Advertisement

Design for Networked Learning

  • Peter B. SloepEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Educational Technology book series (LNET)

Abstract

This chapter discusses guidelines for networked learning. First, a few definitions are analyzed and it is concluded that networks are essentially different than communities, although the former will contain the latter. Then, the notion of learning design is examined, resulting in the conclusion that the distinction of Carvalho and Goodyear between epistemic, social, and set design should guide the design of networked learning. Each of these design aspects is then scrutinized. After analysis of pertinent metaphors of learning, epistemic design turns out to be subject to the maxim that learning networks cannot be designed, only designed for. With this as a limiting perspective, guidelines for the social design of learning networks are derived, in which the notion of an ad hoc transient communities plays a key role. In the context of the set design, examples of tools for social interaction support, navigation support, and (formative) assessment support are inventoried. Together, the results of the analysis of epistemic design, the guidelines for social design, and the inventory of tools for set design provide a valuable if still growing toolkit to the designer of learning networks.

Keywords

Networked learning Learning network Learning design Social design Epistemic design Set design Ad hoc transient community Design of Design for 

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Oxford: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Berlanga, A. J., Bitter-Rijpkema, M. E. B., Brouns, F., Sloep, P. B., & Fetter, S. (2011). Personal profiles: Enhancing social interaction in learning networks. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 7(1), 66–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berlanga, A. J., & Sloep, P. B. (2011). Towards a digital learner identity. In F. Abel, V. Dimitrova, E. Herder, & G.-J. Houben (Eds.), Augmenting User Models with Real World Experiences Workshop (AUM). In conjunction with UMAP 2011. July, 15, 2011, Girona, Spain. Retrieved from http://www.wis.ewi.tudelft.nl/aum2011/aum-proceedings.pdf
  4. Berners-Lee, T., & Fischetti, M. (1999). Weaving the Web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the world wide web by its inventor. Britain: Orion Business.Google Scholar
  5. Bijker, W. E. (1999). Of bicycles, bakelites and bulbs: Towards a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bijker, W. E. (2010). How is technology made? That is the question! Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34, 63–76. doi: 10.1093/cje/bep068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bitter-Rijpkema, M. E., Verjans, S., Didderen, W., Slot, W., & Sloep, P. B. (2014). Biebkracht: Library professionals empowered through an interorganizational learning network: Design principles and evolution. In L. Carvalho & P. M. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks (pp. 152–167). New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  8. Boud, D., & Hager, P. (2012). Studies in continuing education re-thinking continuing professional development through changing metaphors and location in professional practices. Studies in Continuing Education, 34(1), 17–3041. doi: 10.1080/0158037X.2011.608656 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  10. Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. M. (2014). The architecture of productive learning networks. New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  11. Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2008). Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: Quality perspectives. Educational Media International, 45(2), 93–106. doi: 10.1080/09523980802107179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conole, G. (2014). Designing for learning in an open world (Vol. 4). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-8517-0 Google Scholar
  13. Creanor, L., & Walker, S. (2010). Exploring sociotechnical theories of learning technology. In Seventh International Conference on Networked Learning 2010 (pp. 517–518). Retrieved from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/PDFs/Creanor_2.pdf
  14. Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2009). How the crowd can teach. In J. Dron & T. Anderson (Eds.), How the crowd can teach. Handbook of research on social software and developing community ontologies. Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  15. Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2014). Teaching crowds: Learning and social media. Athabasca, Canada: AU Press, Athabasca University. doi: 10.15215/aupress/9781927356807.01 Google Scholar
  16. Dunbar, R. I. M. (1993). Co-evolution of neocortex size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 681–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fazeli, S., Drachsler, H., Brouns, F., & Sloep, P. B. (2012). A trust-based social recommender for teachers. In N. Manouselis, H. Drachsler, K. Verbert, & O. C. Santos (Eds.), 2nd Workshop on Recommender Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning (RecSysTEL 2012) in conjunction with the 7th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL 2012), September, 18-19, 2012, Saarbrücken, Germany (pp. 49–60). Saarbrucken, Germany.Google Scholar
  18. Fazeli, S., Loni, B., Bellogin, A., Drachsler, H., & Sloep, P. B. (2014). Implicit vs. explicit trust in social matrix factorization. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (pp. 317–320). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2645710.2645766
  19. Fowler, M. (2000). UML distilled: A brief guide to the standard object modeling language (2nd ed., p. 185). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. doi: 10.1109/MS.2005.81
  20. Ge, X. L., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding III-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22. doi: 10.1007/BF02504836 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodyear, P. M. (2005). Emergence of a networked learning community: Personal reflections on the transformation of education. In G. Kearsley (Ed.), Online Learning (Vol. 21, pp. 112–126). Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Goodyear, P. M., & Carvalho, L. (2014). Framing the analysis of learning network architectures. In L. Carvalho & P. M. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks. Routledge Falmer: New York.Google Scholar
  23. Harasim, L., Hiltz, R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: a field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society, 18(5), 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Horowitz, D., & Kamvar, S. D. (2012). Searching the village: Models and methods for social search. Communications of the ACM, 55(4), 111–118. doi: 10.1145/2133806.2133830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. IMS Global Learning Consortium. (2003). IMS learning design; information model, best practice and implementation guide. IMS Global Learning Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.imsglobal.org/content/learningdesign/
  27. Jones, C., Ferreday, D., & Hodgson, V. (2008). Networked learning a relational approach: weak and strong ties. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 24(2), 90–102. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00271.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones, C., & Steeples, C. (2002). Perspectives and Issues in networked learning. In C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.), Networked learning: Perspectives and issues (pp. 1–14). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kester, L., & Sloep, P. B. (2009). Knowledge dating and knowledge sharing in ad-hoc transient communities. In R. Koper (Ed.), Learning network services for professional development (pp. 43–55). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koper, R. (2001). Modelling units of study from a pedagogical perspective: The pedagogical metamodel behind EML v2. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland. Retrieved from http://dspace.ou.nl/bitstream/1820/36/1/Pedagogical metamodel behind EMLv2.pdf
  31. Koper, R. (2009). Learning network services for professional development. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koper, R., & Manderveld, J. (2004). Educational modelling language: Modelling reusable, interoperable, rich and personalised units of learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 537–551. doi: 10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00412.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Koper, R., & Olivier, B. (2004). Representing the learning design of units of learning. Educational Technology & Society, 7(3), 97–111.Google Scholar
  34. Landauer, T. K., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. University of Colorado Institute of cognitive science series. Boulder: University of Colorado Press.Google Scholar
  35. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology (p. 258). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Laurillard, D., & McAndrew, P. (2003). Reusable educational software: a basis for generic learning activities. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing online resources: A sustainable approach to e-learning (pp. 81–93). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  37. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Li, L. (2010). A critical review of technology acceptance literature. Southwest Decisino Sciences Institute (p. 22). Grambling, LA, USA. Retrieved from http://www.swdsi.org/swdsi2010/SW2010_Preceedings/papers/PA104.pdf
  39. Littlejohn, A., Milligan, C., & Margaryan, A. (2012). Charting collective knowledge: Supporting self-regulated learning in the workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(3), 226–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Manouselis, N., Drachsler, H., Verbert, K., & Duval, E. (2012). Recommender systems for learning (pp. 1–76). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-4361-2
  41. Markus, T. (2014). Where social noise and structure converge. Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
  42. Oliver, M. (2013). Learning technology: Theorising the tools we study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 31–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01283.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74, 557–576. doi: 10.3102/00346543074004557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2014). Designing and Enabling Spaces for collaborative knowledge creation and innovation: From managing to enabling innovation as socio-epistemological technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 346–359. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rahman, N., & Dron, J. (2012). Challenges and opportunities for learning analytics when formal teaching meets social spaces. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge—LAK’12 (pp. 54–58). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/2330601.2330619
  46. Rajagopal, K., Berlanga, A. J., & Sloep, P. B. (2012). Supporting teachers’ networked learning skills for more online engagement. In V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, T. Ryberg, & P. Sloep (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Networked Learning, April 2–4, 2012, Maastricht (pp. 422–428). Maastricht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  47. Robinson, R. (1972). Definition (5th ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  48. Rusman, E., Van Bruggen, J. M., Sloep, P. B., Valcke, M., & Koper, R. (2012). Can I trust you? Personal profiling for a first impression of trustworthiness in virtual project teams. International Journal of Information Technology Project Management, 3(1), 15–35. doi: 10.4018/jitpm.2012010102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sie, R. L. L., Drachsler, H., Rijpkema, M. B., & Sloep, P. (2012). To whom and why should I connect? Co-author recommendation based on powerful and similar peers. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(1/2), 121. doi: 10.1504/IJTEL.2012.048314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial (p. 231). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Sloep, P. B. (2009). Fostering sociability in learning networks through ad-hoc transient communities. In M. Purvis & B. T. R. Savarimuthu (Eds.), Computer-mediated social networking, ICCMSN 2008, LNAI 5322 (pp. 62–75). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Sloep, P. B. (2013). Networked professional learning. In A. Littlejohn & A. Margaryan (Eds.), Technology-enhanced professional learning: Processes, practices and tools (pp. 97–108). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Sloep, P. B., Berlanga, A. J., & Retalis, S. (2014). Introduction to the special issue on Web-2.0 technologies in support of team-based learning for innovation. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 342–345. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sloep, P. B., & Kester, L. (2009). From Lurker to active participant. In R. Koper (Ed.), Learning network services for professional development (pp. 17–26). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spoelstra, H., van Rosmalen, P., Houtmans, T., & Sloep, P. B. (2015). Team formation instruments to enhance learner interactions in open learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 11–20. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Acting with technology series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://gerrystahl.net/mit/stahlgroupcognition.pdf
  59. Sutcliffe, A., Wang, D., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2012). Social relationships and the emergence of social networks. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 15(4), 3. Retrieved from http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/15/4/3.html
  60. Van Bruggen, J. M., Sloep, P. B., Van Rosmalen, P., Brouns, F., Vogten, H., Koper, R., & Tattersall, C. (2004). Latent semantic analysis as a tool for learner positioning in learning networks for lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6), 729–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van Rosmalen, P., Sloep, P. B., Brouns, F., Kester, L., Koné, M., & Koper, R. (2006). Knowledge matchmaking in learning networks: Alleviating the tutor load by mutually connecting learning network users. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(6), 881–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Rosmalen, P., Sloep, P. B., Kester, L., Brouns, F., De Croock, M., Pannekeet, K., & Koper, R. (2008). A learner support model based on peer tutor selection. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 24(1), 74–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vassileva, J. (2009). Toward social learning environments. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 1(4), 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Verbert, K., Drachsler, H., Manouselis, N., Wolpers, M., Vuorikari, R., & Duval, E. (2011). Dataset-driven research for improving recommender systems for learning. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 44–53). doi: 10.1145/2090116.2090122
  65. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, (Eds.) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Vol. Mind in So, p. 159). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-92784-6
  66. Weber, S. (2004). The success of open source. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & De Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework. Centrum (Vol. 18, pp. 1–60). Ruud_de_Moor_Centrum. Retrieved from http://www.open.ou.nl/rslmlt/Wenger_Trayner_DeLaat_Value_creation.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Open University of the NetherlandsHeerlenNetherlands
  2. 2.HeerlenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations