Five Waves of Conceptualizing Knowledge and Learning for Our Future in a Networked Society

  • Christopher Hoadley
  • Yael KaliEmail author
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS, volume 17)


This chapter describes five waves of learning mediated by information-communication technologies. Each wave is identified with particular pedagogies and technologies, and – critically – particular social conceptions of education that those pedagogies and technologies helped bring into being: Wave 1 – information dissemination and consumption; Wave 2 – constructivism and mind tools; Wave 3 – collaborative and social learning; Wave 4 – distributed Intelligence; and Wave 5 – eudaemonic learning. We argue that Wave 5-inspired research requires an epistemological shift, taking into account the mix of intentional and unintentional, engineered vs. accidental, and emergent vs. designed aspects of learning. We demonstrate how the research presented in this book moves toward a vision of research and design of eudaemonic learning. That is – the learning in a networked society research looks at learning as a component of how individuals and society mutually develop each other, while studying how technology helps create the conditions for such learning.


Knowledge Knowing Learning Eudaemonic learning Mutualism Social transformation Networked society Information-communication technologies (ICTs) 


  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2005). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. (350 B. C. E./2000). Nichomachean ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans. Electronic edition ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  3. Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bang, M., Medin, D. L., & Atran, S. (2007). Cultural mosaics and mental models of nature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(35), 13868–13874. Scholar
  5. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Osborne, J. (2015). Bridging science education and science communication research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Segev, E. (2011). Exploring new web-based tools to identify public interest in science. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 130–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2012). Epistemic thinking in action: Evaluating and integrating online sources. Cognition and Instruction, 30(1), 39–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baxter, G., & Sommerville, I. (2011). Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering. Interacting with Computers, 23(1), 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bevan, B., & Penuel, W. R. (Eds.). (2018). Connecting research and practice for educational improvement: Ethical and equitable approaches. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Birnhack, M., & Elkin-Koren, N. (2010). Does law matter online-empirical evidence on privacy law compliance. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 17, 337.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2017). The social life of information: Updated, with a new preface. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s Schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bybee, R. W., & DeBoer, G. E. (1994). Research on goals for the science curriculum. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 357–387). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, H. A., & Golan, O. (2011). Creating digital enclaves: Negotiation of the internet among bounded religious communities. Media, Culture & Society, 33(5), 709–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carayon, P. (2006). Human factors of complex sociotechnical systems. Applied Ergonomics, 37(4), 525–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clegg, C. W. (2000). Sociotechnical principles for system design. Applied Ergonomics, 31(5), 463–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research-practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cole, M., & Packer, M. (2016). Design-based intervention research as the science of the doubly artificial. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 503–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dear, B. (2017). The friendly orange glow: The untold story of the PLATO System and the Dawn of Cyberculture (First ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  20. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8, 35–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DiSalvo, B., Yip, J., Bonsignore, E., & DiSalvo, C. (Eds.). (2017). Participatory design for learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. diSessa, A. (2014). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd. ed., pp. 88–108). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elias, N., & Lemish, D. (2009). Spinning the web of identity: The roles of the internet in the lives of immigrant adolescents. New Media & Society, 11(4), 533–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Engeström, Y. (2002). New forms of expansive learning at work: The landscape of co-configuration. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning 2002 (pp. 22–23). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  26. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. (S. Sampson, Trans.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. South Hadley. In Mass.: Bergin & Garvey.Google Scholar
  28. Freire, P. (2011). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (M. B. Ramos, Trans. 30th Anniversary Edition ed.). New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  29. Gal, E., Bauminger, N., Goren-Bar, D., Pianesi, F., Stock, O., Zancanaro, M., et al. (2009). Enhancing social communication of children with high-functioning autism through a co-located interface. AI & SOCIETY, 24(1), 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gee, J. P., & Hayes, E. (2012). Nurturing affinity spaces and game-based learning. In Games, learning, and society: Learning and meaning in the digital age (Vol. 123, pp. 1–40).Google Scholar
  31. Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., Land, S. M., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation : Human communication via computer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  33. Hoadley, C. (2016, May 11). Cyberlearning and educational technology: Current R&D, future trends, and how educational institutions will need to change, Invited talk presented at Provost’s Commission on Creating the Next in Education Talk Series, Georgia Tech, Atlanta. Retrieved 1 February 2018 from
  34. Hod, Y., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2015). Students negotiating and designing their collaborative learning norms: A group developmental perspective in learning communities. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(5), 578–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hod, Y., Ben-Zvi, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2016). Revisiting learning communities: Innovations in theory and practice. In C. K. Looi, J. L. Polman, U. Cress, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming learning, empowering learners: The international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) (Vol. 2, pp. 1335–1337). Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  36. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Jackson, M. G. (2008). Transformative learning for a new worldview: Learning to think differently. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jonassen, D. H. (1990). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist view of instructional design. Educational Technology, 30(9), 32–34.Google Scholar
  39. Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Eaglewoods, NJ: Merill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  40. Jonassen, D. H., & Marra, R. M. (1994). Concept mapping and other formalisms as mindtools for representing knowledge. ALT-J, 2(1), 50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kali, & Hoadley. (in press). Five waves of conceptualizing knowledge and learning for our future in a networked society. In U. Cress, C. Rosé, A. Wise, & J. Oshima (Eds.), International handbook of computer-supported collaborative learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Kali, Y., Baram-Tsabari, A., Ben-Zvi, D., Hod, Y., Sagy, O., & Tal, T. (2017). Taking citizen science to school: Breaking the boundaries between school and society. Unpublished proposal accepted by the Israeli Science Foundation as a Fostering Meaningful Learning in Schools research center.Google Scholar
  44. Kali, Y., Linn, M., & Roseman, J. E. (2008). Designing Coherent Science Education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy. In Technology. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kali, Y., McKenney, S., & Sagy, O. (Eds.). (2015). Teachers as designers of technology-enhanced learning. [Special issue]. Instructional Science, 43(2), 173.Google Scholar
  46. Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J.-W., Kreijns, K., & Jelle Beers, P. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Knappenberger, B. (Writer), Knappenberger, B., Braff, Z., Fink, M., Annenberg Weingarten, C. (Producers). (2014). The Internet’s own boy [Feature Film]. Participant Media.
  48. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A Framework For K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  50. National Research Council [NRC]. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  51. Nov, O., & Rafaeli, S. (2009). Measuring the premium on common knowledge in computer-mediated coordination problems. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 171–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  53. Pea, R. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Penuel, W. R., Allen, A.-R., Farrell, C., & Coburn, C. E. (2015). Conceptualizing research-practice partnerships as joint work at boundaries. Journal for Education of Students at Risk (JESPAR), 20(1–2), 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Raban, D. R., & Rafaeli, S. (2007). Investigating ownership and the willingness to share information online. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2367–2382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rechavi, A., & Rafaeli, S. (2012, January). Knowledge and social networks in Yahoo! Answers. In System Science (HICSS), 2012 45th Hawaii international conference on (pp. 781–789). IEEE.Google Scholar
  57. Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In N. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 545–558). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 599–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sawyer, R. K. (2014). The future of learning: Grounding educational innovation in the learning sciences. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 726–746). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schejter, A. M., & Tirosh, N. (2016). A justice-based approach for new media policy: In the paths of righteousness. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  62. Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  63. Suthers, D. D., Lund, K., Rosé, C. P., Teplovs, C., & Law, N. (Eds.). (2013). Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  64. Swartz, A. (2015). The boy who could change the world: The writings of Aaron Swartz. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  65. Tabak, I. (2004). Reconstructing context: Negotiating the tension between exogenous and endogenous educational design. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 225–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Whyte, W. F., Greenwood, D. J., & Lazes, P. (1989). Participatory action research: Through practice to science in social research. American Behavioral Scientist, 32(5), 513–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Chapter 1: What is backward design? In G. Wiggins & J. McTighe (Eds.), Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  68. Wild, C. J., Utts, J. M., & Horton, N. J. (2018). What is statistics? In D. Ben-Zvi, J. Garfield, & K. Makar (Eds.), The first handbook of research on statistics teaching and learning (pp. 5–36). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  69. Yerushalmy, M., & Botzer, G. (2011). Guiding mathematical inquiry in mobile settings. In Constructing knowledge for teaching secondary mathematics (pp. 191–207). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zuckerman, O., Gal-Oz, A., Tamir, N., & Kopelman-Rubin, D. (2015). Initial validation of an assistive technology to enhance executive functioning among children with ADHD. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 299–302). New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NYU, Department of AdministrationLeadership and TechnologyNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Learning, Instruction, and Teacher EducationUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations