Changing Conditions for Networked Learning? a Critical View on Social Technologies As A

Changing Conditions for Networked Learning? A Critical View on Social Technologies as a Springboard to Unfold the Opportunities and Potentials

Abstract

In this talk I should like to initially take a critical look at popular ideas and discourses related to web 2.0, social technologies and learning. I argue that many of the pedagogical ideals particularly associated with web 2.0 have a longer history and background, which is often forgotten in describing the novel pedagogical potentials of these new technologies and practices (e.g. in debates around virtual learning environments versus personal learning environment). Likewise, I shall briefly discuss the notions of ‘digital natives’ or ‘the net generation’from a critical perspective, as these generational labels are at times used as rhetorical levers to support call for educational change or adoption of new technologies.However, this critical perspective merely serves as a backdrop to the talk, and as a springboard to identify what I believe are genuinely novel opportunities and potentials of social technologies.I argue that we are seeing the emergence of new architectures and scales of participation, collaboration and networking e.g. through interesting formations of learning networks at different levels of scale, for different purposes and often bridging boundaries such as formal/informal (flash activitesor event driven streams of information and activities (such as conference events or global protests)). Likewise, we can observe that novel types of collaboration and participation seem to be emergingor solidifying (such as Wikipedia or collectively and dynamically produced online bibliographies). However, my argument would be that we have not yet developed a sufficient conceptual, theoretical and methodological vocabulary to understand these activities.

In the presentation I would like to collaboratively explore various concepts and metaphorical constructs, which might help us in theoretically understanding the changed conditions for networked learning. Many of these are theoretically grounded in socio-cultural theories of learning, but have been challenged and expanded through my engagement with ideas from networked learning theory and participation in the Networked Learning Conference in the past years.In relation to this, I should like to discuss how the ideas presented can contribute to, or enrich networked learning theory.

Background:

With the spread of web 2.0 practices and technologies, we have witnessed a re-vitalisation or renaissance of terms such as collaboration, sharing, dialogue, participation, student centred learning, and the need to position students as producers, rather than consumers of knowledge. Likewise, these changes in the socio-technical landscape have resulted in vocal calls for a shift away from institutionally controlled, walled-gardens and static VLE-silos. These are argued to enforce a ‘traditional’ teacher-centred pedagogy of transfer where students consume and reproduce existing knowledge. The alternative is presented as a move towards student-owned and controlled Personal Learning Environments (PLEs).These are positioned as reflecting a ‘progressive’, student-centred pedagogy where students become collaborative producers of knowledge. In particular, web 2.0 technologies have become the rhetorical lever for realising these techno-pedagogical changes, as web 2.0 tools are key ingredients in notions of PLEs as loosely coupled collections of personally owned and shared tools for students’ self-directed or collaborative learning (Attwell, 2007; Dalsgaard, 2009; Drexler, 2010). Some suggest that web 2.0 technologies and widgets can basically reinvent, revolutionise and challenge the dominant designs for learning in VLEs (Wilson, Griffit, & Popat, 2009).However, many of pedagogical ideals, which have been intimately connected with web 2.0 technologies, have been prominent within research areas such as Networked Learning, CSCL and CMC-research well before the emergence of web 2.0 (and VLEs were often described as a means to initiate widespread pedagogical changes towards more student centred pedagogies!). The ideas even pre-date the Internet and World Wide Web(Chris Jones & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, 2009). Likewise,re-reading the Networked Learning Manifesto, is a good indication of some of these thoughts as they were articulated prior to the web 2.0 wave(Beaty, Cousin, & Hodgson, 2010; Beaty, Hodgson, Mann, & McConnell, 2002).

Somewhat connected to these discussions, we have witnessed dramatic calls for changing education due to the emergence of ‘digital natives’ or the ‘Net Generation’. These generational labels are at times used as an argument to embed new social technologies into education (or even framing such changes as necessary). The ideas of ‘digital natives’ or the ‘net generation’ have spurred much public and educational debate, but only more recently been subjected to critical, academic scrutiny. For example a special section in the Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (volume 26, issue 5) was dedicated to discussing and 'debunking' the myth of the digital natives(Bennett & Maton, 2010; Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010; C. Jones & Czerniewicz, 2010; Chris Jones & Healing, 2010; Kennedy, Judd, Dalgarno, & Waycott, 2010). The articles in the special issue question the generational labels and refer to a number of studies and reviews shedding a more critical light on the hyperbole idea of a homogenous generation of young ICT-literate students. Similar to other studies and reviews they criticise a broad claim or view of students as well versed in web 2.0 technologies and as craving an educational, technological revolution to fit their generational needs (see also(Clark, Logan, Luckin, Mee, & Oliver, 2009; Crook et al., 2008; Selwyn, 2009)). As such, there is now a growing number of literature reviews and studies questioning the usefulness of the terms, while also pointing out that changes are indeed happening.

Some of these changes are strongly associated with the emergence of the web 2.0 wave. It seems fair to say that, within the past ten years, collaborative, social and networked learning technologies have moved from being somewhat exotic technologies primarily encountered by higher education students, and provided by universities (e.g. in the shape of learning management system or centralized communication system (institutional email)) to becoming pervasive and naturalised parts of everyday social life for many people (e.g. Skype, Facebook, Youtube, Google, MSN messenger). In this way most students in higher or continued education (or people in business, public or the educational sector for that matter) are not only navigating or using institutionally/organisationally provided systems, but rather inhabiting, coping with or trying to survive in managing complex ‘digital networked ecologies’. In a way, many students already have ‘personal learning environments’ composed of overlapping engagements with e.g. institutionally provided systems, Facebook networks and/or MSN messenger contacts. However, many of the social technologies are primarily used for social and entertainment purposes, and many students may not necessarily have the sufficient capacities to easily navigate such landscapes or to seamlessly translate, switch or ‘transfer’ between ‘socially oriented practices’ and ‘academic practices’.

The above might seem to be an overly critical, pessimistic or even conservative view of the changing socio-technical landscape. However, the intention of critically assessing or scrutinizing widespread ideas and ideals associated with ‘new’ technologies or ‘new’ generations is not to proclaim that nothing has changed; that we are merely re-iterating existing discussions, or that social technologies have no place in education – far from! Rather, the intention is to use these tensions and contradictions, as springboards (Engeström, 1987) and lenses, which can help us zoom or focus on what is genuinely new, and what emerging opportunities and potentials are embedded in the fast-changing socio-technical landscape. But with a careful reminder of remaining conscious about which historically robust, radical and vibrant pedagogical ideals underpin these; although these ideas might have lived in the outskirts of mainstream educational practice. This is what the presentation will focus on, with the preceding cautionary word acting as a critical backdrop.

In particular, it seems that we are seeing the emergence of new architectures and scales of participation, collaboration and networking. For example, we are seeing the contours of ephemeral and fleeting mass-collaborations, such as flash-mobs, flash activities, or event driven streams of information and activities (such as conference events or global protests e.g. #Occupy). Theseactivities are starting to become meaningful resources for and becoming embedded in various social (real life) actions. We are seeing more ‘sustained’ patterns or traces of mass-collaborations, such as Wikipedia or collectively and dynamically produced online bibliographies. These engagements are in many ways questioning or challenging the original meaning of ‘collaboration’, as this was traditionally conceived e.g. within CSCL and CSCW.

We are seeing the contours of interesting formations of learning networks at different levels of scale, for different purposes and often bridging boundaries such as formal/informal.Likewise, interesting and novel types of collaboration and participation in collective patterns of knowledge retrieval and production (ephemeral or sustained) seem to be emerging. These are potentially very interesting for educational and academic purposes, and for the research field of networked learning. However, while we can observe and, to some degree, describe these phenomena, my argument would be that we have not yet developed a sufficient conceptual, theoretical and methodological vocabulary to understand these activities.

In the presentation, I would like to explore, together with you, various concepts and metaphorical constructs, which I feel might help us in better grasping the phenomena mentioned above; as a means to theoretically understand the changed conditions for networked learning. Many of these are theoretically grounded in socio-cultural theories of learning and inspired by e.g. the work of YrjöEngeström and Etienne Wenger; such as horizontal learning andknotworking, trajectories of learning, identity andmultimembership.In addition,I should also like to discuss the concept of patchworking(Ryberg, 2007, 2009) and ideas adopted from Nexus analysis and multimodal discourse analysis (R. Scollon, 2001; R. ScollonScollon, 2004). However, my own understanding of these concepts have been dramatically enriched, challenged and expanded throughmy engagement with ideas from networked learning theory (Beaty et al., 2002; Dirckinck Holmfeld, Hodgson, & McConnell, 2011; Goodyear, Banks, Hodgson, & McConnell, 2004; Chris Jones & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, 2009) and participation in the Networked Learning Conference in the past years.

I feel the presentation would also be a good opportunity to re-visit and remind ourselves of the importance of pursuing pedagogical ideals, rather than being seduced by the technological possibilities. Rather thangrounding our calls for educational change, with reference to changing technological conditions, we should foreground and uphold a focus on the pedagogical and educational values, we wish to promote. Thus, as a self-critical or reflexive commentary and reminder, I should like to discuss how the ideas might further, strengthen or expand e.g. the ideals articulated in the original networked learning manifesto (Beaty et al., 2002) and networked learning theory.

Bio

Dr. Thomas Ryberg is Associate Professor in Aalborg University (AAU), Department of Communication and Psychology. He is part of the research centre: ‘E-learning lab - Center for User Driven Innovation, Learning and Design’. He has participated in European and international research projects and networks. His primary research interests are within the field of Networked Learning and how new media and technologies transform our ways of thinking about and designing for learning. He has authored and co-authored several articles on networked learning and Learning and New media.

Institutional webpage (from which recent publications can be found):

References

Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments-the future of eLearning? eLearning Papers, 2(1). Retrieved from

Beaty, L., Cousin, G., & Hodgson, V. (2010). Revisiting the E-Quality in Networked Learning Manifesto. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning, Networked Learning (pp. 585-592). Retrieved from

Beaty, L., Hodgson, V., Mann, S., & McConnell, D. (2002). Towards E-Quality in Networked E-Learning in Higher Education. ESRC Research Seminar Series. Retrieved from

Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ?digital natives? debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321-331. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x

Brown, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Debunking the “digital native”: beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 357-369. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00369.x

Clark, W., Logan, K., Luckin, R., Mee, A., & Oliver, M. (2009). Beyond Web 2.0: mapping the technology landscapes of young learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 56-69. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00305.x

Crook, C., Cummings, J., Fisher, T., Graber, R., Harrison, C., & Lewin, C. (2008). Web 2.0 technologies for learning: The current landscape – opportunities, challenges and tensions. Retrieved from

Dalsgaard, C. (2009). From transmission to dialogue: Personalised and social knowledge media. MedieKultur, 46. Retrieved from

Dirckinck Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2011). Exploring the Theory, Pedagogy and Practice of Networked Learning. Springer Verlag.

Drexler, W. (2010). The networked student model for construction of personal learning environments: Balancing teacher control and student autonomy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 369-385.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding - an activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Retrieved from

Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (2004). Advances in Research on Networked Learning. Dordrecht: Klüwer Academic Publishers.

Jones, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Describing or debunking? The net generation and digital natives. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 317-320.

Jones, Chris, & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2009). Analysing Networked Learning Practices. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing Networked Learning Practices in Higher Education and Continuing Professional Development, Technology-Enhanced Learning (pp. 10-27). Sense Publishers.

Jones, Chris, & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation students: agency and choice and the new technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 344-356. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00370.x

Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Dalgarno, B., & Waycott, J. (2010). Beyond natives and immigrants: exploring types of net generation students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 332-343. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00371.x

Ryberg, T. (2007). Patchworking as a Metaphor for Learning – Understanding youth, learning and technology (PhD-thesis). Department of Communication and Psychology Aalborg University. Retrieved from

Ryberg, T. (2009). Understanding Productive Learning Through the Metaphorical Lens of Patchworking. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development, Technology Enhanced Learning Series (pp. 201-222). Sense Publishers.

Scollon, R. (2001). Action and text: Toward an integrated understanding of the place of text in social (inter)action. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods in Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 139-183). London: Sage.

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2004). Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the emerging Internet. London: Routledge.

Selwyn, N. (2009). Challenging educational expectations of the social web: a web 2.0 far? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 4(2), 72-82.

Wilson, S., Griffit, D., & Popat, K. (2009). Moodle Wave: Reinventing the VLE using Widget technologies. In F. Wild, M. Kalz, M. Palmér, & D. Müller (Eds.), Proceedings of 2nd Workshop Mash-Up Personal Learning Envrionments (MUPPLE’09). Workshop in conjunction with 4th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL 2009): Synergy of Disciplines (pp. 47-58). Nice, France. Retrieved from