A sphere of resonance for networked learning in the ‘non-places’ of our universities

The logic of ‘time’ in modern capitalist society appears to be a fixed concept. Time dictates human activity with a regularity, which as long ago as 1944, George Woodcock referred to as The Tyranny of the Clock. Seventy years on, Hartmut Rosa suggests humans no longer maintain speed to achieve something new, but simply to preserve the status quo, in a ‘social acceleration’ that is lethal to democracy. Political engagement takes time we no longer have, as we rush between our virtual spaces and ‘non-places’ of higher education. I suggest it’s time to confront the conspirators that, in partnership with the clock, accelerate our social engagements with technology in the context of learning. Through Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) I reveal an alarming situation if we don’t. With reference to Bauman’s Liquid Modernity, I observe a ‘lightness’ in policy texts where humans have been ‘liquified’ Separating people from their own labour with technology in policy maintains the flow of speed a neoliberal economy demands. I suggest a new ‘solidity’ of human presence is required as we write about networked learning. ‘Writing ourselves back in’ requires a commitment to ‘be there’ in policy and provide arguments that decelerate the tyranny of time. I am though ever-mindful that social acceleration is also of our own making, and there is every possibility that we actually enjoy it.

Unraveling networked learning initiatives: an analytic framework

Networked learning happens naturally within the social systems of which we are all part. However, in certain circumstances individuals may want to actively take initiative to initiate interaction with others they are not yet regularly in exchange with. This may be the case when external influences and societal changes require innovation of existing practices. This paper proposes a framework with relevant dimensions providing insight into precipitated characteristics of designed as well as ‘fostered or grown’ networked learning initiatives. Networked learning initiatives are characterized as “goal-directed, interest-, or needs based activities of a group of (at least three) individuals that initiate interaction across the boundaries of their regular social systems”. The proposed framework is based on two existing research traditions, namely 'networked learning' and 'learning networks', comparing, integrating and building upon knowledge from both perspectives. We uncover some interesting differences between definitions, but also similarities in the way they describe what ‘networked’ means and how learning is conceptualized. We think it is productive to combine both research perspectives, since they both study the process of learning in networks extensively, albeit from different points of view, and their combination can provide valuable insights in networked learning initiatives. We uncover important features of networked learning initiatives, characterize actors and connections of which they are comprised and conditions which facilitate and support them. The resulting framework could be used both for analytic purposes and (partly) as a design framework. In this framework it is acknowledged that not all successful networks have the same characteristics: there is no standard ‘constellation’ of people, roles, rules, tools and artefacts, although there are indications that some network structures work better than others. Interactions of individuals can only be designed and fostered till a certain degree: the type of network and its ‘growth’ (e.g. in terms of the quantity of people involved, or the quality and relevance of co-created concepts, ideas, artefacts and solutions to its ‘inhabitants’) is in the hand of the people involved. Therefore, the framework consists of dimensions on a sliding scale. It introduces a structured and analytic way to look at the precipitation of networked learning initiatives: learning networks. Successive research on the application of this framework and feedback from the networked learning community is needed to further validate it’s usability and value to both research as well as practice.

Unraveling networked learning initiatives: an analytic framework

Networked learning happens naturally within the social systems of which we are all part. However, in certain circumstances individuals may want to actively take initiative to initiate interaction with others they are not yet regularly in exchange with. This may be the case when external influences and societal changes require innovation of existing practices. This paper proposes a framework with relevant dimensions providing insight into precipitated characteristics of designed as well as ‘fostered or grown’ networked learning initiatives. Networked learning initiatives are characterized as “goal-directed, interest-, or needs based activities of a group of (at least three) individuals that initiate interaction across the boundaries of their regular social systems”. The proposed framework is based on two existing research traditions, namely 'networked learning' and 'learning networks', comparing, integrating and building upon knowledge from both perspectives. We uncover some interesting differences between definitions, but also similarities in the way they describe what ‘networked’ means and how learning is conceptualized. We think it is productive to combine both research perspectives, since they both study the process of learning in networks extensively, albeit from different points of view, and their combination can provide valuable insights in networked learning initiatives. We uncover important features of networked learning initiatives, characterize actors and connections of which they are comprised and conditions which facilitate and support them. The resulting framework could be used both for analytic purposes and (partly) as a design framework. In this framework it is acknowledged that not all successful networks have the same characteristics: there is no standard ‘constellation’ of people, roles, rules, tools and artefacts, although there are indications that some network structures work better than others. Interactions of individuals can only be designed and fostered till a certain degree: the type of network and its ‘growth’ (e.g. in terms of the quantity of people involved, or the quality and relevance of co-created concepts, ideas, artefacts and solutions to its ‘inhabitants’) is in the hand of the people involved. Therefore, the framework consists of dimensions on a sliding scale. It introduces a structured and analytic way to look at the precipitation of networked learning initiatives: learning networks. Successive research on the application of this framework and feedback from the networked learning community is needed to further validate it’s usability and value to both research as well as practice.

Designing networked learning for innovation: A dimension perspective

In her presentation, Emmy discusses a case study where a teacher group is followed in its innovative attempt to start up a new curriculum. Searching for guidelines to facilitate knowledge-creating teacher groups, the ‘Dimensions of Social Learning (DSL) Framework’ is applied as a starting point to assess the group's social configuration. To supplement the DSL Framework towards knowledge creation, social capital and value creation theories were studied. This has resulted in an extended framework that can bring the knowledge creation of teacher groups into view.

The Glow of Unwork? Issues of Portrayal in Networked Learning Research

In this paper, we suggest that portrayal of research is often undervalued and seen as ‘unwork’ (Galloway, 2012). Portrayal is often seen as an issue that is relatively straight forward by qualitative researchers, and invariably refers to putting the findings of the study together with excerpts from participants and usually, but not always, some interpretation. It tends to be seen as the means by which the researcher has chosen to position people and their perspectives, and it is imbued with a sense of not only positioning but also a contextual painting of a person in a particular way. Yet there are an array of issues and challenges about what portrayal can or might mean in digital spaces. In this paper we argue that researching education in a digital age provides greater or different opportunities to represent and portray data differently and suggest that these ways are underutilised. For example, for many researchers legitimacy comes through the use of participants’ voices in the form of quotations. However, we argue that this stance towards plausibility and legitimacy is problematic and needs to be reconsidered in terms of understanding differences in types of portrayal, recognizing how researchers position themselves in relation to portrayal, and understanding decision-making in relation to portrayal. We suggest that there need to be new perspectives about portrayal and concept, and ideas are provided that offer a different view. Three key recommendations are made: Portrayal should be reconceptualised as four overlapping concepts: mustering, folding, cartography, and portrayal. Adopting such an approach will enable audiences, researchers and other stakeholders to critique the assumptions that researchers on tour bring to portrayal and encourage reflexivity. Researchers on tour should highlight the temporal, mutable and shifting nature of portrayed research findings, emphasising the need for continued and varied research to inform understanding. There is a significant need for greater insight into the influence of portrayal, as well as the difference between representation and portrayal. Future studies should prioritise this, and ensure that portrayal is considered and critiqued from the outset.

Nurturing global collaboration and networked learning in higher education

We consider the principles of communities of practice (CoP) and networked learning in higher education, illustrated with a case study. iCollab has grown from an international community of practice connecting students and lecturers in seven modules across seven higher education institutions in six countries, to a global network supporting the exploration and evaluation of mobile web tools to engage in participatory curriculum development and supporting students in developing international collaboration and cooperation skills. This article explores the interplay of collaboration and cooperation, CoP and networked learning; describes how this interplay has operated in iCollab; and highlights opportunities and challenges of learning, teaching and interacting with students in networked publics in higher education.

The role of networked learning in academics’ writing

This article explores academics’ writing practices, focusing on the ways in which they use digital platforms in their processes of collaborative learning. It draws on interview data from a research project that has involved working closely with academics across different disciplines and institutions to explore their writing practices, understanding academic literacies as situated social practices. The article outlines the characteristics of academics’ ongoing professional learning, demonstrating the importance of collaborations on specific projects in generating learning in relation to using digital platforms and for sharing and collaborating on scholarly writing. A very wide range of digital platforms have been identified by these academics, enabling new kinds of collaboration across time and space on writing and research; but challenges around online learning are also identified, particularly the dangers of engaging in learning in public, the pressures of ‘always-on’-ness and the different values systems around publishing in different forums.

Responding to ‘nurturing global collaboration and networked learning in higher education’

Letter to the Editor No abstract available

Emancipating and developing learning activity: Systemic intervention and re-instrumentation in higher education.

The central theme of this thesis is the emancipation and further development of learning activity in higher education in the context of the ongoing digital transformation of our societies. It was developed in response to the highly problematic mainstream approach to digital re-instrumentation of teaching and studying practises in contemporary higher education. The mainstream approach is largely based on centralisation, standardisation, commoditisation, and commercialisation, while re-producing the general patterns of control, responsibility, and dependence that are characteristic for activity systems of schooling. Whereas much of educational research and development focuses on the optimisation and fine-tuning of schooling, the overall inquiry that is underlying this thesis has been carried out from an explicitly critical position and within a framework of action science. It thus conceptualises learning activity in higher education not only as an object of inquiry but also as an object to engage with and to intervene into from a perspective of intentional change. The knowledge-constituting interest of this type of inquiry can be tentatively described as a combination of heuristic-instrumental (guidelines for contextualised action and intervention), practical-phronetic (deliberation of value-rational aspects of means and ends), and developmental-emancipatory (deliberation of issues of power, self-determination, and growth) aspects. Its goal is the production of orientation knowledge for educational practise. The thesis provides an analysis, argumentation, and normative claim on why the development of learning activity should be turned into an object of individual|collective inquiry and intentional change in higher education, and why the current state of affairs in higher education actually impedes such a development. It argues for a decisive shift of attention to the intentional emancipation and further development of learning activity as an important cultural instrument for human (self-)production within the digital transformation. The thesis also attempts an in-depth exploration of what type of methodological rationale can actually be applied to an object of inquiry (developing learning activity) that is at the same time conceptualised as an object of intentional change within the ongoing digital transformation. The result of this retrospective reflection is the formulation of “optimally incomplete” guidelines for educational R&D practise that shares the practicalphronetic (value related) and developmental-emancipatory (power related) orientations that had been driving the overall inquiry. In addition, the thesis formulates the instrumental-heuristic knowledge claim that the conceptual instruments that were adapted and validated in the context of a series of intervention studies provide means to effectively intervene into existing practise in higher education to support the necessary development of (increasingly emancipated) networked learning activity. It suggests that digital networked instruments (tools and services) generally should be considered and treated as transient elements within critical systemic intervention research in higher education. It further argues for the predominant use of loosely-coupled, digital networked instruments that allow for individual|collective ownership, control, (co-)production, and re-use in other contexts and for other purposes. Since the range of digital instrumentation options is continuously expanding and currently shows no signs of an imminent slow-down or consolidation, individual and collective exploration and experimentation of this realm needs to be systematically incorporated into higher education practise.

Personal Learning Environments and Digital Literacies

This is a version of a seminar/keynote talk I have given a few times. It argues that VLEs are no longer fit for purpose and that students should learn to take responsibility for their own toolsets.

Deschooling society? A lifelong learning network for sustainable communities, urban regeneration and environmental technologies

The complexity and multifaceted nature of sustainable lifelong learning can be effectively addressed by a broad network of providers working co-operatively and collaboratively. Such a network involving the third, public and private sector bodies must realise the full potential of accredited flexible and blended formal learning, contextual opportunities offered by enablers of informal and non formal learning and the affordances derived from the various loose and open spaces that can make social learning effective. Such a conception informs the new Lifelong Learning Network Consortium on Sustainable Communities, Urban Regeneration and Environmental Technologies established and led by the Lifelong Learning Centre at Aston University. This paper offers a radical, reflective and political evaluation of its first year in development arguing that networked learning of this type could prefigure a new model for lifelong learning and sustainable education that renders the city itself a creative medium for transformative learning and sustainability.

Learning from a deceptively spacious policy discourse

Networked Learning, e-Learning and Technology Enhanced Learning have each been defined in different ways, as people's understanding about technology in education has developed. Yet each could also be considered as a terminology competing for a contested conceptual space. Theoretically this can be a ‘fertile trans-disciplinary ground for represented disciplines to affect and potentially be re-orientated by others’ (Parchoma and Keefer, 2012), as differing perspectives on terminology and subject disciplines yield new understandings. Yet when used in government policy texts to describe connections between humans, learning and technology, terms tend to become fixed in less fertile positions linguistically. A deceptively spacious policy discourse that suggests people are free to make choices conceals an economically-based assumption that implementing new technologies, in themselves, determines learning. Yet it actually narrows choices open to people as one route is repeatedly in the foreground and humans are not visibly involved in it. An impression that the effective use of technology for endless improvement is inevitable cuts off critical social interactions and new knowledge for multiple understandings of technology in people's lives. This paper explores some findings from a corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis of UK policy for educational technology during the last 15 years, to help to illuminate the choices made. This is important when through political economy, hierarchical or dominant neoliberal logic promotes a single ‘universal model’ of technology in education, without reference to a wider social context (Rustin, 2013). Discourse matters, because it can ‘mould identities’ (Massey, 2013) in narrow, objective economically-based terms which 'colonise discourses of democracy and student-centredness' (Greener and Perriton, 2005:67). This undermines subjective social, political, material and relational (Jones, 2012: 3) contexts for those learning when humans are omitted. Critically confronting these structures is not considered a negative activity. Whilst deterministic discourse for educational technology may leave people unconsciously restricted, I argue that, through a close analysis, it offers a deceptively spacious theoretical tool for debate about the wider social and economic context of educational technology. Methodologically it provides insights about ways technology, language and learning intersect across disciplinary borders (Giroux, 1992), as powerful, mutually constitutive elements, ever-present in networked learning situations. In sharing a replicable approach for linguistic analysis of policy discourse I hope to contribute to visions others have for a broader theoretical underpinning for educational technology, as a developing field of networked knowledge and research (Conole and Oliver, 2002; Andrews, 2011).

The political discourse and material practice of technology enhanced learning

Technology discloses man’s mode of dealing with Nature, the process of production by which he sustains his life, and thereby also lays bare the mode of formation of his social relations, and of the mental conceptions that flow from them (Marx, 1990: 372) My thesis is a Sociological analysis of UK policy discourse for educational technology during the last 15 years. My framework is a dialogue between the Marxist-based critical social theory of Lieras and a corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of UK policy for Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) in higher education. Embedded in TEL is a presupposition: a deterministic assumption that technology has enhanced learning. This conceals a necessary debate that reminds us it is humans that design learning, not technology. By omitting people, TEL provides a vehicle for strong hierarchical or neoliberal, agendas to make simplified claims politically, in the name of technology. My research has two main aims: firstly, I share a replicable, mixed methodological approach for linguistic analysis of the political discourse of TEL. Quantitatively, I examine patterns in my corpus to question forms of ‘use’ around technology that structure a rigid basic argument which ‘enframes’ educational technology (Heidegger, 1977: 38). In a qualitative analysis of findings, I ask to what extent policy discourse evaluates technology in one way, to support a Knowledge Based Economy (KBE) in a political economy of neoliberalism (Jessop 2004, Fairclough 2006). If technology is commodified as an external enhancement, it is expected to provide an ‘exchange value’ for learners (Marx, 1867). I therefore examine more closely what is prioritised and devalued in these texts. Secondly, I disclose a form of austerity in the discourse where technology, as an abstract force, undertakes tasks usually ascribed to humans (Lieras, 1996, Brey, 2003:2). This risks desubjectivisation, loss of power and limits people’s relationships with technology and with each other. A view of technology in political discourse as complete without people closes possibilities for broader dialectical (Fairclough, 2001, 2007) and ‘convivial’ (Illich, 1973) understandings of the intimate, material practice of engaging with technology in education. In opening the ‘black box’ of TEL via CDA I reveal talking points that are otherwise concealed. This allows me as to be reflexive and self-critical through praxis, to confront my own assumptions about what the discourse conceals and what forms of resistance might be required. In so doing, I contribute to ongoing debates about networked learning, providing a context to explore educational technology as a technology, language and learning nexus.

Counting on use of technology to enhance learning

In global policy documents, the language of Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) now firmly structures a perception of educational technology which ‘subsumes’ terms like Networked Learning and e-Learning. Embedded in these three words though is a deterministic, economic assumption that technology has now enhanced learning, and will continue to do so. In a market-driven, capitalist society this is a ‘trouble free’, economically focused discourse which suggests there is no need for further debate about what the use of technology achieves in learning. Yet this raises a problem too: if technology achieves goals for human beings, then in education we are now simply counting on ‘use of technology’ to enhance learning. This closes the door on a necessary and ongoing critical pedagogical conversation that reminds us it is people that design learning, not technology. Furthermore, such discourse provides a vehicle for those with either strong hierarchical, or neoliberal agendas to make simplified claims politically, in the name of technology. This chapter is a reflection on our use of language in the educational technology community through a corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). In analytical examples that are ‘loaded’ with economic expectation, we can notice how the policy discourse of TEL narrows conversational space for learning so that people may struggle to recognise their own subjective being in this language. Through the lens of Lieras’s externality, desubjectivisation and closure (Lieras, 1996) we might examine possible effects of this discourse and seek a more emancipatory approach. A return to discussing Networked Learning is suggested, as a first step towards a more multi-directional conversation than TEL, that acknowledges the interrelatedness of technology, language and learning in people’s practice. Secondly, a reconsideration of how we write policy for educational technology is recommended, with a critical focus on how people learn, rather than on what technology is assumed to enhance.

Learning from a deceptively spacious policy discourse

In this chapter, the way in which varied terms such as Networked learning, e-learning and Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) have each become colonised to support a dominant, economically-based world view of educational technology is discussed. Critical social theory about technology, language and learning is brought into dialogue with examples from a corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of UK policy texts for educational technology between1997 and 2012. Though these policy documents offer much promise for enhancement of people’s performance via technology, the human presence to enact such innovation is missing. Given that ‘academic workload’ is a ‘silent barrier’ to the implementation of TEL strategies (Gregory and Lodge, 2015), analysis further exposes, through empirical examples, that the academic labour of both staff and students appears to be unacknowledged. Global neoliberal capitalist values have strongly territorialised the contemporary university (Hayes & Jandric, 2014), utilising existing naïve, utopian arguments about what technology alone achieves. Whilst the chapter reveals how humans are easily ‘evicted’, even from discourse about their own learning (Hayes, 2015), it also challenges staff and students to seek to re-occupy the important territory of policy to subvert the established order. We can use the very political discourse that has disguised our networked learning practices, in new explicit ways, to restore our human visibility.