Interdisciplinary Cohesion of TEL – An Account of Multiple Perspectives

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8095)


Research areas and academic disciplines are not static: they change over time with new strands emerging and old ones disappearing. Technology-enhanced learning is a relatively young field of academic activity, getting more broad in scope as it matures. In this paper we seek to assess the state of interdisciplinarity in this academic community, presenting the findings of a quantitative study on mutual engagement, shared practices and methodologies, and sense of joint enterprise via a European research network in between learning and technology disciplines. An exploratory cluster analysis is used to identify different stakeholder groups in technology-enhanced learning research and a social network analysis shows how these are connected to each other. Statistical analysis suggests that a multidisciplinary workplace and study background of researchers are major influencing factors for the choice of border-crossing methodology and terminology. Additionally, results from a supplementary survey on the interdisciplinary cohesion between the fields of technology-enhanced learning and educational development support the view that pedagogical and technological sub-disciplines highly intersect in this field.


Interdisciplinarity Research Methodology Technology-Enhanced Learning Educational Development Social Network Analysis Science Studies 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Del Favero, M.: Academic Disciplines. In: Guthrie, J. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Education, 2nd edn., pp. 9–14. Macmillan, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  2. Wild, F., Ullmann, T., Anastasiou, L., Scott, P.J., Kraker, P., Lindstadt, S., Para, G., Vandeputte, B., Duval, E., Nagel, T., Herder, E., Schweiger, S., Balacheff, N.: The STELLAR Research 2.0 Infrastructure. Deliverable D6.6, STELLAR Consortium (2012),
  3. Strathern, M.: Interdisciplinarity: Some models from the human sciences. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 32(2), 123–162 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Moran, J.: Interdisciplinarity, 2nd edn. Routledge, London (2010)Google Scholar
  5. Voigt, C., Heinze, N., Herder, E., Cress, U.: 4th Stellar Evaluation Report – including Social Network Analysis. Deliverable D7.5, STELLAR Consortium (2011),
  6. Ebner, M., Reinhardt, W.: Social networking in scientific conferences – Twitter as tool for strengthen a scientific community. In: Science 2.0 Workshop at the EC-TEL 2009 Conference, Nice, pp. 1–8 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. Wenger, E.: Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. University Press, Cambridge (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft: Publikationsstrategien im Wandel? Ergebnisse einer Umfrage zum Publikations- und Rezeptionsverhalten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Open Access. Wiley-VCH, Bonn (2008)Google Scholar
  9. Sheppard, A.G.: The sequence of factor analysis and cluster analysis: Differences in segmentation and dimensionality through the use of raw and factor scores. Tourism Analysis 1(1), 49–57 (1996)Google Scholar
  10. Wasserman, S., Faust, K.: Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. University Press, Cambridge (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M.: Mode 2 Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva 41, 179–194 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Papert, S., Harel, I.: Situating Constructionism. In: Papert, S., Harel, I. (eds.) Constructionism. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood (1991)Google Scholar
  13. Latour, B.: Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. University Press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  14. Conole, G., Scanlon, E., Mundin, P., Farrow, R.: Technology enhanced learning as a site for interdisciplinary research. TLRP TEL Programme Report, 4 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. Kerr, A., Lorenz-Meyer, D.: Working together apart. In: Felt, U. (ed.) Knowing and Living in Academic Research, pp. 127–167. Institut of Sociology, Prague (2009)Google Scholar
  16. Heylighen, F., Joslyn, C.: Cybernetics and second order cybernetics. Encyclopedia of Physical Science & Technology 4, 155–170 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. Barak, N., deVries, F., Joubert, M., Specht, M., Windrum, C., Persico, D., Kraker, P.: Report of the process of establishing a Stakeholder Panel. Deliverable D5.1, STELLAR Consortium (2009),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Media LabUniversity of AugsburgAugsburgGermany
  2. 2.Stuttgart Media UniversityStuttgartGermany
  3. 3.Knowledge Media InstituteThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations