New metaphors for understanding epistemic practices in higher education online settings (original) (raw)

Abstract

sparkles

AI

This paper explores the limitations of traditional social-constructivist frameworks in understanding online learning practices in higher education. It introduces and applies connectivism and actor-network theory to analyze emerging epistemic practices within digital learning environments, emphasizing the interdependence of human and non-human entities in these contexts. By discussing the roles of various technologies and social software applications, the paper aims to delineate new metaphors for understanding learning in networked spaces and highlights the importance of recognizing the relational dynamics involved in educational practices.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (68)

  1. Akrich, M. (1992). The De-Scription of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205-224). London: The MIT Press.
  2. Anderson, T. D., & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education : institutional responses for quality outcomes (pp. 97-112). Madison, Wis.: Atwood Pub.
  3. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28(3), 801-831.
  4. Berg, M. (1997). Formal tools and medical practices: Getting computer-based decision techniques to work. In G. C. Bowker, S. L. Star, W. Turner & L. Gasser (Eds.), Social science, technical systems, and cooperative work : Beyond the great divide (pp. 301 -330). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  5. Berge, Z. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom in higher education. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine, 2(3), 39-41.
  6. Berge, Z. (1998). Barriers to online teaching in post-secondary insitutions: Can policy changes fix it? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(2), 12 pages. Retrieved 17/07/2004 from http://www.westga.edu/\~distance/Berge2012.html.
  7. Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  8. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action, and belief : a new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196-233). London ; Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  9. Cheetham, G. (1999). The acquisition of professional competence. Unpublished PhD, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.
  10. Collis, B. (1994). Collaborative learning and CSCW: Research perspectives for interworked educational environments. In R. a. M. Lewis, P. (Ed.), Lessons from learning (pp. 81-104). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.
  11. Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1996). Changing times and accounts: tales from an organisation field. In R. Munro & J. Mouritsen (Eds.), Accountability: Power, ethos and the technologies of managing. (pp. 307-328). London: International Thomson Business Press.
  12. Downes, S. (2006). Learning networks and connective knowledge. Retrieved 10/04, Accessed 10/04/2010 http://www.downes.ca/files/lnck.doc, from http://www.downes.ca/files/lnck.doc
  13. Downes, S. (2007). What connectivism is, Accessed 10/02/2010 http://www.halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html
  14. Edwards, R. (2010). The hidden curriculum of codes: A question of semantics? Paper presented at the 2010 EASST Conference, University of Trento, Italy.
  15. Edwards, R., & Usher, R. (2000). Globalisation and pedagogy : Space, place, and identity. London: Routledge.
  16. Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(1), 113-130.
  17. Fenwick, T. (2010). Re-thinking the 'thing': Socio-material approaches to understanding and researching learning in work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(1/2), 104-116.
  18. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century : A framework for research and practice. London ; New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
  19. Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge : the texture of workplace learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
  20. Gherardi, S., Yanow, D., & Nicolini, D. (2003). Knowing in organizations : a practice- based approach. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
  21. Harasim, L. (1995). Learning networks : A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, Mass. ; London: MIT Press.
  22. Harasim, L. (2000). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(1-2), 41-61.
  23. Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 47-62.
  24. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology : a project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 1017-1044). London: Prentice Hall.
  25. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action : How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  26. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social : an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
  27. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press.
  28. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching : A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
  29. Law, J. (1986). Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  30. Law, J. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor Network Theory and after (pp. 1-14). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  31. Law, J. (2007). Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics. Retrieved 12/09/2010 http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2007ANTandMaterialSemiotic s.pdf Law, J. (2008). On sociology and STS, Accessed 11/10/2010 http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2008OnSociologyAndSTS.pdf
  32. Law, J. (2009). Actor-network theory and material semiotics. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory. (3rd ed., pp. 141-158). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
  33. Law, J., & Mol, A. (1995). Notes on materiality and sociality. Sociological Review, 43(2), 274-294.
  34. Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.
  35. Mol, A. (2006). The logic of care: Health and the problem of patient choice. London: Routledge.
  36. Mol, A., & Law, J. (1994). Regions, networks and fluids: Anaemia and social topology. Social Studies of Science, 24, 641-671.
  37. Mol, A., Moser, I., & Pols, J. (Eds.). (2010). Care in Practice: On Tinkering in clinics, homes and farms. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, Rutgers University.
  38. Mulcahy, D. (Forthcoming). Assembling the 'accomplished' teacher: The performativity and politics of professional teaching standards. Educational Philosophy and Theory.
  39. Mulcahy, M. D. (1998). Designing the user/Using the design: The shifting relations of a curriculum technology change. Social Studies of Science, 28(1), 5-37.
  40. Nespor, J. (1994). Knowledge in motion : space, time, and curriculum in undergraduate physics and management. London ; Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press.
  41. Nespor, J. (1997). Tangled up in school : politics, space, bodies, and signs in the educational process. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
  42. Nespor, J. (2003). Undergraduate curricula as networks and trajectories. In R. Edwards & R. Usher (Eds.), Space, curriculum, and learning (pp. 93-108). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publ.
  43. Nespor, J. (2004). Educational scale-making. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 12(3), 309-326.
  44. Nespor, J. (2006). Technology and the politics of instruction. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  45. Nespor, J. (2009). Devices and educational change. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-23.
  46. Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  47. Postle, G. (2003). Online teaching and learning in higher education: A case study (Report). Canberra: DEST. Department of Education, Science and Training. Evaluations and Investigations Programme Research, Analysis and Evaluation group.
  48. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88.
  49. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.
  50. Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities : the key to active online learning. London: Kogan Page.
  51. Sherry, L., Tavalin, F., & Billig, S. (1999). Good online conversation: building on research to inform practice. Retrieved 17/09/2002, from http://www.webproject.org/pdf/oeri.pdf
  52. Siemens, G. (2005a). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1).
  53. Siemens, G. (2005b). Connectivism: Learning as network-creation. Retrieved 10/04/2010, Accessed 10/04/2010, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/networks.htm
  54. Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing knowledge, Accessed 12/02/2010 http://www.elearnspace.org/KnowingKnowledge\_LowRes.pdf
  55. Siemens, G., & Tittenberger, P. (2009). Handbook of emerging technolgoies for learning, Accessed 22/03/2010 http://www.umanitoba.ca/learning\_technologies/cetl/HETL.pdf
  56. Sorensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in educational practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  57. Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In M. N. Huhns & L. G. Gasser (Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 37 -54). Los Altos, California: Morgan Kaufmann.
  58. Star, S. L., & Greisemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, 'translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.
  59. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions : the problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ;
  60. Suchman, L. (2001). Human/Machine reconsidered. Retrieved 14/04/2002, from http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc0401s.html
  61. Suchman, L. (2005). Affiliative objects. Organization, 12(3), 379-399.
  62. Turkle, S. (1995). Paradoxical reactions and powerful ideas: educational computing in a department of physics. In M. A. Shields (Ed.), Work and technology in higher education : the social construction of academic computing (pp. 37 -64). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  63. von Glaserfeld, E. (1996). Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism : theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 3-7). New York: Teachers College Press.
  64. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  65. Waltz, S. B. (2004). Giving artifacts a voice? Bringing into account technology in educational analysis. Educational Theory, 54(2), 157 -172.
  66. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice : Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
  67. Winance, M. (2010). Care and disability: Practices of experimenting, tinkering with, and arranging people and technical aids. In A. Mol, I. Moser & J. Pols (Eds.), Care in Practice: On Tinkering in clinics, homes and farms (pp. 93-117). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, Rutgers University.
  68. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: an analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175.