Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New Technologies, Learning Systems, and Communication: Reducing Complexity in the Educational System

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Science of Learning

Abstract

Today education offers new possibilities for communication, collaboration, interaction, and student-centered authentic learning. Examining the potential impact of the new educational environment has become an important aspect of educational researchers’ efforts. Much of this research and literature about information and communication technology (ICT) and learning has been conducted through the lens of sociocultural theories (e.g., Lave & Wenger, 1991), and theories about dialogism (e.g., Bakhtin, 1986). In this chapter we introduce a systems theoretical approach especially inspired by the German sociologist N. Luhmann, and examine the empirical and theoretical research on ICT through this lens. The chapter concludes with a proposal of a research agenda to understanding learning and knowledge in this new environment. Based on Luhmanns’ concepts of learning and teaching, which considers systems, communication, and learning, the chapter explores the ways in which new technologies have expanded classroom communication but also changed the nature of what learners and teachers may experience. Luhmann introduces the idea of complexity and contingency, and states, “Complexity means being forced to select; being forced to select means contingency; and contingency means risk” (Luhmann, Social Systems, 1995, p. 25). The interaction requires new ways of communicating and also challenges students’ abilities to deal with their own ways of knowing. The concept of teaching is defined as a specific form of communication which intends to give students the opportunity to learn and construct knowledge; however, this presents new challenges for both learners and teachers. It represents inherent complexity, partly in the system and partly in the environment of the system. Thus, educators must learn to handle complexity as well as contingency. The chapter will, through recent literature, offer results and implications of the ways complexity and contingency may impact teaching and learning. In particular, we call for ongoing research in communication and the conditions for learning in concrete educational settings, including development of learning resources and research projects focusing on new knowledge media and their learning potential.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Barron., B. (2004). Learning ecologies for technological fluency: Gender and experience differences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(4), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres (V. McGee, Trans.). In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60–102). Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Education Technology Research and Development (ETRD), 56, 401–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L., & Sellbom, M. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning. Educause Quarterly, 25(2), 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, S., Weinburgh, M. H., & Rivera, M. (2004). Infusing technology skills into a teacher education program: Change in students’ knowledge about and use of technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(3), 447–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2005). The blackboard and the bottom line: Why schools can’t be businesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G. (2001). Lifelong learning and its support with new media. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 13, pp. 8836–8840). London, UK: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Foerster, Hv., & Pörksen, B. (2006). Wahrheit ist die Erfindung eines Lügners. Gespräche für Skeptiker. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fragkouli, E., & Hammond, M. (2007). Issues in developing programmes to support teachers of philology in using information and communications technologies in Greek schools: A case study. Journal of In-service Education, 33(4), 463–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, S., & Scott, L. (2007). Designing a learning curriculum and technology’s role in it. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55(5), 461–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzdial, M. (1994). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg, J. G. (2006). E-learning futures? Speculations for a time yet to come. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 171–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopmann, S. (1997). Wolfgang Klafki och den tyska didaktiken i Uljens, M (red). Didaktik. Lund: Studenterlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennewell, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 227–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, J. (2002). Managing innovation in educational institutions. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(3), 359–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, R. (2009). Evaluating cognitive tempo in the digital age. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyza, E., & Edelson, D. C. (2005). Scaffolding middle school students’ coordination of theory and practice. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(6), 545–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. (2001). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. London: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Macgill, A. R., & Smith, A. (2007, December). Teens and social media. PEW Internet & American Life Project. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved January 3, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/230/report_display.asp

  • Lim, C. P. (2008). Spirit of the game: Empowering students as designers in schools? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 996–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1988). Erkenntnis als konstruktion. Berlin: Benteli Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems (Trans. J. Bednartz Jr. & D. Baecker). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (2002). Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathiasen, H. (2002). Personlige bærbare computere i undervisningen. Ph.d.-afhandling. Kbh: DPU’s forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathiasen, H. (2007). Teaching and learning in a variety of communication forums. In iPED Conference 2007, Coventry University Technocenter, UK, Coventry University Technocenter, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathiasen, H. (2008). Is there a nexus between learning and teaching? In C. Holtham, & C. Nygaard (Eds.), Understanding learning-centred higher education. Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathiasen, H. (2009). Can learning be organized? ICELW, Conference, paper, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, S. (2005). Technology for curriculum and teacher development: Software to help educators learn while designing teacher guides. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 167–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliam, E. (2008). Unlearning how to teach. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 263–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oblinger, D. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 8(May), Retrieved June 12, 2009 from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2004/8

  • Oblinger, D. G., & Hawkins, B. L. (2006). The myth about No Significant Difference. Educause Review, 41(6), 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papper, R., Holmes, M., & Popovich, M. (2004). Middletown media studies. International Digital Media & Digital Arts Association, Association Journal, 1(1)1–56. http://www.bsu.edu/icommunication/news/iDMAaJournal.pdf

  • Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital games-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Restak, R. M. (2003). The new brain: How the modern age is rewiring your mind. New York: Rodale St. Martins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, P. C., Graham, C. R., & Mayes, C. T. (2007). Cultural competence and instructional design: Exploration research into the delivery of online instruction cross-culturally. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55(2), 197–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrum, L., & Levin, B. (2009). Leading a 21st century school: Harnessing technology for engagement and achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, B., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. (2004). Scaffolding analysis: Extending the scaffolding metaphor to learning artifacts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 387–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

  • Siemens, G. (2007). Description of connectivism. Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://connectivism.ca/about.html

  • Sims, R. (2006). Beyond instructional design: Making learning design a reality. Journal of Learning Design, 1(2), 1–9. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from http://www.jld.qut.edu.au/publications/vol1no2/documents/beyond%20instructional%20design.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims, R. (2008). Rethinking (e)learning: A manifesto for connected generations. Distance Education, 29(2), 153–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2003). Where practice informs theory: Reshaping instructional design for academic communities of practice in online teaching and learning. Information Technology, Education and Society, 4(1), 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staples, A., Pugach, M. C., & Himes, D. J. (2005). Rethinking the technology integration challenge: Cases from three urban elementary schools [Electronic version]. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(3), 285–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 344–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q., Nieveen, N., & Akker, Jv. d (2007). Designing a computer support system for multimedia curriculum development in Shanghai. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 275–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. (1996). Reflective teaching. Marwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology users in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807–840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zillmann, D., & Brosius, H. -B. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Malwah, NJ: LEA

    Google Scholar 

  • Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching the practice of teaching by exploring the biology of learning. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information and Media Studies, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Helle Mathiasen

  2. College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    Lynne Schrum

Authors
  1. Helle Mathiasen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lynne Schrum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helle Mathiasen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Emirates College for Advanced Education, Abu Dhabi, POBox 1266, Utd.Arab.Emir.

    Myint Swe Khine

  2. Emirates College for Advanced Education, Abu Dhabi, PO Box 126, Utd.Arab.Emir.

    Issa M. Saleh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mathiasen, H., Schrum, L. (2010). New Technologies, Learning Systems, and Communication: Reducing Complexity in the Educational System. In: Khine, M., Saleh, I. (eds) New Science of Learning. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5716-0_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation