CmyView: Learning by Walking and Sharing Social Values

  • Lucila CarvalhoEmail author
  • Cristina Garduño Freeman
Part of the Research in Networked Learning book series (RINL)


Networked learning practices are impacting the field of cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible, with implications for the way in which places of cultural significance are understood, managed, documented, engaged with and studied. Our research explores the intersection between walking, photography, technology and learning, investigating how mobile devices can be used to foster community participation and assess social value within a networked framework for digital heritage. The chapter introduces CmyView, a mobile phone application and social media platform in development, with a design concept grounded on both digital heritage and networked learning perspectives. CmyView encourages people to collect and share their views by making images and audio recordings of personally meaningful sites they see while walking outdoors in the natural or built environment. Each person’s walking trajectory (along with their associated images and audio files) then becomes a traceable artefact, something potentially shareable with a community of fellow walkers. The aim of CmyView is to encourage networked heritage practices and community participation, as people learn by documenting their own and experiencing others’ social values of the built environment. Drawing on a framework for the analysis and design of productive learning networks, we analyse the educational design of CmyView arguing that the platform offers a space for democratic heritage education and interpretation, where participatory urban curatorship practices are nurtured. CmyView reframes social value as dynamic, fluid and located within communities, rather than fixed in a place. The chapter presents preliminary findings of the activity of a group of four undergraduate students at an Australian university, who used CmyView to explore the immediate surroundings of their campus, in an activity outside of their formal curriculum. Participants interacted with the platform, mapping, capturing, audio recording their impressions and sites of interest in their walks. In so doing, they created shareable trajectories, which were subsequently experienced by the same group of participants on a second walk. The chapter concludes with a discussion about the impact of our research for the design of mobile technologies that embrace participation and sharing, through a networked learning perspective. The chapter brings together concepts that sit at the intersection of previously separate fields, namely, digital heritage and networked learning, to find their synergies.


Digital Heritage Networked Learning Practices Trace Artifacts Epistemic Design Situated learningSituated Learning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bitter-Rijpkema, M., Verjans, S., Didderen, W., & Sloep, P. (2014). Biebkracht: Library professionals empowered though an inter-organisational learning network – design principles and evolution. In L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks (pp. 152–167). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Boys, J. (2011). Towards creative learning spaces. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Cameron, F., & Kenderdine, S. (2007). Theorizing digital cultural heritage. Cambridge: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Canning, S., & Spenneman, D. (2001). Contested space: Social value and the assessment of cultural significance in New South Wales, Australia. In M. Cotter, B. Boyd, & J. Gardiner (Eds.), Heritage landscapes; understanding place and communities (pp. 457–468). Lismore: Southern Cross University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Carvalho, L. (2017). The O in MONA: Reshaping museum spaces. In L. Carvalho, P. Goodyear, & M. de Laat (Eds.), Place-based spaces for networked learning (pp. 144–159). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (Eds.). (2014). The architecture of productive learning networks. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Carvalho, L., Goodyear, P., & de Laat, M. (Eds.). (2017). Place-based spaces for networked learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Laat, M., Schreurs, B., & Sie, R. (2014). Utilizing informal teacher professional development networks using the network awareness tool. In L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks (pp. 239–256). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Garduño Freeman, C. (2013). Participatory culture as a site for the reception of architecture: Making a giant Sydney Opera House cake. Architecture Theory Review, 18(3), 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garduño Freeman, C. (2010). Photosharing on Flickr: Intangible heritage and emergent publics. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16(4), 352–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giaccardi, E. (Ed.). (2012). Heritage and social media. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (Online), 21(1), 82–101.Google Scholar
  14. Goodyear, P., & Carvalho, L. (2014). Framing the analysis of learning network architectures. In L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks (pp. 48–70). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Goodyear, P., Carvalho, L., & Dohn, N. (2016). Artefacts and activities in the analysis of learning networks. In S. Bayne, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & C. Sinclair (Eds.), Research, boundaries and policy in networked learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConell, D. (Eds.). (2004). Advances in research in networked learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Hayden, D. (1997). The power of place: Urban landscapes as public history. London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hodgson, V., de Laat, M., McConnell, D., & Ryberg, T. (Eds.). (2014). The design, experience and practice of networked learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. ICOMOS Australia. (1999). The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 1999.Google Scholar
  20. Illeris, K. (Ed.). (2009). Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists – In their own words. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jenkins, H. (1988). Star Trek reread, rerun, rewritten: Fan writing as textual poaching. Critical Studies in Mass Communications, 5(2), 85–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnston, C., Riches, L., McGregor, A., & Buckley, K. (2003). Inspirational landscapes. Canberra: Australian Heritage Commission.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016). NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  25. Kalay, Y., Kvan, T., & Affleck, J. (2008). New heritage: New media and cultural heritage. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(1), 3. 1–3:20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2016). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Martinez-Maldonado, R., Goodyear, P., Carvalho, L., Thompson, K., Hernandez-Leo, D., Dimitriadis, Y., Prieto, L. P., & Wardak, D. (2017). Supporting collaborative design activity in a multi-user digital design ecology. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rogoff, I. (2002). Studying visual culture. In N. Mirzoeff (Ed.), The visual culture reader (2nd ed., pp. 24–36). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Malpas, J. (2008). New media, cultural heritage and the sense of place: Mapping the conceptual ground. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 14(3), 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. OECD. (2016). Recognition of non-formal and informal learning (Online). Available at: Accessed 24 Nov 2016.
  33. Oppezzo, M., & Schwartz, D. (2014). Give your ideas some legs: The positive effect of walking on creative thinking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(4), 1142–1152.Google Scholar
  34. Schön, D. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA Publications for RIBA Building Industry Trust.Google Scholar
  35. Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The sage handbook of e-learning research (pp. 221–247). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Sprake, J., & Rogers, P. (2014). Crowds, citizens and sensors: Process and practice for mobilising learning. Personal Ubiquitous Computing, 18(1), 753–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Steeples, C., & Jones, C. (Eds.). (2002). Networked learning; perspectives and issues. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Thibaut, P., Curwood, J. S., Carvalho, L., & Simpson, A. (2015). Moving across physical and online spaces: A case study in a blended primary classroom. Learning, Media & Technology, 40(4), 458–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thompson, K., Ashe, D., Carvalho, L., Goodyear, P., Kelly, N., & Parisio, M. (2013). Processing and visualizing data in complex learning environments. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1401–1420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tilden, F. (1977). Interpreting our heritage. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  42. UNESCO. (2003). Charter on the preservation of the digital heritage.Google Scholar
  43. Waterton, E. (2010). The advent of digital technologies and the idea of community. Museum Management and Curatorship, 25(1), 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Waterton, E., & Smith, L. (2010). The recognition and misrecognition of community heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16(1–2), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wenger, E. (2009). A social theory of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists – In their own words (pp. 209–217). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & de Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework (Vol. 18). Heerlen: Open Universiteit.Google Scholar
  47. Westh Nicolajsen, H., & Ryberg, T. (2014). Creating a peer-driven learning network in higher education: Using web 2.0 tools to facilitate online dialogue and collaboration. In L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks (pp. 94–108). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Yeoman, P. (2017). A study of correspondence, dissonance and improvisation in the design and use of a school-based networked learning environment. In L. Carvalho, P. Goodyear, & M. de Laat (Eds.), Place-based spaces for networked learning (pp. 41–58). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Education, Massey UniversityAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Australian Centre for Architectural History, Urban and Cultural Heritage, The University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations