Advertisement

Artefacts and Activities in the Analysis of Learning Networks

  • Peter GoodyearEmail author
  • Lucila Carvalho
  • Nina Bonderup Dohn
Part of the Research in Networked Learning book series (RINL)

Abstract

This chapter draws on a programme of research into the architecture of learning networks. This research programme has been examining a number of diverse learning networks, to identify reusable design ideas. The analytic work has been structured around a distinction between elements of learning networks that can be designed (partially, or completely) and processes that are emergent. From a learning perspective, the emergent processes are most important: what network participants actually do, including what they think, feel and say, is what matters most. Everything that can be designed and set in place is merely to resource and guide their activity. Thus, activity mediates between outcomes and what can be designed. One cannot assume a direct relationship between (say) a specific digital tool and some desired outcomes. Rather, one needs to understand the kinds of connections that can exist between such tools/devices and participants’ activities. More generally: how is what participants actually do influenced by the qualities of the place in which they are working, and by the tools and other resources that come to hand? Neither networked learning, nor the broader field of educational technology, have well-developed theories or constructs to create analytical connections between activity and its physical setting. Our chapter draws upon our experiences of analysing learning networks to create some framing within which connecting constructs might be articulated. About the only theoretical construct that has become widely used in the field is that of “affordance”. It is a term that is also very widely critiqued and contested, in part because of deep conceptual ambiguities, but also because of lax usage. We draw upon some ideas from metaphysics to help frame the relationships between the physical world and human activity, to redeem the term “affordance” and to add some further terms that help identify other kinds of relations between activity and its physical setting. The point of this is actually quite practical. Without some analytical constructs that provide connections between things that can be designed and valued activities, designers cannot provide a rationale for what they do. They can copy ideas, set things in place, and proceed by trial and error. But they cannot apply principled knowledge to the solution of complex problems. They cannot design.

Keywords

Design Physical Material and digital contexts Activity Relational epistemology Affordances 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Peter Goodyear and Lucila Carvalho acknowledge the financial support of the Australian Research Council (Laureate Fellowship Grant FL100100203), as well as stimulating ideas and generous feedback from the other members of the Laureate team. Nina Bonderup Dohn acknowledges the financial support of Lundbeckfonden which contributed to making possible her stay as a Visiting Scholar at the University of Sydney in 2013.

References

  1. Bhaskar, R. (1986). Scientific realism and human emancipation. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  2. Boivin, N. (2008). Material cultures, material minds: The impact of things on human thought, society and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Card, S., Moran, T., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (Eds.). (2014). The architecture of productive learning networks. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Carvalho, L., Goodyear, P., & de Laat, M. (Eds.). (2016). Place-based spaces for networked learning, New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Conole, G. (2013). Designing for learning in an open world. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dennett, D. (1991). Consciousness explained. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
  9. Dohn, N. (2009). Affordances revisited. Articulating a Merleau-Pontian view. International Journal of Computer Supported Learning, 4(2), 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Engestrom, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2011). The social, the material, and the ontology of non-material technological objects. Paper presented at the 27th EGOS (European Group for Organizational Studies) Colloquium, Gothenburg. http://webfirstlive.lse.ac.uk/management/documents/Non-MaterialTechnologicalObjects.pdf. Accessed 25 March 2016.
  12. Feenberg, A. (1987). Computer conferencing in the humanities. Instructional Science, 16, 169–186.Google Scholar
  13. Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the sociomaterial. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Goodyear, P. (2000). Environments for lifelong learning: Ergonomics, architecture and educational design. In J. M. Spector & T. Anderson (Eds.), Integrated and holistic perspectives on learning, instruction & technology: Understanding complexity (pp. 1–18). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21, 82–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodyear, P. (2014). Productive learning networks: The evolution of research and practice. In L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Goodyear, P., & Carvalho, L. (2013). The analysis of complex learning environments. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Goodyear, P., & Carvalho, L. (2014). Framing the analysis of learning network architectures. In L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Goodyear, P., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2013). In medias res: Reframing design for learning. Research in Learning Technology, 21, 19909. Retrieved September 28, 2013, from http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21i0.19909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (2010). Learning, technology and design. In P. Goodyear & S. Retalis (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning: Design patterns and pattern languages (pp. 1–28). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  22. Hacker, P. (2009). Agential reasons and the explanation of human behaviour. In C. Sandis (Ed.), New essays on the explanation of action (pp. 75–93). Houndmill: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heidegger, M. (1986). Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Hodder, I. (2012). Entangled: An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hodgson, V., De Laat, M., McConnell, D., & Ryberg, T. (2014). The design, experience and practice of networked learning. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Husserl, E. (1950). Husserliana: Edmund Husserl - Gesammelte Werke. The Hague/Dordrecht: Nijhoff/Kluwer.Google Scholar
  28. Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Ingold, T. (2012). Towards an ecology of materials. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 427–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. The Philosophical Quarterly, 32, 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johri, A. (2011). The socio-materiality of learning practices and implications for the field of learning technology. Research in Learning Technology, 19, 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jones, C. (2004). Networks and learning: Communities, practices and the metaphor of networks. ALT-J: Journal of the Association for Learning Technology, 12, 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  35. Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leonardi, P., Nardi, B., & Kallinikos, J. (2012). Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lonchamp, J. (2012). An instrumental perspective on CSCL systems. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 211–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind: A theory of material engagement. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2016). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation, knowledgeable action and working knowledge, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Mason, R., & Kaye, A. (Eds.). (1989). Mindweave. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  43. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge and Kegan.Google Scholar
  44. Miller, D. (2010). Stuff. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  45. Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Nash, J., Plugge, L., & Eurelings, A. (2000). Defining and evaluating CSCL projects. European Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ECSCL 2000), Maastricht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  47. Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  48. Norman, D. (1989). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  49. Orlikowski, W. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28, 1435–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Overdijk, M., Diggelen, W., Kirschner, P., & Baker, M. (2012). Connecting agents and artifacts in CSCL: Towards a rationale of mutual shaping. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576.Google Scholar
  52. Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  53. Proctor, R., & Vu, K.-P. (2009). Cumulative knowledge and progress in human factors. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 61, 623–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ritella, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). Instrumental genesis in technology-mediated learning: From double stimulation to expansive knowledge practices. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Robinson, L., & Metcher, J. (2014). Professional learning and a national community of practice for teachers leading local curriculum change. In L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks (pp. 109–124). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Rorty, R. (1980). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  57. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sawyer, K., & Greeno, J. (2009). Situativity and learning. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 347–367). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of just choosing one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–12.Google Scholar
  61. Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytical tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sorensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in educational practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophical papers. Vols. 1 and 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Turnbull, D. (1993). The ad hoc collective work of building Gothic cathedrals with templates, string, and geometry. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 18, 315–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Turnbull, D. (2002). Performance and narrative, bodies and movement in the construction of places and objects, spaces and knowledges: The case of the Maltese megaliths. Theory, Culture and Society, 19, 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Voigt, C. (2010). A pattern in the making: The contextual analysis of electronic case-based learning. In P. Goodyear & S. Retalis (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning: Design patterns and pattern languages. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  69. Winch, P. (1990). The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Yeoman, P., & Carvalho, L. (2014). Material entanglement in a primary school learning network. In Bayne, S., Jones, C., de Laat, M., Ryberg, T., & Sinclair, C. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Networked Learning 2014, Edinburgh, April 7–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Goodyear
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lucila Carvalho
    • 1
  • Nina Bonderup Dohn
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Research on Computer Supported Learning and Cognition, Faculty of Education and Social WorkUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Design and CommunicationUniversity of Southern DenmarkCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations