‘Here Be Dragons’: Approaching Difficult Group Issues in Networked Learning

  • Linda PerritonEmail author
  • Michael Reynolds
Part of the Research in Networked Learning book series (RINL)


Participative designs for learning are commonly advocated in networked learning whether generally as ‘collaborative’ approaches to learning or more specifically in the form of models such as the ‘learning community’. Such designs are likely to involve students and teachers in any of the complexities associated with collective endeavour: whether interpersonal, social, cultural or political. In non-virtual education, there is a long tradition of theoretical frameworks but there appears to have been less work of this kind specifically in relation to group work within VLEs. It is as if the tradition of participative pedagogy has found a home within the domain of networked learning but ideas that could be necessary in understanding the dynamics generated within such pedagogies have been left behind. In this chapter we move away from an exclusively virtual framework through which to examine social dynamics in order to mine a richer seam of material for making sense of group dynamics. We use a variation on Potter’s (1979) idea of the ‘dilemmas’ likely to be experienced by members of learning groups, to construct a framework through which diverse interpretations can be accommodated in making sense of online dynamics.


Online Discussion Network Learning Tutor Group Interpretive Framework Actor Network Theory 
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.


  1. Allan, B. (2007). Time to learn? E-learners experiences of time in virtual learning communities. Management Learning, 38(5), 557–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan, B., & Vince, R. (2006, March 20–22). Emotions shared/emotions hidden: Reflections on emotional dynamics in virtual learning communities. Paper presented at the Organizational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities Conference at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England.Google Scholar
  3. Bales, R. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bayne, S. (2004). Smoothness and striation in digital learning spaces. E-Learning, 1(2), 302–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bion, W. (1961). Experiences in groups and other papers. New York, NY: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conrad, D. L. (2002). Engagement, excitement, anxiety, and fear: Learners’ experiences of starting an online course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(4), 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crossouard, B., Pryor, J., & Torrance, H. (2004, September). Creating an alternative assessment regime with online formative assessment: Developing a researcher identity. Paper presented to the European Conference on Education Research, Crete, Greece.Google Scholar
  8. De Laat, M., & Lally, V. (2003). Complexity, theory and praxis: Researching collaborative learning and tutoring processes in a networked learning community. Instructional Science, 31, 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1988). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London, England: Continuum.Google Scholar
  10. Dirckinck Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2012). Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Fenwick, T. (2013). Here be dragons response [email] (Personal communication, January 15 2013)Google Scholar
  12. Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2004). Advances in research on networked learning. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  13. Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. ETR&D, 49(1), 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hodgson, V., & Reynolds, M. (2005). Consensus, difference and ‘multiple communities’ in networked learning. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones, C. (2004). Networks and learning: Communities, practices and the metaphor of networks. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 12(1), 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, C. R., Ferreday, D., & Hodgson, V. (2008). Networked learning a relational approach: Weak and strong ties. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McConnell, D. (2000). Implementing computer supported cooperative learning (2nd ed.). London, England: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  18. 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. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. McKenna, K. Y. A., & Green, A. S. (2002). Virtual group dynamics. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 6(1), 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Potter, S. G. (1979, September). Three dilemmas. Paper presented to Group Relations Training Association Conference.Google Scholar
  21. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London, England: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, R. O. (2005). Working with difference in online collaborative groups. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(3), 182–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Staggers, J., Garcia, S., & Nagelhout, E. (2008). Teamwork through team building: Face-to-face to online. Business Communication Quarterly, 71(4), 472–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 229–249.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The York Management SchoolUniversity of YorkYorkUK
  2. 2.Lancaster University Management SchoolLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations