Reflections and Challenges in Networked Learning

  • Nina Bonderup Dohn
  • Julie-Ann Sime
  • Sue Cranmer
  • Thomas Ryberg
  • Maarten de Laat
Chapter
Part of the Research in Networked Learning book series (RINL)

Abstract

In this last chapter, we reflect on the issues taken up in the nine chapters forming the body of the book and how they relate to the trends identified in the introductory chapter as well as how they combine to characterize the field of Networked Learning today and on from here. We start with a short presentation of each of the chapters. This leads us to identify broader themes which point out significant perspectives and challenges for future research and practice. Among these are social justice, criticality, mobility, new forms of openness and learning in the public arena (all leading themes at the next Networked Learning Conference in 2018), differences between participants and in participant experiences, learning analytics and different understandings of Networked Learning.

References

  1. Aaen, J. H., & Nørgård, R. T. (2015). Participatory academic communities: A transdisciplinary perspective on participation in education beyond the institution. Conjunctions. Transdisciplinary Journal of Cultural Participation, 2(2), 67–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold, K. E., & Sclater, N. (2017). Student perceptions of their privacy in leaning analytics applications. In Proceedings of the seventh international learning analytics & knowledge conference (pp. 66–69). ACM.Google Scholar
  4. Bayne, S. (2016). Campus codespaces for networked learners. Keynote given at the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016.Google Scholar
  5. Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2016). Manifesto Redux: Making a teaching philosophy from networked learning research. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 120–128). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  6. Beetham, H. (2015, April). What is blended learning? Seminar presentation, Bristol UK. BIS. (2013). Literature Review of Massive Open Online Courses and Other Forms of Online Distance Learning.Google Scholar
  7. Beetham, H. (2016). Employability and the digital future of work. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 47–55). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  8. Beetham, H., Czerniewicz, L., Jones, C., Lally, V., Perrotta, C., & Sclater, M. (2016). Challenges to social justice and collective wellbeing in a globalised education system. Symposium at the International Conference on Networked Learning 2016.Google Scholar
  9. Bell, F. (2016). (Dis)connective practice in heterotopic spaces for networked and connected learning. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 67–75). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  10. Brett, C., Lee, K., & Öztok, M. (2016). Socialization and social capital in online doctoral programs. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 264–268). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  11. Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (Eds.). (2014). The architecture of productive learning networks. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Carvalho, L., Goodyear, P., & De Laat, M. (Eds.). (2017). Place-based spaces for networked learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Czerniewicz, L., Glover, M., Deacon, A., & Walji, S. (2016). MOOCs, openness and changing educator practices: An activity theory case study. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 287–294). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  14. Dalsgaard, C., & Thestrup, K. (2015). Dimensions of openness: Beyond the course as an open format in online education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6), 78–97. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2146
  15. Davis, J. (2016). Networked learning: An opportunity to enhance the learning opportunities for students with high functioning autism or Asperger’s syndrome? In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 507–515). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  16. De Laat, M. (2012). Enabling professional development networks: How connected are you? Heerlen: LOOK, Open Universteit of the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  17. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2012). Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Dohn, N. B. (2014). Implications for networked learning of the ‘practice’ side of social practice theories – A tacit-knowledge perspective. In V. Hodgson, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), The design, experience and practice of networked learning (pp. 29–49). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duin, A. H. (2016). Designs for networked learning: Using personal learning networks to build intercultural competence. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016. Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  20. E-Quality Network (2002). E-quality in e-learning Manifesto. Paper presented at the Networked Learning Conference, Sheffield, UK. Retrieved from http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/esrc/
  21. Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor-network theory in education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Ferguson, R., & Clow, D. (2017). Where is the evidence? A call to action for learning analytics. In Proceedings of the seventh international learning analytics & knowledge conference (pp. 56–65). ACM.Google Scholar
  23. Fox, S. (2002). Studying networked learning: Some implications from socially situated learning theory and actor network theory. In C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.), Networked learning: Perspectives and issues (pp. 77–91). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fox, S. (2005). An actor-network critique of community in higher education: Implications for networked learning. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2004). Advances in research on networked learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  26. Goodyear, P., Carvalho, L., & Dohn, N. B. (2014). Design for networked learning: Framing relations between participants’ activities and the physical setting. In S. Bayne, C. Jones, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & C. Sinclair (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference on networked learning 2014 (pp. 137–144). Edinburgh University.Google Scholar
  27. Hanif, H., & Hammond, M. (2016). Why and how do members provide help for others within online communities? In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 385–389). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  28. Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. Internet and Higher Education, 3(1), 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haythornthwaite, C. (2016). New metaphors for networked learning. Keynote given at the 10th International Conference on Networked Learning 2016.Google Scholar
  30. Haythornthwaite, C. (2017). An information policy perspective on learning analytics. In Proceedings of the seventh international learning analytics & knowledge conference (pp. 253–256). ACM.Google Scholar
  31. Hodgson, V., & Reynolds, M. (2005). Consensus, difference and “multiple communities” in networked learning. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hodgson, V., De Laat, M., McConnell, D., & Ryberg, T. (2014a). Researching design, experience and practice of networked learning: An overview. In V. Hodgson, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), The design, experience and practice of networked learning (pp. 1–26). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hodgson, V., De Laat, M., McConnell, D., & Ryberg, T. (Eds.). (2014b). The design, experience and practice of networked learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Hoel, T., Griffiths, D., & Chen, W. (2017). The influence of data protection and privacy frameworks on the design of learning analytics systems. In Proceedings of the seventh international learning analytics & knowledge conference (pp. 243–252). ACM.Google Scholar
  35. Hytten, K., & Bettez, S. C. (2011). Understanding education for social justice. Educational Foundations, 25(1–2), 7–24.Google Scholar
  36. Ingold, T. (2011). Prologue: Anthropology comes to life. In Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description (pp. 3–14). Abington: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Jandric, P., & Boras, D. (Eds.). (2015). Critical learning in digital networks. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  38. Jansen, F. (2015). MOOCs for opening up education and the OpenupEd initiative. In C. J. Bonk, M. M. Lee, T. C. Reeves, & T. H. Reynolds (Eds.), MOOCs and open education around the world. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from https://eadtu.eu/documents/Publications/OEenM/OpenupEd_-_MOOCs_for_opening_up_education.pdf.Google Scholar
  39. Jones, C. (2015). Networked learning – an educational paradigm for the age of digital networks. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jones, C., Ryberg, T., & De Laat, M. (2015). Networked learning. In M. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory (pp. 1–6). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Jordan, K. (2016). Academics’ online connections: Characterising the structure of personal networks on academic social networking sites and Twitter. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 414–421). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  42. Konnerup, U., Castro, M. D., & Bygholm, A. (2016). Rehabilitation of people with a brain injury through the lens of networked learning. Identity formation in distributed virtual environments. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 532–539). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  43. Koseoglu, S. (2016). Third spaces of learning in open courses: Findings from an interpretive case study. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 299–303). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  44. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  45. Latour, B. (1997). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society (7. Print. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Mackness, J., Mak, S., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. De Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference on networked learning 2010 (pp. 266–274). Aalborg: Aalborg University.Google Scholar
  47. McArthur, J. (2013). Rethinking knowledge within higher education: Adorno and social justice. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  48. McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice. Retrieved from https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/MOOC_Final.pdf
  49. McConnell, D., Hodgson, V., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). Networked learning: A brief history and new trends. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning (pp. 3–24). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ozturk, T. H., & Hodgson, V. (2017). Developing a model of conflict in virtual learning communities in the context of a democratic pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(1), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Perotta, C. (2016). The social life of data clusters: The potential of sociomaterial analysis in the critical study of educational technology. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 32–37). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  52. Pilkington, R. M., & Guldberg, K. (2009). Conditions for productive networked learning among professionals and carers: The WebAutism case study. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, & B. Lindström (Eds.), Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development (pp. 63–83). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  53. Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2014). Networked. The new social operating system. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Paperback Ed.Google Scholar
  54. Raistrick, C. (2016). Discursive psychology as a methodology to explore how multiculturalism affects use of learning technologies. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 499–506). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  55. Rawls, J., & Kelly, E. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Reynolds, M, Sclater, M., & Tickner, S. (2004). A critique of participative discourses adopted in networked learning. Symposium at the International Conference on Networked Learning 2004. Retrieved from http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2004/proceedings/symposia/symposium10/reynolds_et_al.htm
  57. Ryberg, T., Sinclair, C., Bayne, S., & De Laat, M. (2016). Research, boundaries, and policy in networked learning. Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ryberg, T., Davidsen, J., & Hodgson, V. (2016a). Problem and project based learning in hybrid spaces: Nomads and artisans. In S. Cranmer, N. Bonderup-Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 200–209). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  59. Savin-Baden, M., & Tombs, G. (2016). The glow of unwork= issues of portrayal in networked learning research. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 449–455). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  60. Sclater, M., & Lally, V. (2016). Critical TEL: The importance of theory and theorisation. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 56–64). Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  61. Selwyn, N. (2014). Distrusting educational technology: Critical questions for changing times. New York/London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  62. Shum, S. B., & Ferguson, R. (2012). Social learning analytics. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 15(3), 3.Google Scholar
  63. Söderback, J., Hrastinski, S., & Öberg, L. M. (2016). Using distributed scrum for supporting an online community - a qualitative descriptive study of students’ perceptions. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 397–404). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  64. Tarek, S. A. (2016). Why ‘one size fits all’ concept and policies of inclusive education is insufficient to achieve ‘true’ inclusivity in a national context. Insight from a tablet based disaster preparedness training programme administered in Bangladesh. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 134–141). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  65. Tsai, Y. S., & Gasevic, D. (2017). Learning analytics in higher education – challenges and policies: A review of eight learning analytics policies. In Proceedings of the seventh international learning analytics & knowledge conference (pp. 233–242). ACM.Google Scholar
  66. Van den Beemt, A., & Vrieling, E. (2016). Dimensions of social learning in teacher education: An exemplary case study. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 376–384). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  67. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wright, S., & Parchoma, G. (2014). Mobile learning and immutable mobiles: Using iPhones to support informal learning in craft brewing. In V. Hodgson, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), The design, experience and practice of networked learning (pp. 241–261). Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zander, P., Choeda, C., Penjor, T., & Kinley, K. (2016). Gross national happiness in the context of networked learning. In S. Cranmer, N. B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & J. A. Sime (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on networked learning 2016 (pp. 159–166). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nina Bonderup Dohn
    • 1
  • Julie-Ann Sime
    • 2
  • Sue Cranmer
    • 2
  • Thomas Ryberg
    • 3
  • Maarten de Laat
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Design and CommunicationUniversity of Southern DenmarkKoldingDenmark
  2. 2.Educational Research, Lancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  3. 3.Department of Communication and PsychologyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  4. 4.Learning, Teaching & Curriculum, University of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations