Networked Learning

From Stellar Deliverable 1.1

Networked Learning

'The term ‘networked learning’ has been introduced to describe the forms of learning taking place in groups or in communities to promote connections between learners, tutors and educators, and between a learning community and its learning resources'. (Laurillard et al., 2007) p.5

A ‘network for learning’ can be considered to be a group of people who are connected in some way with the overall purpose of learning. Such a network provides support for people to build new contacts to scaffold each other to successfully acquire new knowledge and competence. In this process people may exchange information, tools and artefacts. Depending on the context, the network can be either formed through formal injection, or may spontaneously form thanks to a natural aggregation of people around a common interest/topic. Although many of the networking activities may take place in face to face situations, increasingly they are supported by online activity, which often allows members of the network to share resources and information quickly and easily. Within modern European society, very many people have online access at work/school/college as well as at home. This means that people are able to access resources and information within more formal learning situations (such as at school) and in informal learning situation (such as at home). Therefore it can be argued that the boundaries between formal and informal learning are becoming blurred. In addition, it can be argued that digital technologies sometimes provide artefacts and infrastructures to enhance the intertwining of cognition with social and affective dimensions and this means that people may engage in ‘learning’ more willingly. It is sometimes argued that Web 2.0 technology can be seen as a particularly important development in this respect because it is underpinned by a philosophy that values the collective intelligence of the community (see, for example, O'Reilly, 2005). Web 2.0 tools are changing the way we engage with and participate in the web: from a mainly read‐only approach we are moving to a wide set of “spaces” where users are able to express themselves by writing, adding comments to others’ contributions, posting many kinds of produced material. Often, the process of knowledge production is made public; the collaboration space is a public space and open for potential contributions from others (for example in a wiki). A key value of Web 2.0 can therefore be seen as the democratisation of information and knowledge:

" ‘… Web 2.0 has been ushered in by what might be a thought of as rhetoric of 'democratisation'. This is defined by stories and images of 'the people' reclaiming the Internet and taking control of its content; a kind of 'people's internet' or less positively, the emergence of the cult of the amateur (Keen, 2007). This, we are led to believe, has led to a new collaborative, participatory or open culture, where anyone can get involved, and everyone has the potential to be seen or heard.’ (Beer & Burrows, 2007)

This democratisation of knowledge means that the producer and consumer boundary is becoming blurred, and can also lead to concerns over the provenance and trustworthiness of information posted on the Web, as there is often no editorial control over what is posted. Related to this ‘there are profound intellectual property debates ahead as individuals, the public realm and corporations clash over ownership of the huge amounts of data that Web 2.0 is generating and the new ways of aggregating and processing it.’ (Andersen, 2007) A second concern is about privacy and security of information. As users post photographs and details of their lives (for example on Facebook) they build up a history of their everyday lives, which can include their preferences and choices. This information is available and can be accessed in various ways; for example in Facebook a user can click on a preference (favourite book or film) and see who else on Facebook chose that film. Emerging new practices have been registered in many fields related to Web 2.0 (e.g. new business models, open source movements) which suggests that it is possible that new practices might also emerge within educational institutions. The ways in which Web 2.0 tools can be used in education are still being explored. For example, the behaviours and interactions described above do not emerge spontaneously, which is why for learning purposes collaborative strategies are often implemented by, for example, assigning a group of students with the task of collaboratively discovering the solution to a given problem (collaborative problem solving) or developing a written text (co‐writing) based on a given argument. (Trentin, 2004). We also need to consider the different forms of knowledge which might be constructed by students. For example learning about decimal numbers may not be the same as learning the functions of a new camera. Personal learning environments (PLEs) allow learners to manage and control their own learning. They could provide support for learners to set their own goals, manage the content and process of their learning and communicate with others as they learn. The software used for PLEs varies from desktop applications to a range of web‐based services. One perceived strength of PLEs is that they are able to integrate formal and informal learning episodes into a single experience. They often use Web 2.0 technologies such as social networks, which cross institutional boundaries. (PLE’s should not be confused with Learning Management Systems (LMS) or Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) which operate within single institutions).

In the world of work there has been a change in emphasis from mass production to a focus on the needs of the customer. This has been accompanied by changing demands on employees with ‘a shift in expectations regarding employees’ actions, from the ability to execute specific commands towards a greater ability to conduct personal judgements and take personal initiatives’(Laurillard et al., 2007, p 3). Such a focus on the individual’s potential to act and make decisions in the workplace has been accompanied by a move away from central control to allow for the ‘creative chaos, fluent behaviour and redundancy needed for collaboration, creativity and innovation’. (Kamtsiou et al., 2008, p 13). In this respect a ‘knowledge worker is defined as someone who doesn’t just consume knowledge but who is able to create it and who reflects critically …’. (ibid, p 7)

There is increasing mobility in the workplace and fewer workplaces have physical centres. Flexibility will require new, changing skills: social networking, reconstructing views of institutions and companies, etc. In this respect creative industries have already reconfigured and tend to be characterised by flat hierarchies with the distinction between workforce and managers being no longer valid.

This movement makes informal learning especially important. More 'lifelong learning’ and more informal professional development seems to be taking place within the workplace. Diversity and decentralisation pose serious challenges for corporations, with risk and responsibility often shifting to an individual level.

Research questions include: • What is the provenance of information / knowledge? Where did it come from, and what is its quality? What and whom can we trust?.

• How do teachers and students respond to working in public and making their work in progress visible and/or accessible for others (e.g. on a wiki)?

• What new practices, influenced or enabled by Web 2.0 technologies, will begin to emerge in educational institutions and how will they be embedded in formal educational situations?

• What are the implications of 'self‐directed and collaborative learning' in terms of physical and virtual spaces?

• What role do face‐to‐face encounters have in workplace learning and in learning in educational institutions? How important is this physical contact?