Advertisement

A relational, indirect, meso-level approach to CSCL design in the next decade

  • Chris Jones
  • Lone Dirckinck‐Holmfeld
  • Berner Lindström
Article

Abstract

This paper reviews some foundational issues that we believe will affect the progress of CSCL over the next ten years. In particular, we examine the terms technology, affordance, and infrastructure and we propose a relational approach to their use in CSCL. Following a consideration of networks, space, and trust as conditions of productive learning, we propose an indirect approach to design in CSCL. The work supporting this theoretical paper is based on the outcomes of two European research networks: E-QUEL, a network investigating e-quality in e-learning; and Kaleidoscope, a European Union Framework 6 Network of Excellence. In arguing for a relational understanding of affordance, infrastructure, and technology we also argue for a focus on what we describe as meso-level activity. Overall this paper does not aim to be comprehensive or summative in its review of the state of the art in CSCL, but rather to provide a view of the issues currently facing CSCL from a European perspective.

Keywords

CSCL Networked learning Affordances Infrastructure Meso-level Ethics Indirect design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bernsteiner, A., & Lehner‐Wieternik, A. (2004). eLearning in Austrian teacher colleges. In L. Dirckinck‐Holmfeld, B. Lindström, B. M. Svendsen, & M. Ponti (Eds.), Conditions for productive learning in networked learning environments. Aalborg, Aalborg University/Kaleidoscope. Retrieved 6th November, 2005 from: http://www.ell.aau.dk/index.php?id=60.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  4. Castells, M. (1996, 2000). The rise of the network society (2nd Ed.) Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Castells, M. (2001). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and a future discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  8. Crook, C. (2002). The campus experience of networked learning. In C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.), Networked learning: perspectives and issues. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Dirckinck‐Holmfeld, L. (2002). Designing virtual learning environments based on problem oriented project pedagogy. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld & B. Fibiger (Eds.), Learning in virtual environments. Frederiksberg C: Samfundslitteratur Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Fibiger, B. (Eds). (2002). Learning in virtual environments. Frederiksberg C: Samfundslitteratur Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Lindström, B., Sørensen, B. M., & Ponti, M. (2005). Conditions for productive learning in networked learning environments. Aalborg: Aalborg University/Kaleidoscope. Retrieved 6th November, 2005 from: http://www.ell.aau.dk/index.php?id=60.Google Scholar
  12. Dirckinck‐Holmfeld, L., Sorensen, E. K., Ryberg, T., & Buus, L. (2004). A theoretical framework for designing online master communities of practice. In S. Banks, P. Goodyear, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, V. Lally, D. McConnell, & C. Steeples (Eds.), Networked learning 2004. Proceedings of the Networked Learning Conference. Lancaster: Lancaster University. Retrieved 6th November, 2005 from: http://www.shef.ac.uk/nlc2004/Proceedings/Contents.htm.Google Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press, Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
  14. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding–an activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Retrieved 6th November 2005 from: http://communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm.Google Scholar
  15. Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Towards an activity theory reconceptualisation. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fjuk, A. & Berge, O. (2004). Learning the process of programming through ICT-mediated apprenticeship–an activity theoretical approach. In L. Dirckinck–Holmfeld, B. Lindström, B. M. Svendsen, & M. Ponti (Eds.), Conditions for productive learning in networked learning environments. Aalborg: Aalborg University/Kaleidoscope. Retrieved 6th November, 2005 from: http://www.ell.aau.dk/index.php?id=60.Google Scholar
  18. Fjuk, A., & Dirckinck‐Holmfeld, L. (1997). Articulation of actions in distributed collaborative learning. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 9(2), 3–24.Google Scholar
  19. Gaver, W. W. (1996). Situating action 11: Affordances for interaction: the social is material for design. Ecological Psychology, 8(2), 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structure. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Goodyear, P., Jones, C., Asensio, M., Hodgson, V., & Steeples, C. (2001). Effective networked learning in higher education: notes and guidelines. Lancaster: CSALT, Lancaster University. Retrieved 6th November, 2005 from: http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/.Google Scholar
  23. Guribye, F. (2005). Infrastructures for learning: Ethnographic inquiries into the social and technical conditions of education and training. Unpublished Doctoral thesis; Norway: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
  24. Guribye, F., Andreassen, E. F., & Wasson, B. (2003). The organisation of interaction in distributed collaborative learning. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen, & U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2003 (pp. 385–394). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  25. Harper, R. Randall, D., & Rouncefield, M. (2000). Organizational change and retail finance: an ethnographic approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Harrison & Dourish (1996). Re-place-ing space: The roles of space and place in collaborative systems. Proceedings of CSCW 96 (pp. 67–76). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  27. Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 451–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jamieson, P., Taylor, P. G., Fisher, K., Trevitt, A. C. F., & Gilding, T. (2000). Place and space in the design of new learning environments. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(2), 221–236.Google Scholar
  29. Johnsson, L. E., Vigmo, S., Peterson, L., & Bergviken‐Rensfeldt, A. (2004). Sharing thoughts in computer mediated communication. In. L. Dirckinck‐Holmfeld, B. Lindström, B. M. Svendsen, & M. Ponti (Eds.), Conditions for productive learning in networked learning environments Aalborg, Aalborg University/Kaleidoscope. Retrieved 6th November, 2005 from: http://www.ell.aau.dk/index.php?id=60.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, C. (2004a). Networks and learning: Communities, practices and the metaphor of networks. ALT–J, The Association for Learning Technology Journal, 12(1), 82–93.Google Scholar
  31. Jones, C. (2004b). Network theory and description—The Lancaster ALT masters programme. In L. Dirckinck–Holmfeld, B. Lindström, B. M. Svendsen, & M. Ponti (Eds.), Conditions for productive learning in networked learning environments. Aalborg: Aalborg University/Kaleidoscope. Retrieved 6th November 2005 from: http://www.ell.aau.dk/index.php?id=60.Google Scholar
  32. Jones, C. (2004c). The conditions of learning in networks. In L. Dirckinck–Holmfeld, B. Lindström, B. M. Svendsen and M. Ponti (Eds.), Conditions for productive learning in networked learning environments. Aalborg: Aalborg University/Kaleidoscope. Retrieved 6th November 2005 from: http://www.ell.aau.dk/index.php?id=60.Google Scholar
  33. Jones, C., & Esnault, L. (2004). The metaphor of networks in learning: communities, collaboration and practice. In S. Banks, P. Goodyear, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, V. Lally, D. McConnell, & C. Steeples (Eds.), Networked learning 2004. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Networked Learning 2004. Lancaster: Lancaster University and University of Sheffield pp 317–323. Retrieved 6th November, 2005 from: http://www.shef.ac.uk/nlc2004/Proceedings/Contents.htm.Google Scholar
  34. Kaptelinin, V., & Hedestig. U. (2004). Facilitator's invisible expertise and supra-situational activities in a telelearning environment. In L. Dirckinck‐Holmfeld, B. Lindström, B. M. Svendsen, & M. Ponti (Eds.), Conditions for productive learning in networked learning environments. Aalborg: Aalborg University/Kaleidoscope. Retrieved 6th November 2005 from: http://www.ell.aau.dk/index.php?id=60.Google Scholar
  35. Kaptelinin, V., Danielsson, K. & Hedestig. U. (2004). Towards learning-centered participatory design-main issues and challenges. In L. Dirckinck‐Holmfeld, B. Lindström, B. M. Svendsen, & M. Ponti (Eds.), Conditions for productive learning in networked learning environments. Aalborg: Aalborg University/Kaleidoscope. Retrieved 6th November 2005 from: http://www. ell.aau.dk/index.php?id=60.Google Scholar
  36. Kirschner, P. A., Strijbos, J., & Martens, R. L. (2004). CSCL in higher education. In J.‐A., Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher education. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. Koschmann, T. (Ed.). (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  38. Koschmann, T. (2001). Revisiting the paradigms of instructional technology. In G. Kennedy, M. Keppell, C. McNaught, & T. Petrovic (Eds.), Meeting at the crossroads. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 15–22). Melbourne: Biomedical Multimedia Unit, The University of Melbourne. Retrieved 6th November, 2005 from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pdf/papers/koschmannt.pdf.Google Scholar
  39. Kreijens, K., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). Designing sociable CSCL environments. In J.‐A., Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: and implementing it in higher education. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Land, R., & Bayne, S. (2005). Screen or monitor? Surveillance and disciplinary power on online learning environments. In R. Land & S. Bayne (Eds.), Education in cyberspace (pp. 165–178). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  41. Lash, S. (2001). Technological forms of life. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(1), 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning-legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Leontjew, A. N. (1977). Problemer i det psykiskes udvikling. København: Rhodos.Google Scholar
  44. Lipponen, L. & Lallimo, J. (2004). From collaborative technology to collaborative use of technology: designing learning oriented infrastructures. Educational Media International, 41(2), 111–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Løgstrup, K. E. (1997). The ethical demand. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dam Press.Google Scholar
  46. Nardi, B., & O'Day, V. (1999). Information ecologies: using technology with heart. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Negt, O. (1975). Sociologisk fantasi og eksemplarisk indlæring. Roskilde: Roskilde University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  49. Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, convention and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nyvang, T. & Bygholm. (2004). Human centered informatics-the emergence of an educational infrastructure. In L. Dirckinck–Holmfeld, B. Lindström, B. M. Svendsen, & M. Ponti (Eds.), Conditions for productive learning in networked learning environments. Aalborg: Aalborg University/Kaleidoscope. Retrieved 6th November 2005 from: http://www.ell.aau.dk/index.php?id=60.Google Scholar
  51. Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organizations Science, 11(4), 404–428.Google Scholar
  52. Pilkington, R. & Guldberg, K. (2004). Towards a networked community of learners and carers: The webautism project. In L. Dirckinck‐Holmfeld, B. Lindström, B. M. Svendsen, & M. Ponti (Eds.), Conditions for productive learning in networked learning environments. Aalborg: Aalborg University/Kaleidoscope. Retrieved 6th November 2005 from: http://www.ell.aau.dk/index.php?id=60.Google Scholar
  53. Rasmussen, A. (2004). Computer‐mediated collaborative processes from an ethical perspective. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, B. Lindström, B. M. Svendsen, & M. Ponti (Eds.). Conditions for productive learning in networked learning environments. Aalborg: Aalborg University/ Kaleidoscope. Retrieved 6th November 2005 from: http://www.ell.aau.dk/index.php?id=60.Google Scholar
  54. Ryberg, T., & Ponti, M. (2004). Constructing place: The relationship between place-making and sociability in networked environments-a condition for productive learning environments. In L. Dirckinck‐Holmfeld, B. Lindström, B. M. Svendsen, & M. Ponti (Eds.). Conditions forproductive learning in networked learning environments. Aalborg: Aalborg University/Kaleidoscope. Retrieved 6th November 2005 from: http://www.ell.aau.dk/index.php?id=60.Google Scholar
  55. Salmon G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  56. Säljö, R. (1999). Learning as the use of tools: a sociocultural perspective on the human technology link. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers: Analysing productive intervention. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Schatzki, T. R. (1996). Social practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Schatzki, T. R., Cetina, K., & von Savigny, E. (Eds). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1994). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Complex problems in design and access for large-scale collaborative systems. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  61. Star, S. L., & Ruhleder. K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111–134.Google Scholar
  62. Strijbos, J.‐A., Kirschner, P. A., and Martens, R. L. (Eds.). (2004). What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher education. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  63. Svendsen, B. M., Ryberg, T., Nyvang, T., Semey, I., Buus, L & Dirckinck‐Holmfeld, L. (2004). Institutional and pedagogical criteria for productive open source learning environments. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, B. Lindström, B. M. Svendsen & M. Ponti (Eds.), Conditions forproductive learning in networked learning environments. Aalborg: Aalborg University/Kaleidoscope. Retrieved 6th November 2005 from: http://www.ell.aau.dk/index.php?id=60.Google Scholar
  64. Tolsby, H., Nyvang, T., & Dirckinck‐Holmfeld, L. (2002). A survey of technologies-supporting virtual project based learning. In S. Banks, P. Goodyear, V. Hodgson & D. McConnell (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Networked Learning. Retrieved 6th November 2005 from: http://www.shef.ac.uk/nlc2002/proceedings/papers/40.htm.Google Scholar
  65. Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond societies: mobilities for the twenty-first century. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Wellman, B., Quan‐Haase, A., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., Isla de Diaz, I., et al. (2003). The Social Affordances of the Internet for Networked Individualism. JCMC, 8(3). Retrieved 7th November, 2005 from: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/issues.html.Google Scholar
  68. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice-learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  70. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc., Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Jones
    • 1
  • Lone Dirckinck‐Holmfeld
    • 2
  • Berner Lindström
    • 3
  1. 1.CSALT Department of Educational ResearchLancaster UniversityUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Aalborg UniversityDenmark
  3. 3.Gothenberg UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations