Differences in Understandings of Networked Learning Theory: Connectivity or Collaboration?

Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we pursue and discuss a number of pertinent questions raised in a recently published book on networked learning practices. In this book, the editors contrast a current trend towards personalisation and individualisation of learning with a focus on mutual interdependency and collaboration amongst networked learners, and ask which directions designers of networked learning should take. Related to this, they express concerns with notions of personal learning environments, asking whether these might erode collaborative or communal patterns of interaction and the commonality of experiences amongst students. We continue these discussions by critically examining recent ideas articulated by researchers promoting the notion of “connectivism,” as this concept has strong relations to the recent popularisation of web 2.0. Terms such as “connections,” “networks,” “sharing,” “learner-centric,” “collaboration,” “participation” seem to be shared between networked learning theory and connectivism. We argue, however, that there are subtle, but fundamental differences in how these terms are understood, which might have implications for pedagogical orchestrations of networked learning. In particular, we query into different understandings and values around the “interactional interdependencies” between people, and how we should orchestrate networked learning in higher education. In doing so, we provide examples from our own practice to discuss how we might address or dissolve dichotomies, such as between individualisation and collaboration, and how ideas from networked learning and connectivism can inform each other.

Keywords

Expense Harness Metaphor CSCL 

References

  1. Beaty, L., Cousin, G., & Hodgson, V. (2010). Revisiting the e-quality in networked learning manifesto. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld et al., eds. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning. Networked Learning (pp. 585–592). Aalborg: Lancaster University. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/PDFs/Beaty.pdf
  2. Beaty, L., Hodgson, V., Mann, S., & McConnell, D. (2002). Towards e-quality in networked e-learning in higher education. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/esrc/manifesto.pdf
  3. Castells, M. (2001). The Internet galaxy. New York: Oxford University Express.Google Scholar
  4. Dalsgaard, C. (2006). Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved August 5, 2010, from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm
  5. Dalsgaard, C., & Paulsen, M. (2009). Transparency in cooperative online education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1492.Google Scholar
  6. de Laat, M. (2006). Networked learning. PhD thesis, Politie Acedemie, Apeldoorn. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from http://www.open.ou.nl/rslmlt/Maarten%20De%20Laat_Networked%20Learning_2006.pdf
  7. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an ­interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Pergamon/Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  8. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2002). Designing virtual learning environments based on problem ­oriented project pedagogy. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld & B. Fibiger (Eds.), Learning in virtual environments (pp. 31–54). Frederiksberg C: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
  9. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Jones, C. (2009). Issues and concepts in networked learning – Analysis and the future of networked learning. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional ­development. Technology-Enhanced Learning (pp. 259–285). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Jones, C., & Lindström, B. (Eds.). (2009). Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Downes, S. (2007). Groups vs. networks: The class struggle continues. Stephen’s web. Retrieved January 24, 2011, from http://www.downes.ca/post/42521
  12. Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2007). Collectives, networks and groups in social software for e-learning. In G. Richards (Ed.), World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (pp. 2460–2467). Quebec City, QC: AACE.Google Scholar
  13. Ferreday, D. & Hodgson, V. (2008). The Tyranny of participation and collaboration in networked learning. In V. Hodgson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 640–647). Halkidiki: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  14. Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (2004). Advances in research on networked learning. Dordrecht: Klüwer.Google Scholar
  15. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  16. Jones, C. (2008). Networked learning – A social practice perspective. In V. Hodgson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 616–623). Halkidiki: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  17. Jones, C., & 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). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones, C., Ferreday, D., & Hodgson, V. (2008). Networked learning a relational approach: Weak and strong ties. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kolmos, A., Fink, F. K., & Krogh, L. (2004). The Aalborg PBL model – Progress diversity and challenges. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/523/1103
  22. Mackness, J., Sui Fai, J. M., & Willams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning. Networked Learning (pp. 266–274). Aalborg: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  23. McConnell, D. (2002). Action research and distributed problem-based learning in continuing ­professional education. Distance Education, 23(1), 59–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Ryberg, T., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Jones, C. (2010). Catering to the needs of the “Digital Natives” or educating the “Net Generation”? In M. J. W. Lee & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Web 2.0-based e-learning: Applying social informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 301–318). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ryberg, T., & Larsen, M. C. (2008). Networked identities: Understanding relationships between strong and weak ties in networked environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.
  28. Siemens, G. (2006). Connectivism: Learning and knowledge today. Education.au. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from http://admin.edna.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2150/34771/1/gs2006_siemens.pdf.
  29. Siemens, G. (2008). Collective intelligence? Nah. Connective intelligence – elearnspace. elearnspace – Learning, networks, knowledge, technology, community. Retrieved November 17, 2009, from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2008/02/18/collective-intelligence-nah-connective-intelligence/
  30. Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tolsby, H. (2009). Virtual environment for project based collaborative learning. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development. Technology-Enhanced Learning (pp. ­241–258). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Tolsby, H., Nyvang, T., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2002). A survey of technologies supporting virtual project based learning. In S. Banks et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference on networked learning – A research based conference on e-learning in higher ­education and lifelong learning (pp. 572–580). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  33. Weller, M. (2007). Virtual learning environments: Effective development and use. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and Cyberplace: The rise of personalized networking. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), 227–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice – Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Zenios, M. (2011). Epistemic activities and collaborative learning: Towards an analytical model for studying knowledge construction in networked learning settings. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 259–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Ryberg
    • 1
  • Lillian Buus
    • 1
  • Marianne Georgsen
    • 1
  1. 1.e-Learning Lab – Centre for User Driven Innovation, Learning and Design, Department of Communication and PsychologyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations