Advertisement

Learning in Hybrid Protopublic Spaces: Framework and Exemplars

  • Alex Young PedersenEmail author
  • Francesco Caviglia
  • Tom Gislev
  • Anders Hjortskov Larsen
Chapter
First Online:
  • 272 Downloads
Part of the Research in Networked Learning book series (RINL)

Abstract

This chapter proposes a framework for the analysis of collaborative inquiry in hybrid protopublic spaces that broadens the perspective on networked professional learning. The theoretical assumptions and the primary sources of inspiration from different lines of research for the framework are presented. By focusing on the theoretical grounding, we identify three interconnected assumptions that function as building blocks for these practices. The notion of ‘collaborative inquiry’ and its expansion into ‘connected curriculum’ are combined with the idea of ‘hybrid protopublic spaces’ as potential sites of learning at the boundaries of higher education and beyond. The main finding of this explorative study is the identification of various categories and parameters that constitute the framework. These include multiple connections, modes of knowledge, role models and spaces of application. Three exemplars of hybrid learning spaces are provided and analysed within the proposed framework: an open online course, an open journal and a civic data hackathon. Opportunities and challenges about creating new and supporting existing spaces for collaborative inquiry that connect higher education with society in different ways are discussed. The chapter concludes with directions for future work for incorporating these spaces into existing practices and possibly using the framework for the design of new practices.

Keywords

Hybridity Protopublic spaces Collaborative inquiry Connected curriculum Higher education 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Arendt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company.Google Scholar
  2. Arendt, H. (1954). Between past and future. Eight exercises in political thought (Enlarged ed.). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  3. Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arendt, H. (1989). Lectures on Kant’s political philosophy (New ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Arvanitakis, J., & Hornsby, D. (2016). Universities, the citizen scholar and the future of higher education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.  https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137538697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bang, J., Dalsgaard, C., Kjaer, A. & O’Donovan, M. M. (2016). Building OOC layers on top of existing courses. In D. Jansen & L. Konings (Eds.), MOOCs in Europe: Overview of papers representing a collective European response on MOOCs as presented during the HOME conference in Rome November 2015 (pp. 9–13). European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU).Google Scholar
  7. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  8. BFI. (2018, May). Det Bibliometriske Forskningsindikator [the bibliometric research indicator]. Status of proposal for inclusion of the Hybrid Pedagogy journal. Online: https://bfi.fi.dk/. (Only accessible to Danish researchers).
  9. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Biesta, G. J. J. (2013). The beautiful risk of education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Bryant, L., Srnicek, N., & Harman, G. (2011). Towards a speculative philosophy. In The speculative turn: Continental materialism and realism (pp. 1–18). Melbourne, VIC: re.press.Google Scholar
  12. Carnell, B., & Fung, D. (2017). Developing the Higher Education Curriculum: Research-Based Education in Practice. London, U.K.: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  13. Choi, J., & Tausczik, Y. (2017). Characteristics of collaboration in the emerging practice of open data analysis. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing (pp. 835–846). New York: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chou, S., Li, W., & Sridharan, R. (2014). Democratizing data science: Effecting positive social change with data science. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) at Bloomberg (2014).Google Scholar
  15. Conway, D. (2013, March 26). The data science Venn diagram. Blog post. http://drewconway.com/zia/2013/3/26/the-data-science-venn-diagram
  16. Cremers, P. H. M., Wals, A. E. J., Wesselink, R., & Mulder, M. (2016). Design principles for hybrid learning configurations at the interface between school and workplace. Learning Environments Research, 19, 309–334.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-016-9209-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cremers, P. H. M., Wals, A. E. J., Wesselink, R., & Mulder, M. (2017). Utilization of design principles for hybrid learning configurations by interprofessional design teams. Instructional Science, 45(2), 289–309.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9398-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DataKind. (2015). DataDives. [Website]. Retrieved from http://www.datakind.org/datadives
  19. Davidson, C. N. (2017). The new education: How to revolutionize the university to prepare students for a world in flux. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Dean, J. (2018, June 6–7). Building annotation communities: Info, agenda & collaborative notes. Presentation at I Annotate conference, San Francisco. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SEQYgYedRmPSFGm-4d8gPuxlUlq0RHWodtVqDxuE-Mw/edit?usp=sharing
  21. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath & Co Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Downes, S. (2007). Models for sustainable open educational resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 3(1), 29–44. Informing Science Institute. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/44796/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2014). Teaching crowds: Social media and distance learning. Athabasca, AB: AU Press.Google Scholar
  24. Eberly, R. A. (1999). From writers, audiences, and communities to publics: Writing classrooms as protopublic spaces. Rhetoric Review, 18(1), 165–178.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07350199909359262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eberly, R. A. (2000). Citizen critics. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  26. Eberly, R. A. (2002). Rhetoric and the Anti-Logos Doughball: Teaching Deliberating Bodies the Practices of Participatory Democracy. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 5(2), 287–300. Michigan State University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eberly, R. A. (2004). Everywhere you go’ it’s there: Forgetting and remembering the university of Texas tower shootings. In K. R. Phillips (Ed.), Framing public memory (pp. 65–88). Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  28. Falldin, M., & Lauridsen, K. (2017). Authoring open textbooks. Minneapolis: Open Textbook Network. Retrieved from https://press.rebus.community/authoropen/
  29. Frank, M., Walker, J., Attard, J., & Tygel, A. (2016). Data Literacy: what is it and how can we make it happen? Editorial. The Journal of Community Informatics, 12(3), 4–8.Google Scholar
  30. Fung, D. (2017a). A connected curriculum for higher education. London: UCL Press. Retrieved from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ucl-press/browse-books/a-connected-curriculum-for-higher-education
  31. Fung, D. (2017b). Strength-based scholarship and good education: The scholarship circle. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54, 101–110.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1257951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
  33. Garrison, D. R. (2016). Thinking collaboratively: Learning in a community of inquiry. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 5–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Hackathon. (n.d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackathon
  37. HASTAC. (n.d.). Humanities, Arts, Science, and Technology Alliance and Collaboratory (HASTAC). [Online journal website]. Retrieved from https://www.hastac.org/
  38. Hauser, G. A. (1999). Vernacular voices: The rhetoric of publics and public spheres. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  39. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hey, T., Tansley, S., & Tolle, K. (2009). The fourth paradigm: Data-intensive scientific discovery. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Research. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/fourth-paradigm-data-intensive-scientific-discovery/
  41. Hou, Y., & Wang, D. (2017). Hacking with NPOs: Collaborative analytics and broker roles in civic data hackathons. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 1(CSCW), 53:1–53:16.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3134688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hybrid pedagogy. (n.d.). About us. [Online journal website]. Retrieved from http://hybridpedagogy.org/about-us/
  43. Jordan, K. (2015, June 12). MOOC completion rates: The data. Retrieved from http://www.katyjordan.com/MOOCproject.html
  44. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Littlejohn, A., Beetham, H., & McGill, L. (2012). Learning at the digital frontier: A review of digital literacies in theory and practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 547–556.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00474.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mays, E. (Ed.). (2017). A Guide to Making Open Textbooks with Students. Retrieved from https://press.rebus.community/makingopentextbookswithstudents/
  47. Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mazereeuw, M., Wopereis, I., & McKenney, S. (2016). Extended teams in vocational education: Collaboration on the border. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22, 194–212.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2016.1247727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McConnell, D., Hodgson, V., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). Networked learning: A brief history and new trends. In Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 3–24). Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. Oxford, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Mind meld. (2015) Nature, 525 (7569):289-290.  https://doi.org/10.1038/525289b
  52. Morris, S. M. (2013, December 10). Collaborative peer review: Gathering the academy’s orphans. Retrieved from http://hybridpedagogy.org/collaborative-peer-review-gathering-the-academys-orphans/
  53. Open Data Day. (2018). Open data day. [Website]. Retrieved from http://opendataday.org/
  54. Pedersen, A. Y., & Caviglia, F. (2018). Researcher or fellow citizen? Looking for a role model in the humanities. In J. Kay & R. Luckin (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference of the learning sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 945–948). London: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  55. Pedersen, A. Y., Nørgaard, R. T., & Köppe, C. (2018). Patterns of inclusion: Fostering digital citizenship through hybrid education. Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 225–236.Google Scholar
  56. Provost, F., & Fawcett, T. (2013). Data science and its relationship to big data and data-driven decision making. Big Data, 1(1), 51–59.  https://doi.org/10.1089/big.2013.1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Savonick, D. (2017, November 8). Write out loud: Risk & reward in digital publishing. Retrieved from http://www.digitalpedagogylab.com/hybridped/write-out-loud/
  58. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 397–417). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  60. Sharif, R. M. & and Van Schalkwyk, F. (2016). Special issue on open data for social change and Sustainable development. The Journal of Community Informatics, 12(2). Retrieved from http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/issue/view/57
  61. Stanford Study of Writing. (n.d.). [Website]. Retrieved from https://ssw.stanford.edu/
  62. Stommel, J. (2012). Hybridity, pt. 2: What is hybrid pedagogy? Retrieved from http://www.digitalpedagogylab.com/hybridped/hybridity-pt-2-what-is-hybrid-pedagogy/
  63. Stott, A. (2014). Open data for economic growth. World Bank. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/Open-Data-for-Economic-Growth.pdf
  64. Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 130–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. UCL. (2016). UCL Bachelor of Arts and Sciences (BASc) programme. University College London. Retrieved from https://www.ucl.ac.uk/basc
  66. UCL. (2018). BASC0005 quantitative methods 2: Data science and visualisation. [Course description]. University College London. Retrieved from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/basc/current/core/qm2
  67. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2018). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Wals, A. E. J., Lans, T., & Kupper, H. (2012). Blurring the boundaries between vocational education, business and research in the agri-food domain. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 64(1), 3–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2011.586129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Wolff, A., Gooch, D., Cavero Montaner, J. J., Rashid, U., & Kortuem, G. (2016). Creating an understanding of data literacy for a data-driven society. The Journal of Community Informatics, 12(3), 9–26. Retrieved from http://ci-journal.org/index.php/ciej/article/view/1286Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alex Young Pedersen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Francesco Caviglia
    • 1
  • Tom Gislev
    • 1
  • Anders Hjortskov Larsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Teaching Development and Digital MediaAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options