Assignment 1
​
Written by Yolanda López on March 8, 2021.
​
This blog or, for the purposes of my current Master of Education, digital essay, aims to critically analyse the concept of a social learning theory or practice in networked learning environments. This essay will be informed by an investigation into the theory known as Networked Learning.
Technology vector created by pch.vector (https://www.freepik.com/vectors/technology)
BACKGROUND
Networked learning, according to Goodyear and Carvalho (2014) has existed in society in one capacity or another throughout history. However, only since the introduction of personally owned and operated technologies, has the term been strongly associated as a learning approach. The 1980s saw the development and implementation of technology-based remote courses and in the early 2000s emerged Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) (Czerkawski, 2015, p. 1851). It is due to these developments in educational delivery and the increase in individuals gaining access to technology-enhanced learning that networked learning has become widely practised (Dirckinck-Holmfeld et al., 2012 & McConnell, 2012).
​
Jones and de Laat (2016) differentiate network learning to other research areas due to its focus on social relationships and network practices aligned with pedagogy and how they influence learning (p. 43). They go on to describe network learning as a flexible approach to learning that can be applied to teaching practices with a focus on new technologies (p. 44). Regardless of the variations in definition, the overarching term network learning incorporates the application of technologies to facilitate connections for user-learning (Goodyear & Carvalho, 2014; Dirckinck-Holmfeld et al., 2012 & Jones, 2015).
​
According to Czerkawski (2015) network learning is aligned with many theoretical frameworks and theories associated with the social sciences (p. 1851). She identifies a similarity and a difference between networked learning and Wenger’s theory of community of practice (CoP), the similarity being: both emphasise informal/personal learning environments and the difference being that networked learning focuses on the individual’s learning as opposed to learning within groups (p. 1852). Czerkawski also notes the relationship between network learning and Siemens’ connectivist learning theory (p. 1852). Siemens (2005) states that knowledge is fed into a network, it is then retrieved and processed by organisations and institutions and subsequently fed back into the same network only to be captured by individuals who learn from it. This idea of “individual learning” leads to Czerkawski’s third correlation between network learning and heutagogy (p. 1852). A term developed by Hase and Kenyon in 2000, heutagogy situates the individual at the centre of their own learning. It enforces the notion that people are capable of being self-directed and self-determined learners, not always requiring instruction or rigid guidelines to aid their educational needs (Hase, 2014).
​
Networked learning has developed and has been influenced over time with changes in technology and core concepts stemming from open learning (McConnell et al., 2012). McConnell et al. define open learning as an educational concept that removes “…administrative and/or educational constraints to learning” (2012, p. 4). With advancement in technology, it is easy to see how remote learning and open access learning have become more popular.
The definition of networked learning has been summarised by Jones & de Laat (2016) as a learning process based on the core principle of establishing connections via digital infrastructure. However, Jones (2015) does not confine network learning to just digital processes, instead he expresses the importance of human activity whether it be via speech or the creation of video (pp. 5-6). The established network by which the user(s) are engaged, has often been defined as a series of nodes or connectors that facilitate interactions between one person/source to other person(s) and/or groups of learners (Carvalho & Goodyear, 2014; Jones & de Laat, 2016). These connectors are described by Carvalho & Goodyear (2014) as being either:​
Carvalho & Goodyear, 2014, pp. 8-9.
Humaaans by Pablo Stanley (https://www.humaaans.com)
This categorisation allows us to better understand how users view, interpret, and interact with information.
SUMMARY OF THEORY/CONCEPT
Networked learning does not identify a specific group or type of learner, nor does it discriminate against how many learners may be engaged in a network at one time. Learners gain knowledge through the processes of collaboration and cooperative and collective inquiry (Networked Learning Editorial, 2020, p. 8). Networked learning focuses on digital technologies, social networks and social relationships and the possibilities of how these concepts can be applied to, and enhance, current educational trends (specific to new technologies) (Jones, 2015). People engaging in network learning are often thought of as students and educators but, Sinclair and Macleod (2015) propose the notion of considering students in an online learning environment as “…junior colleagues (of their teachers) in inquiry…” when undertaking study (p. 97). By considering students this way, the learners become more than simply students working through modules of a set curriculum, but researchers.
​
A number of theoretical approaches to defining and/or classifying networked learning have been employed by researchers in recent years. Dirckinck-Holmfeld et al. (2009) have developed a conceptual framework outlining networked learning environments. They have applied socio-cultural theories to their research that centre around the ideas of learning being mediated by tools, learning as being a social act and learning as being historic (p. 8). They define this approach to learning as one that focuses on individuals drawing on their own co-construction and internalisation of knowledge (p. 8). In addition to this approach, Jones (2015) discusses the popular network learning-associated theories of behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism as well as the less common associationist, cognitive and situative viewpoints.
INTERPRETATION, EVALUATION AND APPLICAITON
In their 2010 paper, Katz and Earl raise interesting points of discussion that examine the potential downsides to network learning. One, in particular is the notion of independent learning versus collaborative learning, stating that “Relationships that embody trust, shared understanding, and collective responsibility appear to be more important dimensions of interaction in the network than doing thing together” (p. 44). In addition to this, Downes (2010) makes the distinction between “collaboration” and “cooperation”, aligning cooperation with networks and the coming together of individuals with their own individual ideas, whereas collaboration he aligns with groups working together to form one common idea or goal. In contrast to this, McConnell et al. (2012) state the importance of collaboration when describing the landscape of network learning (p. 7) as does the Networked Learning Editorial (2020), mentioned above. Regarding collaboration, it would appear that the responsibility to collaborate with others within a network is up to the individual and, in certain situations, facilitation by the instructor/educator.
​
Bonderup Dohn et al. (2018) review the digital space as a learning environment and discuss how the presence of various networked learners and educators has evolved. Instead of the traditional teacher/educator-led learning environment where students follow a set of tasks or guides and the teacher is the driving presence, the authors propose the term a “hybrid presence” to describe the shift from traditionally run classes to collaborative learning via groups of “co-learners” (the educators included) (p. 109). Their discussion highlights the concern regarding the role of the educator becoming overlooked in networked learning environments (particularly in MOOCs) and how teachers and educators provide a “meaningful and receptive relationship with learners” which may become ignored as networks evolve (pp. 111-112). This theory is supported by Bayne and Ross (2014) who state that the role of the teacher has already become automated with the advancement of algorithms and programming, students are able to receive feedback and have assignments marked without human intervention (p. 23).
Friends giving high five by unitonevector (https://www.freepik.com/premium-vector/friends-giving-high-five-flat_4420213.htm)
An extension of networked learning is the inclusion of social network sites (SNS) within a learners digital learning landscape. Bell (2016) discusses the equal importance of connection and disconnection when navigating SNS as a means of learning (pp. 67-73). He introduces Foucault’s concept of heterotopias, stating that heterotopias are spaces that facilitate discussion or acts that society does not openly agree with or promote; the opposite of a utopian space (p. 70). He situates advocacy of connection and openness in the digital learning landscape as, a more often than not, utopian ideal that downplays issues/problems that occur. In his paper, he encourages learners to be observant and aware of the content they may connect with. He states the importance for them to consciously know when to disconnect from their networks if the network is asking too much of them, be it personally, politically, intellectually, or financially (p. 73).
​
These potential implications of networked learning are widely discussed concerns within the professional arena, not only academics who are researching the effects of networked learning but practicing educators in both school and tertiary settings (Bayne & Ross, 2014; Bonderup Dohn et al., 2018; Czerkawski, 2016). On reflection, it appears that there is no one standing or solution to encouraging networked collaboration (or if it is necessary), the effects of student learning without the traditional teacher/educator present or the balance of connection versus disconnection. Best-practice pedagogies appear to be evolving quickly as advancements in technology and online learning options, particularly MOOCs, become a more popular means to facilitating networked learning.
PERSONAL REFLECTION AND SUMMARY
From a tertiary education standpoint, it can be easy to assume that adult learners are less confident self-directed learners and/or do not have the abilities to navigate an online learning environment. Through my own experiences, I have found this to be untrue in many cases. My observations revolve around a gap in generations and their experiences with various technologies. I feel it is not the older students who necessarily struggle with online network learning, rather it is the younger students. There appears to be a gap in technology-based interaction and understanding of processes with younger students. I can only assume that being born into a world where information is so easily accessible at your fingertips, where user interfaces are trialled and tested to ensure the user does not encounter difficulties when navigating an app or SNS (Norman, 2013, p. 100), that these students were never forced to work out or work through a digital process in order to gain new insights or acquire knowledge (Prensky, 2001).
​
The main frustration I encounter is when younger students expect answers to be directly given to them; initiative is not taken to explore, discover and learn through doing. In a network learning-based environment, it is these students who struggle when expected to learn independently, and, when isolated from the group become anxious and self-defeating (Phirangee & Malec, 2017, p. 169). This leads me to pose the question: where is the balance between connecting and disconnecting? Not only connecting or disconnecting with the chosen platform or digital environment (as Bell (2016) discusses), but from each other as learners, students, educators?
​
When reflecting on professional development, especially when navigating the online education realm, I refer to Saadatmand and Kumpulainen (2012). They define the following three characteristics which they believe online instructors should possess:
​
-
Self-organsied: considering the amount of information and data that is available through learning networks, educators must possess the ability to decipher and customise the information to their needs;
-
Emergent: pertaining to the unpredictable nature of communication threads in networked learning environments, specifically when students gain control over conversations and information sharing, and;
-
Disruptive: to be able to develop learning outcomes and experiences needed to challenge students and force them to adapt to the ever-changing nature of the learning environment.
​
I feel these qualities are critical for online educators to successfully deliver, engage with and support, not only their students but also when developing their own learning networks. To be able to sift through large amounts of information and consolidate it into an easily digestible source for students is essential. This ensures students have access to vital pieces of information that aid their learning and ensures they do not become overwhelmed or disengaged. I interpret Saadatmand and Kumpulainen notions of being emergent and disruptive as being intertwined, essentially having the capacity to take control of certain situations and deliver student-centric results. Of course, it is important to encourage student expression, opinion and individual thought but as educators, we have a responsibility to ensure everyone in the learning environment feels heard, respected and not undermined. Hopefully, the future of network learning will provide all learners with the necessary information, delivered in a customisable way, to suit their needs.
References
Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2014). The pedagogy of the massive open online course: The UK view. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/pedagogy-massive-open-online-course-mooc-uk-view
​
Bell, F. (2016). (Dis)connective practice in heterotopic spaces for networked and connected learning. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 67–75). Lancaster: Lancaster University.
​
Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (2014). The architecture of productive learning networks. Routledge.
​
Czerkawski, B. C. (2016). Networked learning: design considerations for online instructors. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(8), 1850–1863. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1057744
​
Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Jones, C, & Lindström, B. (2009). Analysing networked learning practices in higher educaiton and continuing professional development. Sense Publishers.
​
Downes, S. (2010, April 12). Collaboration and cooperation [Web blog]. Retrieved from http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2010/04/collaboration-and-cooperation.html
​
Goodyear, P. & Carvalho, L. (2014). Introduction: Networked learning and learning networks. In The Architecture of Productive Learning Networks. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203591093
​
Hase, S. (2014). Heutagogy. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research (Vol. 1, pp. 407–408).
​
Jandrić, P., & Boras, D. (2015). Critical learning in digital networks (1st ed. 2015. ed.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13752-0
​
Jones, C. (2015). Networked learning an educational paradigm for the age of digital networks (1st ed. 2015. ed.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01934-5
​
Jones, C., & de Laat, M. (2016). Networked learning. In Handbook of e-Learning Research (pp. 44–62). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473955011.n3
​
McConnell, D., Hodgson, V. & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2011). Networked Learning: A Brief History and New Trends. In Exploring the Theory, Pedagogy and Practice of Networked Learning (pp. 3–24). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0496-5_1
​
Networked Learning Editorial, C. (2020). Networked learning: Inviting redefinition. Postdigital Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00167-8
​
Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.
​
Phirangee, K. & Malec, A. (2017). Othering in online learning: an examination of social presence, identity, and sense of community. Distance Education, 38(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1322457
​
Prensky, Marc. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
​
Siemens, G. (2005, April 5). A learning theory for the digital age. Elearnspace. https://web.archive.org/web/20100819161856/http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
​
Saadatmand, M., & Kumpulainen, K. (2012). Emerging technologies and new learning ecologies: Learners’ perception of learning in open and networked environments. In V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, T. Ryberg, & P. Sloep (Eds), Proceedings of the 8th international conference on networked learning 2012 (pp. 266-275). Lancaster: Lancaster University.