Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Networked Learning pp 137–168Cite as

The Infrastructures

  • Chapter

  • 1970 Accesses

Part of the book series: Research in Networked Learning ((RINL))

Abstract

This chapter argues that networked learning depends on the existence of a variety of infrastructures and in particular the digital and networked technologies that support education. Some of these are supplied by universities and depend on institutional processes, but some are not institutionally bounded and they can be incidental to formal learning, but important to the informal processes that surround it. I have been part of two institution-wide change processes which involved significant modifications to the university’s infrastructures for learning. Both have involved dispersed decision-making in which ‘the’ university has proved to be a black box, assembled out of a variety of competing interests, material and social constraints and an array of loosely coupled technological systems. Some of the infrastructures involved in the changes were institutional in scale, but others involved external actors and their integration into university processes.

If networked learning is to be an effective approach, it has to take into consideration those assemblages that are brought together in infrastructures because the interactions and connections that networked learning requires depend on the continuing construction and maintenance of an often invisible substrate of infrastructural activity. My argument is that infrastructures are important for networked learning, but more than that I argue that digital and network infrastructures, and an understanding of the issues they raise, are fundamental to understanding contemporary society and the world in which networked learning takes place.

In this chapter, I propose the idea of Hybrid Infrastructures to encompass the emerging space of managed relationships between institutions and partly sequestered versions of universal services. The idea of hybrid infrastructure builds on the current use of the term hybrid to describe forms of cloud computing reliant on both public and private services. Current hybrid infrastructures are being used in education to provide student email, additional student services beyond core institutional provision and to provide locally hosted versions of cloud computing in ways that at least attempt to include and incorporate essential institutional requirements such as a rough equivalence in student experience and basic (legally required) levels of data protection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, G. C. (1996). The history of information infrastructures: The case of the international classification of disease. Information Processing & Management, 32(1), 39–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • boyd, D. (2011). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75(2), 332–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dopfer, K., Foster, J., & Potts, J. (2004). Micro meso macro. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14, 263–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducate, L., & Lomicka, L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 9–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, P. N. (2010). A vast machine: Computer models, climate data, and the politics of global warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, R., & Carmichael, P. (2012). Secret codes: The hidden curriculum of semantic web technologies. Discourse, 33(4), 575–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G., & Giaccardi, E. (2006). Meta-design: A framework for the future of end user development. 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galloway, A. R. (2012). The interface effect. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • GÉANT Expert Group (2011). Knowledge without borders: GÉANT 2020 as the European communication 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 development of e-learning environments for higher education. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practices (pp. 25–37). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (2007). Punctuated equilibrium. Cambridge, MA: Belnap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guribye, F., & Lindström, B. (2009). Infrastructures for learning and networked tools: The introduction 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 continuing professional development (pp. 103–116). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, BV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannon, J. (2013). Incommensurate practices: Sociomaterial entanglements of learning technology implementation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 168–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanseth, O., & Lundberg, N. (2001). Designing work oriented infrastructures. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 10, 347–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.].

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoggett, P. (1991). A new management in the public sector? Policy & Politics, 19(4), 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. J., Edwards, P. N., Bowker, G. C., & Knobel, C. P. (2007). Understanding infrastructure: 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Jones, C. (1998). Evaluating a collaborative online learning environment. Active Learning, 9, 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 introduction. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitchen, R., & Dodge, M. (2011). Code/space: Software and everyday life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, G. (2003). Learning the ‘New, New Thing’: On the role of path dependency in university structures. Higher Education, 46, 315–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 articulation of code and politics on facebook. Canadian Journal of Communication, 34, 415–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network theory. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro, E., Pollock, N., Hanseth, O., & Williams, R. (2013). From artefacts to infrastructures. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 22(4–6), 575–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creation metaphor: An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science and Education, 14(6), 535–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki, T. R. (1996). Social practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki, T., Knorr-Cetina, K., & von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 management 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N. (2010). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N. (2011). Schools and schooling in the digital age: A critical analysis. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J.-W., Kirschner, P., & Martens, R. (Eds.). (2004). What we know about CSCL: and implementing it in higher education. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. (2010). Innovating the 21st century university: It’s time. Educause Review, 45(1), 17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. G. (1999). Making sense of academic life: Academics, universities and change. Buckingham, England: SRHE/Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weller, M. (2007). Virtual learning environments: Using, choosing and developing your VLE. Abingdon, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller, M. (2010). The centralisation dilemma in educational IT. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK

    Christopher Jones

Authors
  1. Christopher Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jones, C. (2015). The Infrastructures. In: Networked Learning. Research in Networked Learning. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01934-5_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation