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital
wisdom. Journal of Online Education, 5(3). Retrieved from http://www.wisdompage.com/
Prensky01.html
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. London: Sage.
References 223
Prensky, M. (2011). Digital wisdom and homo sapiens digital. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Deconstructing
digital natives (pp. 15–29). New York: Routledge.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in
higher education. Buckingham, England: Society for Research into Higher Education and
Open University Press.
Radloff, A., Coates, H., James, R., & Krause, K-L. (2012). Report on the development of the uni-
versity experience survey. Department for Industry, Australian Government. Retrieved from
http://www.innovation.gov.au/highereducation/Policy/Pages/Library%20Card/UES_
Development_Report.aspx
Roschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 19(3), 260–272.
Rosen, L. D. (2010). Rewired: Understanding the i-generation and the way they learn. New York:
PalgraveMacmillan.
Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P., Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., Withey, R.,
Jamali, H., Dobrowolski, T., & Tenopir, C. (2008). The Google generation: The information
behaviour of the researcher of the future. Aslib Proceedings, 60(4), 290–310.
Salajan, F. D., Schönwetter, D. J., & Cleghorn, B. M. (2010). Student and faculty inter-generational
digital divide: Fact or fiction? Computers & Education, 55(3), 1393–1403.
Salaway, G., & Caruso, J. B. (2007). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information
technology. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from http://
www.educause.edu/ecar
Schulmeister, R. (2009). Is there a net gener in the house? Dispelling a Mystification. E-learning
and Education (Eleed), 5. Retrieved from http://eleed.campussource.de/archive/5/1587
Schulmeister, R. (2010). Students, internet, eLearning and Web 2.0. In M. Ebner & M. Schiefner
(Eds.), Looking toward the future of technology-enhanced education: Ubiquitous learning and
digital native. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Selwyn, N. (2008). An investigation of differences in undergraduates’ academic use of the internet.
Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(1), 11–22.
Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native—myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings: New Information
Perspectives, 61(4), 364–379.
Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., Milrad, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning: Small
devices, big issues. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, S. Barnes, &
L. Montandon (Eds.), Technology enhanced learning: Principles and products (pp. 233–249).
Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In
R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Sage handbook of E-learning research (pp. 221–
247). London: Sage.
Smith, S. D., & Caruso, J. B. (2010). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information
technology, 2010 (Research Study, Vol. 6). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied
Research. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ecar
Smith, S., Salaway, G., & Borreson Caruso, J. (2009). The ECAR study of undergraduate students
and information technology, 2009 (Research Study, Vol. 6). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center
for Applied Research, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ecar
Stoerger, S. (2009). The digital melting pot: Bridging the digital native-immigrant divide. First
Monday, 14(7). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2474/2243
Tapscott, D. (1997). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tapscott, D. (1999). Educating the net generation. Educational Leadership, 56(5), 6–11.
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. (2010). Innovating the 21st century university: It’s time. Educause
Review, 45(1), 17–29.
224 8 The Learner and Digital Networks
Thinyane, H. (2010). Are digital natives a world-wide phenomenon? An investigation into South
African first year students’ use and experience with technology. Computers & Education, 55,
406–414.
Thomas, M. (Ed.). (2011). Deconstructing digital natives. New York: Routledge.
Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
van den Beemt, A., Akkerman, S., & Simons, P. R. J. (2010a). The use of interactive media among
today’s youth: Results of a survey. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1158–1165.
van den Beemt, A., Akkerman, S., & Simons, P. R.-J. (2010b). Patterns of interactive media use
among contemporary youth. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 103–118.
Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., & Gray, K. (2009). Digital divides? Student
and staff perceptions of information and communication technologies. Computers & Education,
54(4), 1202–1211.
Weiler, A. (2005). Information seeking behavior in ‘Generation Y’ students: Motivation, critical
thinking, and learning theory. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(1), 46–53.
White, D.S., & Le Cornu. A. (2011). Visitors and residents: A new typology for online engage-
ment. First Monday, 16, 9(5). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/
view/3171/3049
Chapter 9
Networked Learning: A New Paradigm?
Change has been a central focus for this book and I am interested in developing the
intellectual capacity needed to provide those analytic resources capable of provid-
ing some provisional stability amid the constant process of change. The purpose of
this focus on provisional stability is to enable systematic and informed interventions
in the process of change and to provide some solid ground from which design and
development can take place. A central concept I have deployed in this quest for
provisional stability is the idea of affordance. A difficult term that always runs the
risk of being interpreted as a fixed feature or property of the technology rather than
as a dynamic relationship. Nevertheless the relational view of affordance still
provides an essential starting point for networked learning research (See Chap. 2).
The concept of affordance is inextricably linked to the scale and complexity of con-
temporary digital networks. The Internet and Web are technologies that are spoken
about as if they are simple and singular things and they are also often spoken about
as if they caused definite effects. This view has been challenged throughout this
book and an alternative way of thinking about such technologies has been elabo-
rated. This alternative view rests on several key ideas, the idea of affordance, the
idea of agency and the idea of assemblages.
The Internet and Web and all other technologies at that level of scale are part of
the process of change and although it makes sense to talk about the Internet in 1980
and the Internet in 2010, the complex technology being described by the same term
has clearly moved on. Researchers have to be constantly careful to treat the ‘things’
they describe as changing as they move through time. It is for this reason that socio-
material approaches and the theories developed from ANT can be so useful because
they treat assemblages as dynamic and composed of complex relationships between
humans and machines in which both have the capacity to act. The chapters discussing
institutions (Chap. 5) and infrastructures (Chap. 6) locate this potentially abstract
discussion of assemblages in two of the more persistent patterns of assemblages for
networked learning. The university is one of the longest continuous institutions in
modern civilisation, but it is in a constant process of change and it has been seriously
An important idea informing this book has been the concept of affordance. In Chap. 2
the idea and its development were explored and the critical voices who have argued
against the use of the term in the context of educational technology were consid-
ered. In the conclusions I am returning to the idea of affordance to set out what I
believe to be a useful development of the idea for use in the context of networked
learning. Kaptelinin and Nardi (2012) have argued for a mediated action conception
of affordance. They note the developments that have taken place in the understand-
ing of the concept of affordance in relation to design, in particular the ideas
presented in Chap. 2 of:
(a) Visible, hidden or false affordances in terms of perception and in hierarchical
and temporal terms of nested and sequential affordance (Gaver 1991, 1996)
(b) Degrees of affordance (McGrenere and Ho 2000)
(c) Levels and types of affordance (Kaptelinin and Nardi 2012).
By degrees of affordance McGrenere and Ho meant that the availability of an
affordance should be thought of as more or less accessible and more or less discern-
ible. The level and type of affordance discussed by Kaptelinin and Nardi referred to
‘webs of mediators’ and they argued that affordances are rarely dependent on singe
mediators. This argument concerning mediators is of particular importance in the
context of this book because it identifies an issue with the aggregation of techno-
logical tools into assemblages, either on the fly or as specifically designed compos-
ites. It is as assemblages offering various kinds of complex affordances that
technologies are most likely to be found in education and learning. A Learning
Management System is one such assemblage of various tools and technologies that
presents students and teachers with a complex of potential affordances many of
which are interdependent. Importantly the same LMS will offer different affor-
dances to staff and students, for example with regard to grading and the submission
of marked work. Kaptelinin and Nardi summarise Gibson’s view as:
• affordances are perceived directly; their perception is not based on an inter-
pretation of initially meaningless ‘raw’ sensory data,
Key Concept 1: Affordance 227
The simplest technologies have properties that are often readily discernible and
consensual in character. There may be unusual properties for a hammer, a stove or
a brick but generally the properties are well understood and few disagree about
them. At a high level of scale technological collectives such as the Internet, Web or
the digital are highly complex, their properties are difficult to describe, and descrip-
tions of their properties fail to cohere around a consensus. However even at these
high levels of scale and complexity it is useful to think in terms of the properties of
a technology and the affordances users appropriate from these properties. To speak
sensibly about the Internet or the Web/Web 2.0 we need to have a coherent discus-
sion about the overall properties these technologies have and how these properties
can or have been taken up as affordances in relation to specific users or sets and
classes of different users.
4. Technological affordances are second-order phenomena and for human actors
and assemblages of humans and machines in education they can be dependent on
culture and history.
The properties of a technology are real and independent of the observer and
affordances are real but relational, but they can depend on understanding and pre-
conceptions. Gibson (1977, 1986 [1979]) was clear that he understood affordance as
a real relationship not dependent on perception (so an affordance could exist but not
be perceived). In this sense affordances are relational and real. However although
this might be suitable for an understanding of affordance in general and when con-
sidering organisms in their settings, this kind of understanding is limited when
applied to humans when they are learning with technology or in a networked learn-
ing setting. Gibson’s understanding of perception left the second-order nature of
meaning understated in his approach. Gibson’s approach being based on the idea of
direct perception can imply that the active agent has little or no role in interpreting
the stimuli received from an external world and this is a limitation for understanding
networked learning.
A final point concerning affordances is of particular importance for networked
learning. Technologies are often thought of as discrete, bounded elements, separa-
ble from social relations and human interaction. This book has taken a different
view which stresses the institutional and infrastructural scale at which technologies
are used in education. This means that technologies in networked learning are gen-
erally composite sociotechnical systems involving a complex interaction of humans
and machines.
The idea of infrastructure and the important place of institutions in the account of
networked learning disrupt an often binary understanding of structure and agency.
As Elder-Vass (2010), p. 4 notes:
…instead of ascribing causal significance to an abstract notion of social structure or a
monolithic concept of society, we must recognize that it is specific groups of people that have
Key Concept 2: Agency 229
structural power. As I understand it, the social world is composed of many overlapping and
intersecting groups, each of which has the causal power to influence human individuals.
In so far as institutions and infrastructures are groups of people this view is close
to my own and it is these intermediate levels of action that are important in linking
agency with structure. My difference with this approach is that institutions and
infrastructures are sociomaterial in character and causality flows not only from
groups of people but in addition from the material artefacts and technologies that
they produce. Agency and structure is a major issue in social theory and I will not
attempt to add to the considerable efforts made in that field. Following Ashwin
(2009) I am more interested in how different ways of thinking about structure and
agency can be used to explain a complex social world. This view of agency is also
focused on process such that agency is seen as achieved rather than possessed
(Biesta and Tedder 2007). So structure and agency are discussed in this section as
an epistemological question, rather than an ontological question concerning how the
world is.
Kaptelinin and Nardi (2006) explicitly position their activity theoretical approach
in relation to ANT and the idea of symmetry between humans and machines. They
propose a framework to capture different kinds of agencies and different kinds of
agents. Importantly they distinguish between action when thought of as simply hav-
ing an effect, and action involving an intention. This move sharply separates their
approach from ANT which includes the actions of the door groom and sleeping
policemen (speed humps). Kaptelinin and Nardi argue that their scheme is not
dichotomous, dividing agency between human and machine or between human and
material agency, rather they consider various kinds of agents. They contend that dif-
ferent kinds of agents can, under certain circumstances, exhibit similar agencies. As
for example in the case of delegated agency, which would apply to door grooms and
speed humps, which can also be exhibited by animals and humans. There is much
to recommend the framework provided by Kaptelinin and Nardi, especially the way
it breaks away from a simple binary of human and non-human. However there are
still problems of the kind identified in Chap. 4 concerning the emergent nature of
intentionality. In Kaptelinin and Nardi’s model intention is the key dividing line
between things, life forms and humans. In one sense this is a useful set of distinc-
tions because each layer of complexity fits an understood phase change between
non-life inanimate forms, life forms and humanity which singularly steps beyond
basic physical and biological needs into the realm of culture and society. However
the problem for Kaptelinin and Nardi is most exposed in their treatment of social
entities.
These collective entities are understood in terms of human needs, either the act-
ing person’s or other persons’ needs. From an ANT perspective these social entities
are clearly heterogeneous, human–material entanglements which express needs that
are both human and material. Let’s consider a city which clearly has needs, but these
needs are not simply those of either one single person or the collective needs of
humans. The city might require a sewage system, a power supply or other signifi-
cant infrastructural requirements, all of which are the ‘needs’ of the city but only
when viewed as a material–human assemblage. Furthermore the growth of computing
230 9 Networked Learning: A New Paradigm?
The term assemblage has been used throughout this book to discuss complex systems
composed of humans and machines. It was noted in Chap. 4 that assemblage had a
particular place in theories inspired by actor-network theory. As part of the conclu-
sion to the book I want to offer a clarification of the concepts that lie behind the use
of assemblage and a rationale for its continued use in networked learning research.
Attentive readers will have seen an internal struggle in the sections above between
a desire on my part to allow for stability and the use of the term assemblage that
emphasises change. The sense of change is deeply embedded in Latour’s work as
Elder-Vass (2014) notes:
Although he often applies the concept to what we would normally think of as an ‘object’ or
a ‘thing,’ for Latour, assemblages are not persistent things or, indeed, recurringly instanti-
ated kinds of things or structures; central to this ontology is a denial of natural stabilities
and repeatedly instantiated types. (ibid 2014, p. 6)
I have borrowed the notion of black-boxes from ANT and used them positively
to suggest a way to analytically account for stability in a system of thinking that
leans towards constant flux. I have also made use of the idea of levels, something
explicitly criticised by Latour (1996, 2005) and the notion of phase changes to indi-
cate why I think some significant relatively stable patterns emerge with different
levels. Within this emergent account in this volume there is something I now wish
to stabilise so that the reader can either accept or reject this attempt to tame the
dynamic implications of an ANT understanding of assemblage.
Latour’s view of assemblage is tied to a more general view related to Deleuze’s
metaphor of rhizomes.
Instead of thinking in terms of surfaces—two dimension- or spheres -three dimension- one
is asked to think in terms of nodes that have as many dimensions as they have connections.
As a first approximation, the AT [actor-network theory] claims that modern societies cannot
be described without recognizing them as having a fibrous, thread-like, wiry, stringy, ropy,
capillary character that is never captured by the notions of levels, layers, territories, spheres,
categories, structure, systems.(Latour 1996 Online, p. 3)
In this way Latour places a network in contrast to the idea of levels, structures and
systems, all concepts used throughout this book.
…:either we follow social theorists and begin our travel by setting up at the start which kind
of group and level of analysis we will focus on, or we follow the actors’ own ways and
begin our travels by the traces left behind by their activity of forming and dismantling
groups. (Latour 2005, p. 29)
It is this central idea about what DeLanda following Deleuze calls ‘relations of
exteriority’ that defines my use of affordance and the idea of assemblage. It is because
of the importance of these two concepts and the contrasting views of assemblage and
their implications for the use of levels in my arguments that it is essential that I clarify
my own use of the term.
I do not adopt the radical view of ontology that can be found in Latour and many
who have adopted ANT as the framework for their research. There has been a surge
of interest in networked learning for research based on this approach in recent years
(see for example Wright 2014) and this interest often takes a radical stance in terms
of ontology. This radical stance argues that there are multiple realities constituted
by practices and that in some cases the realities that are constituted by different
practices although they are related to the same object might be incommensurable
(see Oliver 2012). For there to be commensurability between different accounts
requires work and the bracketing of differences between accounts, and it results in
degrees of compatibility rather than a binary either-or outcome. The key step in the
radical argument is that there is no reference point against which better or worse
accounts can be judged and there is no foundational truth. My preferences remain
solidly realist in relation to this question about ontology, although my emphasis is
firmly on how we come to know, rather than the nature of reality in itself.
The standard realist view is that there is a reality beyond human practices to which
we can refer in order to adjudicate between different accounts. Notice the use of a
judicial term applied to this process because it is used advisedly to emphasise a
process that does not suggest an absolute truth or a truth that is fixed. The realist point
Key Concept 3: Assemblage 233
is that reality is not subjective and that the world resists human constructions. In some
ways this leaves Latour as a realist too because he would recognise the argument that
the world resists, but he would also argue that this resistance can be overcome if a
certain price is paid (see Harman 2009). ANT and Latour cannot be reduced to a
purely social constructivist argument, but they can give rise to Mol’s argument that
reality is multiple (Mol 2002). I argue that there is a limit to the negotiation of costs
and there is a limit to interpretive flexibility, a limit to use, even if the user is prepared
to pay an extreme cost to work against the material and real. For Latour the world is
never constituted by stable and solid forms and the appearance of stability and solidity
is the outcome of a negotiation between numerous forces. My argument is that for
most practical purposes in the study of networked learning provisional stabilities,
negotiated as they might be, can be treated as stable and solid, even if we acknowl-
edge that in principle they are dynamic. The degree of permanence of different
stabilised entities is also an issue of some importance, and it should not be flattened
in such a way that significant differences in the nature and rates of change are
ignored. My argument in favour of levels includes the idea that microlevels are more
contingent and macrolevels relatively stable and the interest for networked learning is
often in mesolevels of organisation and practice, at which change takes place in mod-
erate time scales and with the application of organised effort.
These arguments about stability are important with regard to assemblages and
the emergent properties they may give rise to. Institutions and infrastructures are
assemblages that have proved to be an important focus for networked learning.
A university is famously more than the sum of its parts and it has existed as a rec-
ognisable form in many societies over an extended period of time (Collini 2012;
Scott 2006). What is it that makes the various entities a university has been in Paris
and Bologna, Oxford and Cambridge something that can convincingly be discussed
under a single term? Of course this apparent stability entails work and a constant
effort to maintain a degree of constancy. Furthermore the stability doesn’t simply
arise from the internal properties of a ‘university’, but it is not entirely free of them
either. A university is not reducible to its external relations because it does have a
degree of dependence on its internal components. The university has a stability that
allows it to persist despite changes to its internal composition and to its external
relations, but there are times at which a change in either the internal or external
relations can lead to a significant overall change—something I have argued is simi-
lar to a phase change of the kind that takes place between different phases of matter
(gas–liquid–solid). Black-boxes can be seen as such relatively stable entities,
screening the black-boxed assemblage from internal and external change at least
until a phase change occurs. In the university historians recognise a phase change in
the emergence of the modern university, a concept that covers a period of about two
hundred years (Wittrock 2012). This makes black-boxed entities treatable as auton-
omous ‘things’ that exist as more than their external relations even though these
provisional ‘things’ cannot be reduced to their component parts. The nature of their
endurance is an empirical question to be answered by historical enquiries into the
development of these entities and it requires an understanding of when black-boxes
arise, what internal and external relations are critical for their continuance and what
234 9 Networked Learning: A New Paradigm?
This book began by making a case for using the idea of networked learning to frame
a research agenda that could inform design and development in educational technol-
ogy. The idea of networked learning avoids the hype that only sees new technolo-
gies in a positive light. Networked learning also avoids the slightly less common but
equally overdrawn dystopian view which sees technology as the cause of a decline
that undermines education and learning. Networked learning does not sit between
these extremes; it takes a quite different approach. Determinedly research-based,
networked learning does not presume that technologies cause either progress or
regression; instead it looks for evidence of the kinds of changes taking place and
assumes that technology is a sociotechnical feature of life involving complex and
emergent causation and an assemblage of people and machines.
Networked learning is based on a relational view of learning and the relational
understanding of affordance is entirely consistent with this approach. I have argued
that there is no specific theory of learning associated with networked learning but
there are some basic assumptions about learning that are common across research in
this field. Learning is thought of as a social process involving cooperation, collabo-
ration and dialogue but not restricted to strong ties. Learning from a networked
learning perspective contains researchers who are interested in individual and psy-
chological explanations of learning within a social context, and networked learning
should not be thought of as exclusively social in outlook although some researchers,
including the author, have a strongly social conception of learning. Learning is con-
sidered a complex social process and one that can only be designed for and not
directly designed. This indirect view of learning has been extremely important in
defining the strong relationship between networked learning and educational design.
It is also consistent with the view of affordance and assemblage that has been drawn
on in this volume. Networked learning also draws on a sociomaterial understanding
of the ways in which the material form of technology interacts with social pro-
cesses. Because networked learning is centrally concerned with learning via net-
worked and digital technologies the way the material features of technology are
taken into account is of critical importance. I should be clear at this point that the
material in this sense includes codes, protocols and standards that can be instanti-
ated in digital and documentary form, and the material should not be thought of as
being limited to obvious artefacts and things.
The place of humans in networked learning has been emphasised throughout and
the definition I explored in Chap. 1 included a warning that the use of online materials
The Political Nature of Networked Learning 235
alone was not a sufficient characteristic to define networked learning. The use of
networked technologies has been used to define a form of society, the emergence of
new work processes and the kinds of work being done in many sectors of the econ-
omy. The idea that new technologies ‘informate’ work has had a limited impact in
learning, but in the era of big data and learner analytics its time may have come for
educational research (see Chap. 5 and Zuboff 1988). There is a serious issue emerg-
ing about the degree to which agency can be delegated in educational processes to
machines and algorithms. There are also questions being asked about the role of the
teacher and whether teaching is necessary at all (Mitra 2000). Teaching used to be
thought of as a noble vocation, leading out those younger and less experienced, but
in current conditions teaching can be framed as invasive and an authoritarian impo-
sition. Let me be clear, networked learning does not see teaching as invasive or as
necessarily being an imposition. Most certainly education can be co-opted by
authoritarians and it can be invasive in character, but this is not a characteristic of
teaching per se. Indeed the tradition of networked learning emphasises the human
element and argues that online materials are not sufficient in isolation. By extension
neither automated nor semi-automated systems are sufficient and they should not be
used to diminish or downgrade pedagogy and the teaching function.
The way that networked learning approaches the ways networked and digital
technologies influence teaching is to investigate how the work teachers do is disag-
gregated and re-composed in new assemblages of humans and machines. Networked
learning values the human components of these assemblages, and it is interested
in how the key constituents of a teaching and learning relationship might be
re-composed. Aspects of this process of recomposition are already well known.
The shift to using greater networked and digital technologies increases the need to
pre-prepare courses and course materials, to work in teams that often include special-
ists as well as academic staff and to ensure clear communication between students and
their teachers. The groups of new professionals, the para-academics found under job
descriptions such as learning technologist and educational developer, are a practitio-
ner audience for much of networked learning research. The growth of team working
affects the working lives and arrangements of course teams, departments, schools,
faculties and universities. It has an individual aspect but it is part of a large social
process associated with the introduction of what used to be called information and
communication technologies. The recomposition of academic work is a thread that
runs throughout this book (see especially Chaps. 5 and 7) and the new professionals
in para-academic roles are one visible aspect of this, but in addition it requires changes
to the work of academic staff, administrators and managers.
The view of networked learning that has been presented here is one that places
weight on politics and history. Networked learning is not about futures determined
by technology, nor is it about sudden and inevitable change. Fundamentally the
view of networked learning set out in these chapters has been about choices, and
236 9 Networked Learning: A New Paradigm?
My own preferences have underpinned much that has been covered in previous
chapters. I see education as a public good, the basis of cultural transmission between
generations. I do not favour the primacy of markets and I think there is a substantial
and necessary role for the state in funding educational provision. I think that inter-
national bodies need to regulate and integrate the various national and state arrange-
ments in education because in a network society no nation state, however large (e.g.
China) can stand alone. The twenty-first century economy is a contest between new
forms of state capitalism and the more obvious dominance of neoliberal market
forms. In higher education this contest often takes on the appearance of a dispute
between private (globally structured) and public (state localised) bodies. Should
education be in the hands of private corporations, e.g. Pearson, Study Group or
Laureate or in the hands of nation states, e.g. France, Japan or South Africa—per-
haps there is a significant role for transnational actors such as the EU? Perhaps as
with Cloud computing, the future is hybrid with an increasing integration between
private corporations and state entities. However these options are decided they will
have an impact on the kinds of networked learning that can be pursued and even
whether networked learning will retain an important place at all.
The idea that computing technologies naturally gathered information about the
processes they were deployed in is not new (Zuboff 1988). Even prior to the devel-
opment of the Web it was understood that when computing and computing networks
were in place they could be used to provide a trace of the activity of which they were
a part. This capacity to trace activity holds a research potential but it is one that has
to be managed carefully. Analytics are a contemporary focus in education for both
research and managerial purposes and they raise serious questions about privacy,
data protection and the ethics of data use. As I noted in the discussion of learning
analytics in Chap. 5 analytics is one of the sites of struggle involving technology in
contemporary higher education. Those interested in analytics include governments,
educational institutions, teachers and learners (Ferguson 2012). Their interests do
not always coincide and the kinds of data they wish to collect, the level of data they
require and the forms of analysis they wish to subject the data to can all vary.
It should be noted in this context that ‘big’ data is not the only kind of data that is of
interest. Detailed data that maps a relatively small area of interest is another poten-
tial kind of data generated by digital technologies. The term ‘small’ data has been
used to describe this kind of approach but this is also too limited as big and small
are relational terms and big data to one user may be small data to another (boyd and
Crawford 2012). Networked learning research is interested in the detailed tracings
of activity within educational settings and it is interested in these tracings at a num-
ber of different levels of scale. Interactions within small groups, modules and
courses are of interest and they have previously been studied using a variety of
methods. The newer kinds of data analysis currently available mean that there are
opportunities for new insights into this level of activity. Data is also available at the
level of the institution, so that students can be tracked across their degree and
beyond. Perhaps just as importantly senior managers and administrators are inter-
ested in developing tools which manage the student ‘experience’ and manage staff
interactions with students (McCluskey and Winter 2012). The tools developed in
these processes and the data they generate may be available for redeployment by
researchers interested in networked learning. This will not be a simple task and it
will require struggle by ethically informed researchers who will need to explore the
detail of data collection and data manipulation to ensure that the data they use is fit
for research purposes.
One of the areas in which data collected by digital devices and networks may prove
important is in relation to issues of mobility. The interest in mobile learning and
mobility were discussed in Chap. 8 and I concluded that even in extremely mobile
contexts student location remained important and the relatively fixed infrastructural
Following the Actor in a Digital Ecology 239
and such understanding still requires human beings to act as a research instrument.
In current circumstances this suggests that despite the new data sources and their
undoubted power, they will still need to be supplemented by methods that draw on
the ways human beings understand their surroundings. For example once data has
been captured and traces of activity have been derived they can be presented back to
the person(s) involved and they can be asked what they remember of what they were
doing and why they were doing it at the time the data was collected. Sometimes it
might be necessary to present data back to entire groups who were involved in the
capture processes and to engage the group in teasing out differences in individual
activities or to work through issues that emerge from the data and look for alterna-
tive ways to deal with questions that the data gives rise to.
These issues are challenges to adopting an approach that follows the actor using
the traces they leave behind, but they should not eclipse the potential for such meth-
ods to provide new and exciting insights into a networked world. The learner in a
networked learning setting can be located almost anywhere where there is a network
connection and additionally in places where there is no network available. Similarly
academic work is increasingly dispersed across a range of locations and a diverse
collection of networked devices such as smartphones, tablet computers, laptops and
desktop computers. The self-reported accounts of activity in these networked set-
tings have well-known weaknesses and a standard methodological technique would
be to support these accounts with observations of activity that can be compared with
the self-report accounts provided. Network communications make classic forms of
observation difficult but new technologies open up alternative routes to supporting
evidence. With ethical clearance tracking devices can be deployed on the array of
devices an actor uses (Judd and Kennedy 2010, 2011). The network can also be
traced from an ego-network perspective and research subjects can be enrolled as
participants using techniques that encourage actors to capture their own activity
using video and other methods which log their day-to-day practices (Jones and
Healing 2010). Digital networks disperse activity but they also enable new ways to
access traces of the activity and provide alternative sources of evidence that can
complement self-reports gathered from interview accounts and surveys.
I have argued that forces beyond education and most certainly beyond networked
learning are likely to set the conditions in which networked learning will develop.
The global financial crisis of 2008 will come to an end and austerity politics will be
replaced by new perspectives. The rebalancing of society and the global economy
away from the previous centres of power in Europe and the United States will con-
tinue. The world is now bourgeois with over half of the population living in urban
centres. This is likely to have a profound effect on education as new workforces
develop and the culture of the town establishes itself. The explosive growth of net-
worked and digital technologies may surprise observers once again with a new round
of fundamental change, but it might be that digital and networked technologies will
References 241
References
Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. London: Allen Lane.
Ashwin, P. (2009). Analysing teaching-learning interactions in higher education: Accounting for
structure and agency. London: Continuum Press.
242 9 Networked Learning: A New Paradigm?
Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Lifelong learning and the ecology of agency: Towards a lifecourse
perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149.
boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Information Communication &
Society, 15(5), 662–679.
Collini, S. (2012). What are universities for? London: Penguin Press.
DeLanda, M. (2006). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity.
London: Continuum Press.
Elder-Vass, D. (2010). The causal power of social structures: Emergence, structure and agency.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Elder-Vass, D. (2014). Disassembling actor-network theory. Philosophy of the Social Sciences.
Retrieved 10 May, 2014, from 10.1177/0048393114525858
Facer, K., & Selwyn, N. (2013). Epilogue: Building allegiances and moving forward. In N. Selwyn
& K. Facer (Eds.), The politics of education and technology: Conflicts, controversies, and
connections (pp. 209–219). New York: Palgrave McMillan.
Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: Drivers, developments and challenges. International
Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5/6), 304–317.
Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. In Proceedings of CHI’91 (pp. 79–84). New
Orleans, LA, 28 April–2 May 1991. New York: ACM.
Gaver, W. W. (1996). Situating action II: Affordances for interaction: The social is material for
design. Ecological Psychology, 8(2), 111–129.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, act-
ing and knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates. (Original work published 1979).
Harman, G. (2009). Prince of networks: Bruno latour and metaphysics. Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia: Re. press. Retrieved from http://re-press.org/books/prince-of-networks-bruno-
latour-and-metaphysics/
Jones, C. (2013). The digital university: A concept in need of a definition. In R. Goodfellow &
M. Lea (Eds.), Literacy in the digital university: Critical perspectives on learning, scholarship,
and technology (pp. 162–172). London: Routledge.
Jones, C., & Cawood, J. (1998). The unreliable transcript: Contingent technology and informal
practice in asynchronous learning networks. In Networked lifelong learning; innovative
approaches to education and training through the Internet. Proceedings of the 1998 International
Conference (pp. 1.9–1.14). Sheffield, England: University of Sheffield. Retrieved from http://
www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc1998/Proceedings/Jones-1.9-1.14.pdf
Jones, C., & Healing, G. (2010). Networks and locations for student learning. Learning Media and
Technology, 35(4), 369–385.
Judd, T., & Kennedy, G. (2010). A five-year study of on-campus internet use by undergraduate
biomedical students. Computers & Education, 55(1), 564–571.
Judd, T., & Kennedy, G. (2011). Measurement and evidence of computer-based task switching and
multitasking by ‘Net Generation’ students. Computers & Education, 56(3), 625–631.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction
design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2012). Affordances in HCI: Toward a mediated action perspective.
In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(pp. 967–976). New York: ACM.
Latour, B. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications and more than a few complications.
Soziale Welt, 47, 369–381. Retrieved from http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/
P-67%20ACTOR-NETWORK.pdf
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network theory. London:
Routledge.
McCluskey, F., & Winter, M. (2012). The idea of the digital university: Ancient traditions, disrup-
tive technologies and the battle for the soul of higher education. Washington DC: Policy
Studies Organisation/Westphalia Press.
References 243
McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. In Proceedings
of graphics interface 2000 (pp. 179–186). New York: ACM. Retrieved from http://www.dgp.
utoronto.ca/~joanna/papers/gi_2000_affordances.pdf
Mitra, S. (2000). Minimally invasive education for mass computer literacy. Paper presented at the
CRIDALA 2000 conference, Hong Kong, China, 21–25 June, 2000. Retrieved from http://
www.hole-in-the-wall.com/docs/Paper01.pdf
Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Oliver, M. (2012). Learning with technology as coordinated sociomaterial practice: Digital litera-
cies as a site of praxiological study. In V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. De Laat, D. McConnell,
T. Ryberg, & P. Sloep (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Networked
Learning, 2–4 April 2012, Maastricht, NL (pp. 440–447). Retrieved from http://network-
edlearningconference.org.uk/past-proceedings/index.htm
Scott, J. C. (2006). The mission of the university: Medieval to postmodern transformations.
The Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 1–39.
Wittrock, B. (2012). The modern university in its historical contexts: Rethinking three transforma-
tions. In M. Feingold (Ed.), History of universities Vol XXV11/1 (pp. 199–226). Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Wright, S. (2014). Actor-network theory: Double Symposium. In S. Bayne, C. Jones, M. De Laat,
T. Ryberg, & C. Sinclair, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Networked
Learning, Edinburgh, UK, 7–9 April 2014. Retrieved from http://www.networkedlearningcon-
ference.org.uk/abstracts/wright_symposium.htm
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York: Basic
Books.
Index
A Analytics
Academic learner, 62, 87, 89, 91, 114–117, 235
freedom, 111, 173–174, 178, 184, 190 learning, 13, 39, 51, 112–116, 119–120,
para-academic, 4, 14, 39, 174, 132, 144, 150, 173, 180, 238, 241
185–186, 235 ANT. See Actor-network theory (ANT)
staff, faculty, 14, 71, 118–119, 138, Approaches to learning, 54–55, 63, 68–69,
184–186, 188, 190, 205, 210, 235 201, 215, 235
Accessibility, 116, 121, 137, 153–154, Approaches to study, 63–64, 199, 215
157–158, 160–161, 188, 226 Approaches to teaching, 68–69, 184, 214
Acquisition, 7, 52, 60, 122, 151, 155, 185, Assemblage, 3, 11–12, 25, 27, 33–34, 66,
208, 214 92–94, 99, 118, 131–132, 137, 141,
Activity, 5, 9, 12–14, 22, 31, 35, 37, 39, 151, 169, 185, 197, 208, 214, 225–226,
51–61, 64, 68–71, 96, 110, 114, 116, 228–235, 239
125–127, 137–139, 144–147, 149–151, Asynchronous, 5, 11, 154
154–156, 162, 170–174, 176–177, learning networks (see Learning networks)
179–182, 185–186, 188, 190, 198, 207,
210–213, 217–218, 226, 230–231,
238–240 B
Activity theory, 34–35, 55, 57–60, 64, 71, Behaviourism, 49–54, 56–57, 64–65, 94
95–96, 146–147, 227, 229–230 Big data, 13, 109, 112–114, 119, 131, 187,
Actor, 27, 30, 33, 87, 93, 95, 98, 157, 169, 235, 238. See also Analytics
212, 238–240 Blog, 4, 65, 143, 154, 175, 187, 191
Actor-network theory (ANT), 13, 27, 55, 64, Borgman, C., 172, 175–178
66, 79, 86–87, 91, 93–96, 98, 138, Broadband, 199–200, 210–211
212–213, 225, 229, 231–233, 239 Broadcast, 2, 7, 151, 185
Administration, 2, 47, 113, 117, 119, 125, 132, Business, 2–3, 22, 108, 113–115, 117–119,
170, 172, 181, 185 124–125, 127–128, 130–131, 171,
Affordance, 12, 27, 58, 79, 107, 137, 184, 236
169, 197, 225
Agency, 11–12, 23, 27, 34, 38–39, 93, 95–96,
99, 131, 140, 159, 170, 186, 188, C
209–210, 225–226, 228–230, 236 Campus, 152, 198, 212, 218
Agent, 33, 70, 87, 91–98, 147, 157, 201, 210, Capital, 22, 38, 59, 123, 130, 186
212, 228–229, 239 Capitalism, 3, 20–23, 37–38, 125, 237
I L
ICT. See Information and communication Latour, B., 26, 92, 93, 98, 138, 231–233
technology (ICT) Lave, J., 55, 57–59, 71
Immaterial Learning analytics, 39, 51, 112–116, 119, 120,
labour, 39, 40, 125, 241 132, 144, 150, 173, 180, 238, 241
Indirect design, 12, 13, 64, 68–71, 156, 182, Learning environment(s), 5, 12, 31, 151, 152,
211, 213. See also Design, for learning 158, 163, 181, 211
Informating, 38–40, 109, 112 Learning management system (LMS), 94, 114,
Information, 2, 22, 51, 87, 112, 140, 117, 144, 150, 162, 184, 226
172, 201, 235 Learning networks, 12, 67, 89, 99, 144, 180,
infrastructure, 140–144, 148, 176 181, 210, 211, 213, 234
processing, 34, 51, 52, 65 Learning objects, 51, 68, 70, 121, 125
seeking, 213 Learning theory, 26, 39, 48, 49, 52–55, 60,
searching, 187, 205, 207 63–71, 79, 89, 90
society, 22, 35–37 Levels, 3, 20, 47, 86, 119, 138, 171, 199, 225
Information and communication technology Library, 114, 117, 138, 140, 144, 150, 174,
(ICT), 5, 8, 32 210, 211, 239
Information society, 22, 35–37 LMS. See Learning management system
Infrastructure (LMS)
248 Index
M Ontology, 26, 27, 29, 32, 54, 91, 93, 94, 96,
Macro (level), 23, 62, 98, 132, 138, 148, 149, 97, 113, 188, 229, 231, 232
162, 200, 214, 233 Open, 12, 21, 48, 88, 110, 143, 171, 206, 232
Management, 22, 23, 59, 60, 108, 109, Openness, 112, 120–126, 177, 236
113–115, 117, 119, 120, 124, 162, Open University, 2, 115, 120, 121, 124, 130,
170–172, 178, 181, 185, 186, 199, 206 143, 145, 182, 183
Manager(s), 115, 124, 143, 184, 185, 235, 238 Orlikowski, W., 24, 25, 71
Managerial, 20, 57, 62, 89, 91, 119, 132, 173,
178, 190, 238
Marton, F., 55, 63, 215 P
Massive open online courses (MOOC) Paradigm, 51, 55, 61, 113, 211, 225–241
cMOOC, 12, 126, 127, 130 Participation, 4, 7, 9, 40, 55, 57, 58, 89, 151,
xMOOC, 127, 130 154, 155, 177, 185, 199, 214
Materials, 5, 27, 120, 121, 123, 125, 150, 151, Pedagogy, 13, 25, 42, 48, 67–69, 115,
183, 185, 191, 206, 234–235 122–124, 126, 130, 138, 145, 146, 151,
Materiality, 24, 27, 32–34. See also 173, 180–185, 199, 214, 235, 236
Sociomateriality Peer, 4, 65, 89, 109, 110, 114, 127, 175, 177,
McConnell, D., 5, 42, 48, 60, 61, 67, 83, 182, 179, 190–191
204, 215 Personalise
Meso (level), 23, 90, 132, 146–149, 162, 172, personalisation, 108, 151, 176
188–189, 200, 210, 213–214, 232, 233 Phenomenography, 55, 63–64, 215, 217–218
Micro (level), 62, 97, 98, 138, 146–149, 200, Place, 1, 20, 49, 92, 108, 137, 170, 197, 225
214, 233 Policy, 4, 8, 13, 22, 23, 26, 39, 41, 63, 94, 109,
Mobile, 7, 38, 138, 147, 150, 154, 197, 199, 113, 124, 126–128, 130, 132, 170, 172,
200, 205, 211, 212, 218, 238, 241 175, 178, 180, 185, 198, 204, 208,
Mobilities, 152, 211, 212, 238–239, 241 215–217
MOOC. See Massive open online courses Political, 3, 11, 13, 19–23, 25, 41, 42, 48, 107,
(MOOC) 108, 114, 122, 124, 126, 127, 131, 151,
152, 174, 178, 189, 217, 235–237
Politics, 3, 13, 20–25, 41, 42, 122–124,
N 155–157, 216, 235, 237, 240
Nardi, B., 34, 35, 95, 96, 199, 226, Pollock, N., 27, 117, 118
227, 229, 230 Power law, 84, 85, 89
Neoliberal(-ism), 21–23, 107, 122, 128, 184, Price, 10, 129, 233, 236
185, 237 Professional
Net generation, 14, 107, 176, 177, 187, 191, development, 7, 47, 60, 99, 186, 202
199–205, 207–209, 234. See also Public, 1, 23, 62, 80, 108, 109, 111, 112, 121,
Digital, natives 122, 125–127, 129–131, 152, 156, 157,
Network, 1, 19, 47, 79, 107, 137, 159, 160, 163, 175, 177–178, 180, 187,
169, 197, 225 190, 236, 237
individualism, 87, 90–91, 176
learning, 1, 19, 47, 79, 107, 137,
169, 197, 225 R
society, 3, 13, 22, 35–38, 40, 41, 87, 90, Random networks, 81–84
93, 163, 180, 237, 241
New public management, 23, 108, 119, 162
S
Scale-free networks, 81, 83–86, 155, 179
O Selwyn, N., 25, 42, 64, 121–125, 147, 185,
Oliver, M., 26, 31–34, 68, 70, 94, 205–207, 237
174, 206, 232 Siemens, G., 55, 64, 65, 113, 114, 127, 132
Online community, 87, 153 Situated learning, 55, 57–61, 64
Online courses, 11, 13, 89 Small worlds, 79, 81–86
Online material(s), 120, 191, 235 Social learning, 48, 57–61, 71
Index 249