Innovating Design for Learning in the Networked Society

Chapter

Abstract

The transition from the industrial to the knowledge or networked society has, together with the worldwide digitalization and e-permeation of our social, political and economic lives, brought challenges to the educational systems. The changes call for new key competences in terms of self-initiated and lifelong learning and digital literacy. At the same time, the implementation of new public management in educational institutions put pressure on students’ available time for studying and the qualitative outcome of learning processes. These conditions give birth to emerging tensions at the organizational level between effectiveness, quality and summative evaluation and at the individual level between personal cost-benefit-based choices of study approach and the demands for study activities related to problem-based project pedagogy within a (social) constructivist paradigm. What the authors meet in their practice are students who are (if at all) only familiar with the curriculum at a surface level and who expect the teachers to present digested versions of the curriculum. This chapter presents a design for teaching and learning approach in the shape of a design for learning model that aims to scaffold students’ self-initiated and reflective study practice that matches learning in the networked society and at the same time bypasses the consequences of the emerging tensions in the learning context. We believe that the model can be operationalized various specific educational activities.

Keywords

Europe Arena Lost OECD Clarification 

References

  1. Ackoff, R. L. (1976). En ny fremtid formes. København: Nyt Nordisk Forlag.Google Scholar
  2. Argyris, C. (1977). Double-loop learning in organisations. Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
  3. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning: Duke University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrows, H., & Tamblyn, R. (1980). Problem-based learning: an approach to medical education (Medical education, Vol. 1). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bohr, Niels (1934). Atomic theory and the description of nature. 1934: UP, Cambridge, England, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohr, N. (1957). Atomfysik og menneskelig erkendelse. København: Schultz.Google Scholar
  8. Bohr, N. (1964). Atomfysik og menneskelig erkendelse II. København: J.H. Schultz Forlag.Google Scholar
  9. Castells, M. (2000). Materials for an exploratory theory of the networked society. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cato, J. (2001). User-centred web design. Pearson Education: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  11. Darsø, L. (2001). Innovation in the making (1st ed.). København: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
  12. Dewey, J. (1974 [1938]). Erfaring og opdragelse. København: Chr. Ejlers.Google Scholar
  13. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2002). Designing virtual learning environments based on problem orientated pedagogy. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld & B. Fibiger (Eds.), Learning in virtual environments (pp. 31–54). København: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
  14. Dyson, A. (1999). Inclusion and inclusions: theories and discourses in inclusive education. In H. Daniels & P. Garner (Eds.), World yearbook of education 1999: inclusive education (pp. 36–53). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  15. EU (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 18 December 2006, on key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal L 394 of 30.12.2006.Google Scholar
  16. Europe Unit (2006). Bologna Process. http://www.europeunit.ac.uk/bologna_process/index.cfm. Accessed 22 Jan 2011.
  17. Favrholdt, D. (1992). Niels Bohr’s philosophical background. København: DetKgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-Filosofiske Meddelelser.Google Scholar
  18. Favrholdt, D. (2009). Filosoffen Niels Bohr. København: InformationsForlag.Google Scholar
  19. Faye Jan & Henry J. Folse. (1994). Niels Bohr and contemporary philosophy: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glazebrook, T. (2000) Heidegger´s philosophy of science: Fordham University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. G8 (2006). G8 Wold Summit in St. Petersburg – July 16, 2006. http://en.g8russia.ru/docs/12.html. Accessed 22 Jan 2011.
  22. Hastrup, K. (1999). Viljen til Viden. En humanistisk grundbog. København: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
  23. Hauen, F., van Strandgaard, V., & Kastberg, B. (1998). Den lærende organisation (2nd ed.). København: Peter Asschenfeldts Nye Forlag.Google Scholar
  24. Illeris, K. (1989). Pædagogikkens betydning. København: Unge Pædagoger.Google Scholar
  25. Illeris, K. (2006). Læring. Roskilde: Roskilde Universitets Forlag.Google Scholar
  26. Johansen, C., & Swiatek, E. (1991). Rollespil. Frederiksberg: Bogfabrikken Fakta.Google Scholar
  27. Klafki, W. (1971). Bildungstheorie und didaktik. Beltz: Weinheim.Google Scholar
  28. Lawless, N., & Allen, J. (2004). Understanding and reducing stress in collaborative e-learning. Electronic Journal of eLearning, 2(1), 121–127.Google Scholar
  29. Lemke, J. L. (2000). Material sign processes and emergent ecosocial organization. In P. B. Andersen, C. Emmeche, N. O. Finnemann, & P. V. Christiansen (Eds.), Downward causation: minds, bodies and matter (pp. 181–213). Århus, Sweden: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Levinsen, K. (2005). Virtuel Uddannelsespraksis. Master i IKT og Læring – et casestudie i hvordan proaktiv proceshåndtering kan forbedre praksis i virtuelle læringsmiljøer. Ph.D. Thesis. København: Department of Informatics, Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
  31. Levinsen, K. (2006). Collaborative on-line teaching: the inevitable path to deep learning and knowledge sharing? Electronic Journal of eLearning, 4(1), 41–48.Google Scholar
  32. Levinsen, K. (2009). A didactic design experiment – towards a Network Society Learning Paradigm. Designs for Learning, 2(2), 34–55.Google Scholar
  33. Masuda, Y. (1980). The Information Society. Tokyo: Institute for the Information Society.Google Scholar
  34. Negt, O. (1975 [1968]). Sociologisk fantasi og eksemplarisk læring. Roskilde: RUC forlag.Google Scholar
  35. OECD (2001). Meeting of the OECD education ministers – Paris, 3–4 April 2001. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/8/1924078.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan 2011.
  36. Schäfer, K. H., & Schaller, K. (1973). Kritische Erziehungswissenschaft und kummunikative didaktik. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer.Google Scholar
  37. Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., & Preece, J. (2007). Interaction design (2nd ed.). NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  38. Shulman, L. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case method in teaching education (pp. 1–30). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sørensen, B. H., Audon, L., & Levinsen, K. (2010). Skole 2.0. Aarhus: KLIM.Google Scholar
  40. Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Wenger, Etienne (1998). Communities of practice:Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Winograd, T. (1996). Bringing design to software. Stanford: Stanford University and Interval Research Corporation. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  43. Yuthas, K., Dillard, J. F., & Rogers, R. K. (2004). Beyond agency and structure: triple-loop learning. Journal of Business Ethics, 51, 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Danish School of Education, Aarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Centre for Applied ICT, Copenhagen Business SchoolCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations