Advertisement

Implications for Networked Learning of the ‘Practice’ Side of Social Practice Theories: A Tacit-Knowledge Perspective

  • Nina Bonderup Dohn
Chapter
Part of the Research in Networked Learning book series (RINL)

Abstract

The chapter presents a tacit-knowledge perspective on networked learning. The perspective draws on prior work by the author which integrates insights from the Scandinavian reception of Wittgenstein, phenomenology, and situated learning to form a view of knowledge as tacit, situated, context-dependent, embodied doing. This view, it is argued, is inherent in the ‘social practice’ theories which many researchers within networked learning take as their point of departure but has been neglected because the ‘practice’ side of these ‘social practice’ theories has been neglected. Building on this view of knowledge, it is argued that networked learning activities in general risk taking on the role of artificial, stand-alone activities detached from the ‘primary contexts’ of the participants, i.e. contexts which carry significance for them, in which they involve themselves as persons and which they consider important for who they are. Networked learning activities which have this role are not experienced as fully meaningful. In some cases, especially within distance learning programmes, the networked learning setting may itself become a ‘primary context’, but this cannot be counted on. The main claim of the article as concerns designs for learning is that networked learning will in general be most successful if it is designed as ‘mediator activities’ to facilitate the resituating of content between the ‘primary contexts’ of the learners, rather than to act as a ‘primary context’ itself.

Keywords

Activity Theory Network Learning Social Learning Theory Mediator Activity Linguistic Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Andersen, P., Dohn, N., Irminger, S., & Vestergaard, A. (2012). Eksperimenter med Facebook i undervisningen. Unge Pædagoger, 4, 17–27. Google Scholar
  2. Boon, S., & Sinclair, S. (2012). Life behind the screen: Taking the academic online. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 273–287). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Booth, S., & Hultén, M. (2004). Opening dimensions of variation: An empirical study of learning in a web-based discussion. In P. Goodyear, S. Banks, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Advances in research on networked learning (pp. 153–174). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyd, D. (2008). Why youth loves social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity, and digital media (pp. 119–142). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, F., Chang, H., & Wang, T. (2010). Collective brokering practice: A constellation of practices perspective. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning, 88–96.Google Scholar
  7. Cole, M. (1990). Vygotsky and education. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cousin, G., & Deepwell, F. (2005). Designs for network learning: A communities of practice perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dall’Alba, G., & Sandberg, J. (2006). Unveiling professional development: A critical review of stage models. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 383–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Derrida, J. (1997). Of grammatology. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Fibiger, B. (Eds.). (2002). Learning in virtual environments. Copenhagen, Denmark : Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
  12. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Jones, C. (2009). Issues and concepts in networked learning. Analysis and the future of networked learning. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development (pp. 259–285). Rotterdam, Denmark: Sense.Google Scholar
  13. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Nielsen, J., Fibiger, B., Danielsen, O., Riis, M., Sorensen, E., et al. (2009). Issues and concepts in networked learning. Analysis and the future of networked learning. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development (pp. 259–285). Rotterdam, Denmark: Sense.Google Scholar
  14. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Tolsby, H., & Nyvang, T. (2002). E-læring systemer i arbejdspladsrelateret projektpædagogik. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Udspil om læring i arbejdslivet (pp. 123–153). Roskilde, Denmark: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  15. Dohn, N. (2007). It-baserede læreprocesser—Nogle muligheder og nogle begrænsninger. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 4, 41–49.Google Scholar
  16. Dohn, N. (2009). Web 2.0 som lærings- og arbejdsredskab. Jelling, Denmark: UC Lillebælt.Google Scholar
  17. Dohn, N. (2011). On the epistemological presuppositions of reflective activities. Educational Theory, 61(6), 671–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dohn, N. (2013). ‘Viden i praksis’—implikationer for it-baseret læring, Res Cogitans 9 (1) (in press).Google Scholar
  19. Dohn, N., & Kjær, C. (2009). Language is not enough—Knowledge perspectives on work-based learning in global organisations. Hermes—Journal of Language and Communication Studies, 43, 137–161.Google Scholar
  20. Dohn, N., Thorsen, M., & Larsen, S. (2013). E-læring. In L. Rienecker, P. Stray, J. Dolin, & G. Ingerslev (Eds.), Universitetspædagogik. Samfundslitteratur. 299–328.Google Scholar
  21. Dreyfus, H. (2001). On the internet. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over machine. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  23. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  24. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.Google Scholar
  25. Farmer, B., Yue, A., & Brooks, C. (2008). Using blogging for higher order learning in large cohort university teaching: A case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 123–136.Google Scholar
  26. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. (Eds.). (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things. An archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  28. Fulantelli, G. (2009). Blended learning, Systems thinking and communities of practice. A case study. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development (pp. 45–62). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  29. Gadamer, H. G. (1990). Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen, Germany: J.C.B. Mohr.Google Scholar
  30. Geithner, S., & Schulz, K. (2010). Networks as platforms for expansive development—Examples from a school development programme. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 159–167).Google Scholar
  31. Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2004). Advances in research on networked learning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  32. Goodyear, P., Jones, C., Asensio, M., Hodgson, V., & Steeples, C. (2001). Effective networked learning in higher education: Notes and guidelines. Lancaster, England: CSALT, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  33. Hedegaard, M. (1995). Tænkning, viden, udvikling. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  34. Hegel, G. (1952). Phänomenologie des Geistes. Hamburg, Germany: Felix Mainer.Google Scholar
  35. Heidegger, M. (1986). Sein und Zeit. Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  36. Hodgson, V. (2008). Learning spaces, context and auto/biography in online learning communities. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 4(2), 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hodgson, V., McConnell, D., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). The theory, practice and pedagogy of networked learning. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 291–305). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hutchins, E. (1996). Learning to navigate. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice (pp. 35–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Johannesen, K. (1988). The concept of practice in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy’. Inquiry, 31(3), 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jones, C., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2009). Analysing networked learning practices. An Introduction. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones & B. Lindström, B. (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development. (pp. 1-27). Rotterdam, Denmark: Sense.Google Scholar
  41. Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Lindström, B. (2006). A relational, indirect, meso-level approach to CSCL design in the next decade. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Josefson, I. (1998). Läkarens yrkeskunnande. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  43. Kenny, A. (1973). Wittgenstein. London, England: Penguin.Google Scholar
  44. Klenowski, V. (2002). Developing portfolios for learning and assessment. London, England: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  45. Kripke, S. (1982). Wittgenstein on rules and private language. Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  46. Land, R. (2004). Issues of embodiment and risk in online learning. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds.), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 530–538).Google Scholar
  47. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Leont’ev, A. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  50. McConnell, D. (1994). Implementing computer supported cooperative learning. London, England: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  51. McConnell, D. (2006). E-learning groups and communities. Maidenhead, England: SRHE/OU Press.Google Scholar
  52. McConnell, D., Hodgson, V., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). Networked learning: A brief history and new trends. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 3–24). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London, England: Routledge & Kegan.Google Scholar
  54. Molander, B. (1992). Tacit knowledge and silenced knowledge: Fundamental problems and controversies. In B. Göranzon & M. Florin (Eds.), Skill and education: Reflection and experience (pp. 9–31). London, England: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nielsen, J., & Danielsen, O. (2011). Problem-oriented project studies—the role of the teacher as supervisor for the study group in its learning processes. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 257–272). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. Packer, M. (2001). The problem of transfer, and the sociocultural critique of schooling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(4), 494–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Packer, M., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pilkington, R., & Guldberg, K. (2009). Conditions for productive networked learning among professionals and carers. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development (pp. 63–83). Rotterdam, Denmark: Sense.Google Scholar
  59. Rudestam, K., & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (2002). Handbook of online learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ryberg, T., & Larsen, M. (2008). Networked identities: Understanding relationships between strong and weak ties in networked environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ryberg, T., & Wentzer, H. (2011). Erfaringer med e-porteføljer og personlige læringsmiljøer. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 11, 14–19.Google Scholar
  63. Säljö, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (1996). Solving everyday problems in the formal setting. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice (pp. 327–342). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Schatzki, T., Knorr-Cetina, K., & von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Schutz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1973). The structures of the life-world. London, England: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  68. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors of learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Smith, S. (2012). How do small business owner-managers learn leadership through networked learning? In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 221–236). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Svensson, L., Ellström, P., & Åberg, C. (2004). Integrating formal and informal learning at work. The Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(8), 479–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vines, A., & Dysthe, O. (2009). Productive learning in the study of law. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development (pp. 175–199). Rotterdam, Denmark: Sense.Google Scholar
  72. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Wännman-Toresson, G. (2002). Kvinnor skapar kunskap på nätet. Umeå, Norrland: Pedagogiska Institutionen, Umeå University.Google Scholar
  74. Wasson, B., Ludvigsen, S., & Hoppe, U. (Eds.). (2003). Designing for change in networked learning environments. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  75. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Winch, P. (1990). The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  78. Wittgenstein, L. (1984). Philosophische Untersuchungen: Vol. 1. Werkausgabe. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: SuhrkampGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Design and CommunicationUniversity of Southern DenmarkKoldingDenmark

Personalised recommendations