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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bhaskar, R. (1986). Scientific realism and human emancipation. London: Verso.
Boivin, N. (2008). Material cultures, material minds: The impact of things on human thought, society and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Card, S., Moran, T., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (Eds.). (2014). The architecture of productive learning networks. New York, NY: Routledge.
Carvalho, L., Goodyear, P., & de Laat, M. (Eds.). (2016). Place-based spaces for networked learning, New York, NY: Routledge.
Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Conole, G. (2013). Designing for learning in an open world. Berlin: Springer.
Dennett, D. (1991). Consciousness explained. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Co.
Dohn, N. (2009). Affordances revisited. Articulating a Merleau-Pontian view. International Journal of Computer Supported Learning, 4(2), 151–170.
Engestrom, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Feenberg, A. (1987). Computer conferencing in the humanities. Instructional Science, 16, 169–186.
Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the sociomaterial. Abingdon: Routledge.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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.
Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21, 82–101.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Heidegger, M. (1986). Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers. Berlin: Springer.
Hodder, I. (2012). Entangled: An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hodgson, V., De Laat, M., McConnell, D., & Ryberg, T. (2014). The design, experience and practice of networked learning. Dordrecht: Springer.
Husserl, E. (1950). Husserliana: Edmund Husserl - Gesammelte Werke. The Hague/Dordrecht: Nijhoff/Kluwer.
Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. Abingdon: Routledge.
Ingold, T. (2012). Towards an ecology of materials. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 427–442.
Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Abingdon: Routledge.
Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. The Philosophical Quarterly, 32, 127–136.
Johri, A. (2011). The socio-materiality of learning practices and implications for the field of learning technology. Research in Learning Technology, 19, 207–217.
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.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20, 1–30.
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Abingdon: Routledge.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leonardi, P., Nardi, B., & Kallinikos, J. (2012). Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lonchamp, J. (2012). An instrumental perspective on CSCL systems. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7, 211–237.
Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind: A theory of material engagement. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2016). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation, knowledgeable action and working knowledge, Dordrecht: Springer.
Mason, R., & Kaye, A. (Eds.). (1989). Mindweave. Oxford: Pergamon.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge and Kegan.
Miller, D. (2010). Stuff. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Nash, J., Plugge, L., & Eurelings, A. (2000). Defining and evaluating CSCL projects. European Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ECSCL 2000), Maastricht, Netherlands.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Norman, D. (1989). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Orlikowski, W. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28, 1435–1448.
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.
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.
Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon.
Proctor, R., & Vu, K.-P. (2009). Cumulative knowledge and progress in human factors. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 61, 623–651.
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.
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.
Rorty, R. (1980). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.
Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23, 18.
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.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of just choosing one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–12.
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.
Sorensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in educational practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophical papers. Vols. 1 and 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Winch, P. (1990). The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. London: Routledge.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Goodyear, P., Carvalho, L., Dohn, N.B. (2016). Artefacts and Activities in the Analysis of Learning Networks. In: Ryberg, T., Sinclair, C., Bayne, S., de Laat, M. (eds) Research, Boundaries, and Policy in Networked Learning. Research in Networked Learning. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31130-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31130-2_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31128-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31130-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)