Advertisement

Traces of Cognition as a Distributed Phenomenon in Networked Learning

  • Gale Parchoma
Chapter
Part of the Research in Networked Learning book series (RINL)

Abstract

In this chapter, I begin with historical and ongoing debates about the nature of cognition in relation to critical and humanistic traditions underpinning networked learning theory and practice. In this context, knowledge is not perceived a transmissible property that can be moved across a network from one person to another; rather, knowledge is viewed as emergent. I go on to trace points in the past decade where networked learning understandings of cognition have come to include sociomaterial perspectives that acknowledge the agencies of both human and non-human actors in knowledge emergence. In the following section on the conceptualizations of the human mind, I critically examine five contemporary perspectives: neuropsychological, environmentalist, phenomenological, situated sociocultural account, and mentalist. From a relational view, each of these perspectives can accommodate the proposition of cognition as a distributed phenomenon without becoming caught in the dualism of abstract mind and concrete material social practice. I conclude the chapter with positing distributed cognition as a unifying theoretical concept underpinning the political, ontological, and epistemological aspects of networked learning.

References

  1. Alexander, S., & Booth, S. (2008). Methodologies for researching the learning in networked learning: Introduction. Retrieved from: http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2008/abstracts/PDFs/AlexanderIntro_443-444.pdf
  2. Barsalou, L. W., Breazeal, C., & Smith, L. (2007). Cognition as coordinated non-cognition. Cognitive Processing, 8(2), 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaty, L., Hodgson, V., Mann, S., & McConnell, D. (2002). Understanding the implications of networked learning for higher education. Retrieved from: http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/esrc/manifesto.pdf
  4. Bereiter, C. (1991). Implications of connectionism for thinking about rules. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhabha, H. K. (2004). The location of culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bonderup Dohn, N. (2009). Affordances revisited: Articulating a Merleau-Pontian view. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonderup Dohn, N. (2014). Implications for networked learning of the ‘practice’ side of social practice theories: A tacit-knowledge perspective. In V. Hodgson, M. de Latt, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), The design, experience and practice of networked learning (pp. 29–50). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology and Instruction, 3, 149–170.Google Scholar
  9. Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Conole, G. (2006). The role of ‘mediating forms of representation’ in learning design. Retrieved from http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2006/abstracts/pdfs/P32%20Conole.pdf
  11. Conole, G. (2010). Theory and methodology in networked learning. London: The Open University.Google Scholar
  12. Damasio, A. R. (2012). Self comes to mind: Constructing the conscious brain. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Dewey, J. (1938). Education and experience. West Lafayette: Kappa Delta Pi.Google Scholar
  16. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (2012). The theory, practice and pedagogy of networked learning. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 290–304). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  18. Fenwick, T. (2012). Learning sustainability. Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference on Networked Learning Maastricht, The Netherlands. http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2012/abstracts/pdf/Fenwick_Slides.pdf
  19. Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Fox, S. (2001). Studying networked learning: Some implications from socially situated learning theory and actor-network theory. In C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.), Networked learning: Perspectives and issues (pp. 77–92). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Fox, S. (2005). An actor-network critique of community in higher education: Implications for networked learning. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  23. Gagné, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  24. Gagné, R., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Fort Worth: HBJ College Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception of experimental psychology. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (2004). Research on networked learning: An overview. In P. Goodyear, S. Banks, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Advances in research on networked learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  27. Goodyear, P., Carvalho, L., & Bonderup Dohn, N. (2014). Design for networked learning: Framing relations between participants’ activities and the physical setting. Paper presented at the Ninth International Conference on Networked Learning Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
  28. Goodyear, P., Carvalho, L., & Bonderup Dohn, N. (2016). Artefacts and activities in the analysis of learning networks. In T. Ryberg, C. Sinclair, S. Bayne, & M. de Latt (Eds.), Research, boundaries and policy in networked learning (pp. 93–110). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gourlay, L., & Oliver, M. (2016). It is not all about the learner: Reframing students’ digital literacy as sociomaterial practice. In T. Ryberg, C. Sinclair, S. Bayne, & M. de Latt (Eds.), Research, boundaries and policy in networked learning (pp. 93–110). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Hannon, J. (2014). Making the right connections: Implementing objects of practices in a network for learning. In V. Hodgson, M. de Latt, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), The design, experience and practice of networked learning (pp. 67–86). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hodgson, V., McConnell, D., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). The theory, practice and pedagogy of networked learning. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy, and practice of networked learning (pp. 291–306). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hodgson, V., de Latt, M., McConnell, D., & Ryberg, T. (2014). Researching design, experience and practice of networked learning: An overview. In V. Hodgson, M. de Latt, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), The design, experience and practice of networked learning (pp. 1–28). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ikas, K., & Wagner, G. (2009). Introduction. In K. Ikas & G. Wagner (Eds.), Communicating in the third space (pp. 1–10). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  34. Ingold, T. (2011). Prologue: Anthropology comes to life. In Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description (pp. 3–14). Abington: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Jones, C. (2000). Understanding students' experiences of collaborative networked learning. Retrieved from http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2000/Proceedings/Jones_152-158.pdf
  36. Jones, C. (2015). Networked learning: An educational paradigm for the age of digital networks. Cham Heidelburg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Koper, R., & Olivier, B. (2004). Representing the learning design of units of learning. Educational Technology & Society, 7(3), 97–111.Google Scholar
  38. Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation, knowledgeable action, and actionable knowledge. Dordreacht: Springer Science + Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marton, F., & Pang, M. F. (2008). The idea of phenomenography and the pedagogy of conceptual change. In S. Vosinadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 533–599). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McConnell, D. (1998). Developing networked learning professionals: A critical perspective. Retrieved from http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc1998/Proceedings/Keynote1.pdf
  43. McConnell, D., Hodgson, V., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). Networked learning: A brief history and new trends. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy, and practice of networked learning (pp. 3–26). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mead, G. H. (1967). Mind, self and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morrision, G. R., & Anglin, G. J. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory. Application to e-learning Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Münsterberg, H. (1914). Psychology, general and applied. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
  48. Ohlsson, S. (2011). Deep learning: How the mind overrides experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oliver, M. (2005). The Problem with Affordance. E-Learning and Digital Media, 2(4), 402–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Oliver, M. (2012). Learning with technology as coordinated sociomaterial practice: Digital literacies as a site of praxiological study. Retrieved from: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2012/abstracts/pdf/oliver.pdf
  51. Oliver, M. (2013). Learning technology: Theorizing the tools we study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Parchoma, G. (2014). The contested ontology of affordances: Implications for researching technological affordances. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 360–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reynolds, M., Sclater, M., & Tickner, S. (2004). A critique of participative discourses adopted in networked learning. Retrieved from: http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2004/proceedings/symposia/symposium10/reynolds_et_al.htm
  55. Ryberg, T., Buus, L., & Georgsen, M. (2012). Differences in understanding of networked learning theory: Connectivity or collaboration? In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy, and practice of networked learning (pp. 43–58). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behaviour of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Tennyson, R. D., & Rasch, M. (1988). Linking cognitive learning theory to instructional prescriptions. Instructional Science, 17(4), 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thompson, T. L. (2012). Who’s taming who? Tensions between people and technologies in cyberspace communities. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy, and practice of networked learning (pp. 157–172). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking a load off a leaner's mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Waltz, S. B. (2006). Nonhumans unbound: Actor-network theory and the reconsideration of “things” in educational foundations. Educational Foundations, 20(3/4), 51–68.Google Scholar
  63. Wundt, W. (1921). Elements of folk psychology. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  64. Zenios, M., & Goodyear, P. (2008). Where is the learning in networked knowledge construction. Retrieved from http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2008/abstracts/PDFs/Zenios_607-615.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Curriculum Studies: Educational Technology and Design, University of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations