Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design for Networked Learning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover The Future of Ubiquitous Learning

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Educational Technology ((LNET))

Abstract

This chapter discusses guidelines for networked learning. First, a few definitions are analyzed and it is concluded that networks are essentially different than communities, although the former will contain the latter. Then, the notion of learning design is examined, resulting in the conclusion that the distinction of Carvalho and Goodyear between epistemic, social, and set design should guide the design of networked learning. Each of these design aspects is then scrutinized. After analysis of pertinent metaphors of learning, epistemic design turns out to be subject to the maxim that learning networks cannot be designed, only designed for. With this as a limiting perspective, guidelines for the social design of learning networks are derived, in which the notion of an ad hoc transient communities plays a key role. In the context of the set design, examples of tools for social interaction support, navigation support, and (formative) assessment support are inventoried. Together, the results of the analysis of epistemic design, the guidelines for social design, and the inventory of tools for set design provide a valuable if still growing toolkit to the designer of learning networks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Since it is only tangential to the present discussion, I will not elaborate the distinction between formal and non-formal learning here. The interested readers may want to consult a blog post of mine on the topic. It locates the difference in the presence or absence of a social contract between al learner and a learning institution (Sloep, About Formal and informal (non-formal) learning. Stories to TEL, August 2012. http://pbsloep.blogspot.nl/2012/08/about-formal-and-informal-non-formal.html).

  2. 2.

    I elaborated on the distinction in a blog post of mine, from which also parts of the text presented in this subsection were derived (Sloep 2013, Learning in networks and in communities of practice. Stories to TEL, September 2013. http://pbsloep.blogspot.nl/2013/09/learning-in-networks-and-in-communities.html).

References

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Oxford: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlanga, A. J., Bitter-Rijpkema, M. E. B., Brouns, F., Sloep, P. B., & Fetter, S. (2011). Personal profiles: Enhancing social interaction in learning networks. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 7(1), 66–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlanga, A. J., & Sloep, P. B. (2011). Towards a digital learner identity. In F. Abel, V. Dimitrova, E. Herder, & G.-J. Houben (Eds.), Augmenting User Models with Real World Experiences Workshop (AUM). In conjunction with UMAP 2011. July, 15, 2011, Girona, Spain. Retrieved from http://www.wis.ewi.tudelft.nl/aum2011/aum-proceedings.pdf

  • Berners-Lee, T., & Fischetti, M. (1999). Weaving the Web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the world wide web by its inventor. Britain: Orion Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W. E. (1999). Of bicycles, bakelites and bulbs: Towards a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W. E. (2010). How is technology made? That is the question! Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34, 63–76. doi:10.1093/cje/bep068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitter-Rijpkema, M. E., Verjans, S., Didderen, W., Slot, W., & Sloep, P. B. (2014). Biebkracht: Library professionals empowered through an interorganizational learning network: Design principles and evolution. In L. Carvalho & P. M. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks (pp. 152–167). New York: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Hager, P. (2012). Studies in continuing education re-thinking continuing professional development through changing metaphors and location in professional practices. Studies in Continuing Education, 34(1), 17–3041. doi:10.1080/0158037X.2011.608656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. M. (2014). The architecture of productive learning networks. New York: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2008). Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: Quality perspectives. Educational Media International, 45(2), 93–106. doi:10.1080/09523980802107179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conole, G. (2014). Designing for learning in an open world (Vol. 4). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-8517-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Creanor, L., & Walker, S. (2010). Exploring sociotechnical theories of learning technology. In Seventh International Conference on Networked Learning 2010 (pp. 517–518). Retrieved from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/PDFs/Creanor_2.pdf

  • Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2009). How the crowd can teach. In J. Dron & T. Anderson (Eds.), How the crowd can teach. Handbook of research on social software and developing community ontologies. Hershey: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2014). Teaching crowds: Learning and social media. Athabasca, Canada: AU Press, Athabasca University. doi:10.15215/aupress/9781927356807.01

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, R. I. M. (1993). Co-evolution of neocortex size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 681–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazeli, S., Drachsler, H., Brouns, F., & Sloep, P. B. (2012). A trust-based social recommender for teachers. In N. Manouselis, H. Drachsler, K. Verbert, & O. C. Santos (Eds.), 2nd Workshop on Recommender Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning (RecSysTEL 2012) in conjunction with the 7th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL 2012), September, 18-19, 2012, Saarbrücken, Germany (pp. 49–60). Saarbrucken, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazeli, S., Loni, B., Bellogin, A., Drachsler, H., & Sloep, P. B. (2014). Implicit vs. explicit trust in social matrix factorization. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (pp. 317–320). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/2645710.2645766

  • Fowler, M. (2000). UML distilled: A brief guide to the standard object modeling language (2nd ed., p. 185). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. doi:10.1109/MS.2005.81

    Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X. L., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding III-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22. doi:10.1007/BF02504836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear, P. M. (2005). Emergence of a networked learning community: Personal reflections on the transformation of education. In G. Kearsley (Ed.), Online Learning (Vol. 21, pp. 112–126). Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear, P. M., & Carvalho, L. (2014). Framing the analysis of learning network architectures. In L. Carvalho & P. M. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks. Routledge Falmer: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harasim, L., Hiltz, R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: a field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society, 18(5), 385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, D., & Kamvar, S. D. (2012). Searching the village: Models and methods for social search. Communications of the ACM, 55(4), 111–118. doi:10.1145/2133806.2133830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IMS Global Learning Consortium. (2003). IMS learning design; information model, best practice and implementation guide. IMS Global Learning Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.imsglobal.org/content/learningdesign/

  • Jones, C., Ferreday, D., & Hodgson, V. (2008). Networked learning a relational approach: weak and strong ties. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 24(2), 90–102. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00271.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., & Steeples, C. (2002). Perspectives and Issues in networked learning. In C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.), Networked learning: Perspectives and issues (pp. 1–14). London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kester, L., & Sloep, P. B. (2009). Knowledge dating and knowledge sharing in ad-hoc transient communities. In R. Koper (Ed.), Learning network services for professional development (pp. 43–55). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koper, R. (2001). Modelling units of study from a pedagogical perspective: The pedagogical metamodel behind EML v2. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland. Retrieved from http://dspace.ou.nl/bitstream/1820/36/1/Pedagogical metamodel behind EMLv2.pdf

  • Koper, R. (2009). Learning network services for professional development. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koper, R., & Manderveld, J. (2004). Educational modelling language: Modelling reusable, interoperable, rich and personalised units of learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 537–551. doi:10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00412.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koper, R., & Olivier, B. (2004). Representing the learning design of units of learning. Educational Technology & Society, 7(3), 97–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landauer, T. K., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. University of Colorado Institute of cognitive science series. Boulder: University of Colorado Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology (p. 258). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurillard, D., & McAndrew, P. (2003). Reusable educational software: a basis for generic learning activities. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing online resources: A sustainable approach to e-learning (pp. 81–93). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L. (2010). A critical review of technology acceptance literature. Southwest Decisino Sciences Institute (p. 22). Grambling, LA, USA. Retrieved from http://www.swdsi.org/swdsi2010/SW2010_Preceedings/papers/PA104.pdf

  • Littlejohn, A., Milligan, C., & Margaryan, A. (2012). Charting collective knowledge: Supporting self-regulated learning in the workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(3), 226–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manouselis, N., Drachsler, H., Verbert, K., & Duval, E. (2012). Recommender systems for learning (pp. 1–76). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4361-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, T. (2014). Where social noise and structure converge. Universiteit Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. (2013). Learning technology: Theorising the tools we study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 31–43. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01283.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74, 557–576. doi:10.3102/00346543074004557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2014). Designing and Enabling Spaces for collaborative knowledge creation and innovation: From managing to enabling innovation as socio-epistemological technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 346–359. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, N., & Dron, J. (2012). Challenges and opportunities for learning analytics when formal teaching meets social spaces. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge—LAK’12 (pp. 54–58). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2330601.2330619

  • Rajagopal, K., Berlanga, A. J., & Sloep, P. B. (2012). Supporting teachers’ networked learning skills for more online engagement. In V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, T. Ryberg, & P. Sloep (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Networked Learning, April 2–4, 2012, Maastricht (pp. 422–428). Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, R. (1972). Definition (5th ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusman, E., Van Bruggen, J. M., Sloep, P. B., Valcke, M., & Koper, R. (2012). Can I trust you? Personal profiling for a first impression of trustworthiness in virtual project teams. International Journal of Information Technology Project Management, 3(1), 15–35. doi:10.4018/jitpm.2012010102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sie, R. L. L., Drachsler, H., Rijpkema, M. B., & Sloep, P. (2012). To whom and why should I connect? Co-author recommendation based on powerful and similar peers. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(1/2), 121. doi:10.1504/IJTEL.2012.048314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial (p. 231). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloep, P. B. (2009). Fostering sociability in learning networks through ad-hoc transient communities. In M. Purvis & B. T. R. Savarimuthu (Eds.), Computer-mediated social networking, ICCMSN 2008, LNAI 5322 (pp. 62–75). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloep, P. B. (2013). Networked professional learning. In A. Littlejohn & A. Margaryan (Eds.), Technology-enhanced professional learning: Processes, practices and tools (pp. 97–108). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloep, P. B., Berlanga, A. J., & Retalis, S. (2014). Introduction to the special issue on Web-2.0 technologies in support of team-based learning for innovation. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 342–345. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloep, P. B., & Kester, L. (2009). From Lurker to active participant. In R. Koper (Ed.), Learning network services for professional development (pp. 17–26). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Spoelstra, H., van Rosmalen, P., Houtmans, T., & Sloep, P. B. (2015). Team formation instruments to enhance learner interactions in open learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 11–20. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Acting with technology series. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://gerrystahl.net/mit/stahlgroupcognition.pdf

  • Sutcliffe, A., Wang, D., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2012). Social relationships and the emergence of social networks. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 15(4), 3. Retrieved from http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/15/4/3.html

  • Van Bruggen, J. M., Sloep, P. B., Van Rosmalen, P., Brouns, F., Vogten, H., Koper, R., & Tattersall, C. (2004). Latent semantic analysis as a tool for learner positioning in learning networks for lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6), 729–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rosmalen, P., Sloep, P. B., Brouns, F., Kester, L., Koné, M., & Koper, R. (2006). Knowledge matchmaking in learning networks: Alleviating the tutor load by mutually connecting learning network users. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(6), 881–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rosmalen, P., Sloep, P. B., Kester, L., Brouns, F., De Croock, M., Pannekeet, K., & Koper, R. (2008). A learner support model based on peer tutor selection. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 24(1), 74–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vassileva, J. (2009). Toward social learning environments. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 1(4), 199–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbert, K., Drachsler, H., Manouselis, N., Wolpers, M., Vuorikari, R., & Duval, E. (2011). Dataset-driven research for improving recommender systems for learning. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 44–53). doi:10.1145/2090116.2090122

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, (Eds.) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Vol. Mind in So, p. 159). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92784-6

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, S. (2004). The success of open source. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & De Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework. Centrum (Vol. 18, pp. 1–60). Ruud_de_Moor_Centrum. Retrieved from http://www.open.ou.nl/rslmlt/Wenger_Trayner_DeLaat_Value_creation.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Open University of the Netherlands, Valkenburgerweg, 177, 6419 AT, Heerlen, Netherlands

    Peter B. Sloep

  2. PO Box 2960, 6401 DL, Heerlen, Netherlands

    Peter B. Sloep

Authors
  1. Peter B. Sloep
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter B. Sloep .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Facultat de Pedagogia, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Begoña Gros

  2. Athabasca University, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Kinshuk

  3. Department of Psychology and Education, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain

    Marcelo Maina

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sloep, P.B. (2016). Design for Networked Learning. In: Gros, B., Kinshuk, ., Maina, M. (eds) The Future of Ubiquitous Learning. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47724-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47724-3_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-47723-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-47724-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation