Analysing the Structural Properties of Learning Networks

Architectural Insights into Buildable Forms
  • Peter Goodyear
  • Kate Thompson
  • David Ashe
  • Ana Pinto
  • Lucila Carvalho
  • Martin Parisio
  • Paul Parker
  • Beat Schwendimann
  • Dewa Wardak
  • Pippa Yeoman
Part of the Technology Enhanced Learning book series (TEL)


A good repertoire of methods for analysing and sharing ideas about existing designs can make a useful contribution to improving the quality and efficiency of educational design work. Just as architects can improve their practice by studying historic and contemporary buildings, so people who design to help people learn can get better at what they do by understanding the designs of others.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander, C. (1966). A city is not a tree. Design, 126.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, C. (1979). The timeless way of building, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, C. (1999). The origins of pattern theory: The future of the theory and the generation of a living world. IEEE Software, 16, 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexander, C. (2006). The nature of order. Berkeley, CA: Center for Environmental Structure.Google Scholar
  5. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., & Angel, S. (1977). A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Barabási, A. L. (2002). Linked: The new science of networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Bauer, R., & Baumgartner, P. (2010). The potential of Christopher Alexander’s theory and practice of wholeness: Clues for developing an educational taxonomy. EuroPLoP ’10 Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs.Google Scholar
  8. Borgatti, S., & Foster, P. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29, 991–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boys, J. (2011). Towards creative learning spaces: Re-thinking the architecture of post-compulsory education, New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Carvalho, L., & Goodyear P., (Eds.), (2014). The architecture of productive learning networks. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Clarà, M., & Barberà, E. (2013). Learning online: Massive open online courses (MOOCs), connectivism, and cultural psychology. Distance Education, 34(1), 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daradoumis, T., Bassi, R., Xhafa, F., & Caballe, S. (2013). A review on massive e-learning (MOOC) design, delivery and assessment. Eighth International Conference on P2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing (3PGCIC), 208–213. doi: 10.1109/3PGCIC.2013.37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Laat, M., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., & Simons, R. J. (2007). Online teaching in networked learning communities: A multi-method approach to studying the role of the teacher. Instructional Science, 35, 257–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the sociomaterial. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Gee, J. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology to today’s schools. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language, power and social context. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Goodyear, P. (2002). Online learning and teaching in the arts and humanities: Reflecting on purposes and design. In E. A. Chambers & K. Lack (Eds.), Online conferencing in the arts and humanities (pp. 1–15). Milton, Keynes: Institute of Educational Technology, Open University.Google Scholar
  19. Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21, 82–101.Google Scholar
  20. Goodyear, P., & Carvalho, L. (2013, September). The analysis of complex learning environments. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning. New York,NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Goodyear, P., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2013). In medias res: Reframing design for learning. Research in Learning Technology, 21.Google Scholar
  22. Goodyear, P., & Steeples, C. (1992). IT-based open learning: Tasks and tools. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 8(3), 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goodyear, P., Banks S., Hodgson V., & McConnell D. (Eds.). (2004a). Advances in research on networked learning. Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Goodyear, P., Avgeriou, P., Baggetun, R., Bartoluzzi, S., Retalis, S., Ronteltap, F., & Rusman, E. (2004b), Towards a pattern language for networked learning. In S. Banks, P. Goodyear, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, V. Lally, D. McConnell, & C. Steeples, (Eds.), Networked learning 2004. Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  25. Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haggett, P., & Chorley, R. J. (1969). Network analysis in geography. London, UK: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  27. Harasim, L., Hiltz, S., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1997). Learning networks: A field guide to learning and teaching online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hillier, B. (1999). Space is the machine: A configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hutchins, E. (2010). Cognitive ecology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 705–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. New York, NY: Harper Row.Google Scholar
  31. IOM (Institute of Medicine) and NRC (National Research Council) (2012). From neurons to neighborhoods: An update: Workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  32. Jones, C. (2004). Networks and learning: Communities, practices and the metaphor of networks. ALT-J, 12, 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kay, J., Reimann, P., Deibold, E., & Kummerfeld, B. (2013). MOOCs: So many learners, so much potential. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 28(3), 70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaye, A. (Ed.). (1992). Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  35. Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Knappett, C. (Ed.). (2013). Network analysis in archaeology: New approaches to regional interaction, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lave, J. (2012). Changing practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19, 156–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Law, J. (2006). Networks, relations, cyborgs: On the social study of technology. In S. Read & C. Pinilla (Eds.), Visualizing the invisible: Towards an urban space. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Techne Press.Google Scholar
  39. Li, N., Verma, H., Skevi, A., Zufferey, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2014). MOOC learning in spontaneous study groups: Does synchronously watching videos make a difference? European MOOCs Conference. Retrieved from
  40. Long, Y., & Baran, P. K. (2012). Does intelligibility affect place legibility? Understanding the relationship between objective and subjective evaluations of the urban environment. Environment and Behavior, 44, 616–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mackness, J., Mak, S. & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. Networked learning conference. Lancaster, UK: University of Lancaster.Google Scholar
  42. Mason R., & Kaye A., (Eds.), (1989). Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education, Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  43. Mitchell, W. J. (2003). Me++: The cyborg self and the networked city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. (2012, October). MOOCs and disruptive innovation: The challenge to HE business models. Retrieved from
  45. Pinto, A. (2014). Design and the functioning of a productive learning network. 9th International Conference on Networked Learning 2014, Edinburgh: Networked Learning Conference Organiser.Google Scholar
  46. Podolny, J., & Page, K. (1998). Network forms of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Riel, M. M., & Levin, J. A. (1990). Building electronic communities: Success and failure in computer networking. Instructional Science, 19, 145–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schrage, M. (1990). Shared minds: The new technologies of collaboration. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
  49. Steeples C., & Jones C. (Eds.). (2002). Networked learning: Perspectives and issues. London, UK: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Tagg, A. (1992). Computer conferencing systems and their application: A suggested methodology. London: Birkbeck College, University of London.Google Scholar
  51. Thompson, K., & Kelly, N. (2012). Combining collaboration spaces: Identifying patterns of tool use for decision-making in a networked learning environment. 8th International Conference on Networked Learning, Maastricht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  52. Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & de Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework. Heerlen, Netherlands: Ruud de Moor Centrum, Open Universiteit of the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  53. Zimring, C., & Dalton, R. C. (2003). Linking objective measures of space to cognition and action. Environment and Behavior, 35, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Goodyear
    • 1
  • Kate Thompson
    • 2
  • David Ashe
    • 3
  • Ana Pinto
    • 4
  • Lucila Carvalho
    • 5
  • Martin Parisio
    • 6
  • Paul Parker
    • 7
  • Beat Schwendimann
    • 8
  • Dewa Wardak
    • 9
  • Pippa Yeoman
    • 10
  1. 1.Centre for Research on Computer Supported Learning and Cognition (CoCo)University of SydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Research on Computer Supported Learning and Cognition (CoCo)University of SydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Centre for Research on Computer Supported Learning and Cognition (CoCo)University of SydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Centre for Research on Computer Supported Learning and Cognition (CoCo)University of SydneyAustralia
  5. 5.Centre for Research on Computer Supported Learning and Cognition (CoCo)University of SydneyAustralia
  6. 6.Centre for Research on Computer Supported Learning and Cognition (CoCo)University of SydneyAustralia
  7. 7.Centre for Research on Computer Supported Learning and Cognition (CoCo)University of SydneyAustralia
  8. 8.Centre for Research on Computer Supported Learning and Cognition (CoCo)University of SydneyAustralia
  9. 9.Centre for Research on Computer Supported Learning and Cognition (CoCo)University of SydneyAustralia
  10. 10.École Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations