Abstract
Persistent gaps between claims made for learning technologies and the reality of their use are in part attributable to widespread implicit technological determinism. While the concept of networked learning goes some way to redress this, a more systematic use of sociotechnical finding theories developed in the fields of technology studies and information systems can help us to avoid mechanistic accounts. We illustrate this with the concept of the “sociotechnical interaction network” (Kling et al., J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 54:47–67, 2003) from the social informatics literature in analysing case material from the world of transnational trade union education. This draws our attention to the social, as well as technological, accomplishments in accessing online learning activities and the ways in which learners draw on prior technological knowledge in overcoming difficulties they encounter. Such approaches are increasingly salient as educators seek to position learning technologies in learners’ ever more elaborate sociotechnical environments.
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
Notes
- 1.
Computer-mediated distance learning (CMDL) was the term used in the original project. We have reinstated it here in response to a reviewer’s comment that our original use of the term “technology-enhanced learning” itself reflects a degree of technological determinism.
- 2.
The sociotechnical interaction network has a number of similarities with actor network theory in the way it conceives of technology. There are, though some important differences. Most notably, STINs do not assume a symmetry between the human and the material as in the ANT concept of the actant, and they highlight interactions both within and across networks.
- 3.
Space does not allow discussion of a third aspect here – the evolution of STINs over the life of a networked learning event.
References
Archer, M. (1995). Realist social theory: the morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, W., & Davison, J. (2008). Graduate employability: the view of employers. London: The Council for Industry and Higher Education.
Barnett, R. (2000). Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity. Buckingham: SRHE/OpenUniversity Press.
Bayne, S. (2008). Uncanny spaces for higher education: teaching and learning in virtual worlds. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 16(3), 197–205.
Beasley, N., & Smyth, K. (2004). Expected and actual student use of an online learning environment: a critical analysis. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2(1).
Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (Eds.). (2007). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age. Designing and delivering e-learning. London: Routledge.
Bijker, W. B., & Law, J. (Eds.). (1992). Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change. London: MIT.
Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2006). The handbook of blended learning: global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Bronack, S., Sanders, R., Cheney, A., Riedl, R., Tashner, J., & Matzen, N. (2008). Presence Pedagogy: Teaching and Learning in a 3D Virtual Immersive World. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 59–69.
Checkland, P. (1984). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Wiley.
Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Information, systems and information systems: making sense of the field. Chichester: Wiley.
Clegg, S., Hudson, A., & Steel, J. (2003). The Emperor’s New Clothes: Globalisation and e-Learning in Higher Education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24(1), 39–53.
Code, J. R., & Zaparyniuk, N. E. (2009). The emergence of agency in online social networks. In S. Hatzipanagos & S. Warburton (Eds.), Handbook of research on social software and developing ontologies (pp. 102–118). London: IGI Global.
Conole, G., & Oliver, M. (Eds.). (2007). Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: themes, methods and impact on practice. London: Routledge.
Conole, G., Smith, J., & White, S. (2007). A critique of the impact of policy and funding. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: themes, methods and impact on practice (pp. 38–54). London: Routledge.
Creanor, L., & Trinder, K. (2010). Managing study and life with technology. In R. Sharpe, H. Beetham, & S. De Freitas (Eds.), Rethinking learning for a digital age (pp. 43–55). London: Routledge.
Creanor, L., Trinder, K., Gowan, D., & Howells, C. (2008). Life. Learning and Technology: views from the learners, Journal for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 2, 26–41.
Creanor, L., & Walker, S. (2005). Learning architectures and the negotiation of meaning in European trade unions. ALT-J, 13, 109–124.
Czerniewicz, L., Williams, K., et al. (2009). Students make a plan: understanding student agency in constraining conditions. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, 17(2), 75–88.
De Freitas, S., & Conole, G. (2010). The influence of pervasive and integrative tools on learners’ experiences and expectations of study. In R. Sharpe, H. Beetham, & S. De Freitas (Eds.), Rethinking learning for a digital age (pp. 15–30). London: Routledge.
Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2010). Design of a Networked learning master environment for professionals – using the approach of problem based learning to establish a community of practice. In Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., Jones, C., De Laat, M., McConnell, D., and Ryberg, T. (Eds), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010 (pp. 551–557) http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/PDFs/Dirckinck_Holmfeld_2.pdf. Accessed 19 Oct 2010.
Dirckink-Holmfeld, L., Jones, C., & Lindström, B. (Eds.). (2009). Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development. Rotterdam: Sense.
Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2009). How the crowd can teach. In S. Hatzipanagos & S. Warburton (Eds.), Handbook of research on social software and developing ontologies (pp. 1–17). London: IGI Global.
Ellis, R. A., & Calvo, R. A. (2004). Learning through discussion in blended learning environments. Educational Media International, 41(3), 263–274.
Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1960). Socio-technical systems. In C. W. Churchman & M. Verhurst (Eds.), Management science, models and techniques (Vol. 2, pp. 83–97). London: Pergamon.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinnen, & R.-L. Punamäki-Gitai (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., Miettinnen, R., & Punamäki-Gitai, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Felix, U. (2005). E-learning pedagogy in the third millennium: the need for combining social and cognitive constructivist approaches. ReCALL, 17(1), 85–100.
Fox, S. (2002). Studying networked learning: some implications from socially situated learning theory and actor–network theory. In C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.), Networked learning: perspectives and issues (pp. 77–93). London: Springer.
Goodyear, P. (2002). Psychological foundations for networked learning. In C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.), Networked learning: perspectives and issues (pp. 49–75). London: Springer.
Goodyear, P. (2009). Foreward. In L. Dirckink-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development (pp. vii–x). Rotterdam: Sense.
Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (2004). Research on networked learning: an overview. In P. Goodyear, S. Banks, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Advances in research on networked learning (pp. 1–11). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Greene, A.-M., & Kirton, G. (2003). Possibilities for remote participation in trade unions: mobilising women activists. Industrial Relations Journal, 34, 319–333.
Hammond, M. (1999). Issues associated with participation in on line forums - the case of the communicative learner. Education and Information Technologies, 4(4), 353–367.
Hardy, J., and Bates, S. (2009). Taking the lead: learners’ experiences across the disciplines. In Davis, H. and Creanor, L. (Eds), In dreams begins responsibility’ – choice, evidence and change. Proceedings of the Association for Learning Technology conference, 8–10 September (ALT-C), Manchester, UK, pp. 1–9.
Horton, K., Davenport, E., & Wood-Harper, T. (2005). Exploring sociotechnical interaction with Rob Kling: five “big” ideas. Information Technology & People, 18, 50–67.
Hughes, J. (2008). Letting in the Trojan mouse: using an eportfolio system to re-think pedagogy. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings of Ascilite, Melbourne. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/hughes.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2011.
Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (Eds.). (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jones, C. (2004). Networks and learning: communities, practices and the metaphor of networks. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 12(1), 81–93.
Jones, J., & Bronack, S. (2008). Rethinking cognition, representation and processes in 3D online social environments. In P. C. Rivoltella (Ed.), Digital literacy: tools and methodologies for the information society (pp. 176–206). London: IGI.
Jones, C., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2009). Analysing networked learning practices. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development. Rotterdam.
Jones, C., & Healing, G. (2010). Net Generation Students: agency and choice and the new technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 344–356.
Jones, C., and Ramanau, R. (2009). Collaboration and the net generation: the changing characteristics of first year university students. In O’Malley, C., Suthers, D., Reimann, P., and Dimitracopoulou, A. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 8 th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, CSCL2009: CSCL practices. 237–241 June 8–13, Rhodes, Greece
Jones, C., & Steeples, C. (2002). Perspectives and issues in networked learning. In C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.), Networked learning: perspectives and issues (pp. 1–12). London: Springer.
Kear, K. (2004). Peer learning using asynchronous discussion systems in distance education. Open Learning, 19(2), 151–164.
Kling, R. (2000). Learning about information technologies and social change: The contribution of social informatics. Information Society, 16, 217–232.
Kling, R., Mckim, G., & King, A. (2003). A bit more to it: Scholarly communication forums as socio- technical interaction networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 47–67.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laurillard, D. (2005). E-learning in higher education. In P. Ashwin (Ed.), Changing higher education: the development of learning and teaching (pp. 71–84). Oxford: Routledge.
Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5–20.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Law, J., & Hassard, J. (1999). Actor network theory and after. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Littlejohn, A., Margaryan, A., and Milligan, C. (2009). Charting collective knowledge: Supporting self-regulated learning in the workplace. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT)
Mackenzie, D., & Wacjman, J. (Eds.). (1999). The social shaping of technology. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2007). Learning and e-learning: the role of theory. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: designing and delivering e-learning (pp. 13–25). London: Routledge.
McAteer, E., Tolmie, A., Crook, C., MacLeod, H., & Musselbrook, K. (2002). Learning networks and the issue of communication skills. In C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.), Networked learning: perspectives and issues (pp. 309–322). London: Springer.
McConnell, D. (2006). E-learning groups and communities. Maidenhead: SRHE/Open University Press.
Nielsen, K. (2009). A collaborative perspective on learning transfer. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(1), 58–70.
Oliver, M., Roberts, G., Beetham, H., Ingraham, B., Dykes, M., & Levy, P. (2007). Knowledge, society and perspectives on learning technology. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: themes, methods and impact on practice (pp. 21–38). London: Routledge.
Oliver, M., & Trigwell, K. (2005). Can ‘blended learning’ be redeemed? E-Learning and Digital Media, 2(1), 17–26.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organizations Science, 11(4), 404–428.
Parker, K., & Chao, J. (2007). Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 57–72.
Pawlowsky, P. (2001). The treatment of organizational learning in management science. In M. Dierkes, B. Bethoinantal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sharpe, R., Beetham, H., & De Freitas, S. (Eds.). (2010). Rethinking learning for a digital age: how learners are shaping their own experiences. New York: Routledge.
Ryberg, T., & Larson, M. C. (2008). Networked identities: understanding relationships between strong and weak ties in networked environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 103–115.
Savin-Baden, M. (2008). From cognitive capability to social reform? Shifting perceptions of learning in immersive virtual worlds. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 16(3), 151–161.
Selwyn, N. (2007). The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: a critical perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 83–94.
Sharpe, R., Beetham, H., Benfield, G., DeCicco, E., and Lessner, E. (2009). Learners Experiences of E-learning Synthesis Report: Explaining Learner Differences, https://mw.brookes.ac.uk/display/JISCle2f/Findings. Accessed 24 Jan 2011.
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm. Accessed 24 Jan 2011.
Traxler, J. (2009). Students and mobile devices: choosing which dream. In Davis, H., and Creanor, L. (Eds). “In dreams begins responsibility” – choice, evidence and change. Proceedings of the Association for Learning Technology conference (pp. 8–10) September (ALT-C), Manchester, UK, pp. 70–81.
Trinder, K., Guiller, J., Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., and Nicol, D. (2008) Learning from digital natives: integrating formal and informal learning: final project report, Higher Education Academy, UK. http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/ldn/LDNFinalReport.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2011.
Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-getting. Human Relations, 4(1), 3–38.
Walker, S., & Creanor, L. (2005). Crossing complex boundaries: transnational online education in European trade unions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 343–354.
Walker, S., & Creanor, L. (2009). The STIN in the tale: a sociotechnical interaction perspective on networked learning. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 12, 305–316.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The Social Shaping of Technology. Research Policy, 25, 865–899.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design & methods. London: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Creanor, L., Walker, S. (2012). Learning Technology in Context: A Case for the Sociotechnical Interaction Framework as an Analytical Lens for Networked Learning Research. In: Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., McConnell, D. (eds) Exploring the Theory, Pedagogy and Practice of Networked Learning. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0496-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0496-5_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-0495-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-0496-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)