Implementation of an Infrastructure for Networked Learning



What are the conditions under which institutional actors decide upon Information and Communication Technology strategies for networked learning purposes? The question is discussed within the frame of a case study of the decision process during a shift from one learning platform to another in an education at Aalborg University. The aim is to explicate and understand the multiplicity of issues involved and to point the possible ways of handling such decision processes. On the one hand, the analysis shows that the predominant reasons for deciding to change are dissatisfaction with the existing system which is slow due to (too) many levels, lack of esthetic design, lack of coherence in practices and, generally, lack of relevant content. On the other hand, the predominant arguments for choosing the new system are more related to issues of operation, support, and management. We argue that the issues of dissatisfaction with the existing system will not automatically be solved by implementing a new one; that many of the problems with the existing system are related to the way it is used; and that the role of the system is vaguely defined in the organization.


Collaborative Learning Activity Theory Network Learning Learning Practice Case Study Methodology 
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. Bell, F. (2010). Network theories for technology-enabled learning and social change: Connectivism and actor network theory. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Networked Learning 2010. Networked Learning 2010. Aalborg.Google Scholar
  2. Bygholm, A., & Nyvang, T. (2009). An infrastructural perspective on implementing new educational technology. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (IIth ed.). Malden, Oxford, Carlton: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Castells, M. (2001). The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. de Freitas, S., & Oliver, M. (2005). Does E-learning policy drive change in higher education? A case study relating models of organisational change to e-learning implementation. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 27(1), 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, New York, Chicago: D.C. Heath & Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Nielsen, J., Fibiger, B., Danielsen, O., Riis, M., & Sorensen, K. E. (2002). Designing virtual learning environments based problem oriented project pedagogy. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld & B. Fibiger (Eds.), Learning in virtual environments. Fredriksberg: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
  8. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., et al. (2009). Problem and project based networked learning: The MIL case. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development (pp. 155–175). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta.Google Scholar
  10. Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Flores, F., Graves, M., Hartfield, B., & Winograd, T. (1988). Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6(2), 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & Mcconnell, D. (2004). Research on networked learning: an overview. In P. Goodyear et al. (Eds.), Advances in research on networked learning. Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Jones, C., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2009). Analysing networked learning practices. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Jones, C. R., Ferreday, D., & Hodgson, V. (2008). Networked learning a relational approach: Weak and strong ties. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2006). Activity theory and interaction design. London, England: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B., & Macaulay, C. (1999). Methods & tools: The activity checklist: A tool for representing the “space” of context. Interactions, 6(4), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kolmos, A., Fink, F., & Krogh, L. (2004). The Aalborg PBL model – progress, diversity and challenges. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Koschmann, T. (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kuutti, K., & Bannon, L. (1993). Searching for unity among diversity: Exploring the “interface” concept (Using the approach of activity theory). In Proceedings of INTERCHI ‘93. INTERCHI ‘93. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  22. Leont’ev, A. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Nyvang, T. (2006). Implementation of ICT in Higher Education. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Networked Learning 2006. Lancaster: Lancaster. Accessed September 24th, 2011.Google Scholar
  24. Nyvang, T. (2008). Ibrugtagning af ikt i universitetsuddannelse (implementation of ICT in higher education). Aalborg: Aalborg University, Institut for Kommunikation.Google Scholar
  25. Nyvang, T., & Tolsby, H. (2004). Students Designing ICT Support for Collaborative Learning in Practice. Proceedings of the Networked Learning Conference 2004. Lancaster: Lancaster University. Accesssed 24th September, 2011.Google Scholar
  26. Nyvang, T. & Poulsen, C. R. (2007). Implementation of ICT in Government Organizations - User Driven or Management Driven? In A. M. Kanstrup, T. Nyvang, & E. M. Sørensen (Red.), Perspectives on e-Government: Technology & Infrastructure, Politics & Organization, and Interaction & Communication. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Piaget, J. (1999). The construction of reality in the child. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Ryberg, T., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2010). Analysing digital literacy in action: A case study of a problem-oriented learning process. In R. Sharpe, H. Beetham, & S. De Freitas (Eds.), Rethinking learning for a digital age (pp. 170–183). New York: Routhledge.Google Scholar
  29. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(10), 3–10.Google Scholar
  30. Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations: A sociocultural approach to information design. In B. Nardi, V. Kaptelinin, & K. Foot (Eds.), Acting with technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Stein, S. J., Shephard, K., & Harris, I. (2011). Conceptions of e-learning and professional development for e-learning held by tertiary educators in New Zealand. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thompson, J. D., & Tuden, A. (1959). Strategies, structures and processes of organizational decision. In J. D. Thompsom et al. (Eds.), Comparative studies in administration. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  34. Tolsby, H., Nyvang, T., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2002). A survey of technologies supporting virtual project based learning. In S. Banks (Ed.), The third international conference on networked learning (pp. 572–581). Sheffield, England: University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
  35. Tyre, M., & Orlikowski, W. (1994). Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science, 5(198–118).Google Scholar
  36. von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication and PsychologyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations