I borrowed the phrase in my title from Harasim (2017, p. 25) as she metaphorically depicts the idea of computer networking that was set in motion with the creation of Arpanet and eventually becoming a reality thanks to the Internet. In truth, this beautiful expression belongs to contract law which refers to “when a valid offer is made by one party and accepted by another” (Greene, 2022) but is also defined by the Oxford online dictionary (n.d.) as “a close understanding between people with similar ideas”. With the development of the internet and digital technologies, the traditional classroom context no longer remained the sole modality for education to take place, eventually leading to the reality of networked learning, whereby a meeting of minds could take place differently.
.jpg)
Harasim (2017, pp. 29-30)
distinguishes amongst different modes of online learning, ranging from the
adjunct mode to the fully online mode. However, as Fawns (2019, cited in NLEC, 2020, p.
313) clarifies in discussing the awkwardness of such a generic term, “it can
obscure the embodied and physically situated nature of learning”. It is thus that the term networked learning goes
beyond the notion of learning as simply mediated by online technologies but
focuses more holistically on the intermingling of three significant factors:
the “human/inter-personal relationships”, “technology” and “collaborative
engagement in valued activity” (NLEC, 2020, p. 314).
Such intertwining of
human and non-human elements has been taken up by sociomaterial approaches to learning. The focus on the interactions deployed
amongst all the ‘things’, including “students, teachers, learning activities
and spaces, knowledge representations such as texts, pedagogy, curriculum
content, and so forth” (Fenwick, 2015) has decentred the human being, who is
therefore no longer the only subject. Let
me consider for a moment the MONHE program I am reading for and the ways it is
playing out with multiple interactions amongst lecturers, learners, university
administrative staff, the VLE, chats, forums, blogs, online resources provided
by lecturers and learners such as journal articles or slide decks, further
texts cross-referenced within other texts and hyperlinks, online repositories
as well as textbooks in print which we might access via our personal or
university libraries. The interactions
are multitudinous in this particular networked learning context, considering
that the former are “gatherings of heterogenous natural, technical and
cognitive elements” (Fenwick, 2015). The
beauty of such sociomaterial approaches is that they lean towards Heidegger’s idea
of being-in-the-world. The latter is
aptly delineated by Terry Eagleton (1996, p. 54) as a world wherein “[w]e
emerge as subjects from inside a reality which we can never fully objectify,
which encompasses both ‘subject’ and ‘object’, which is inexhaustible in its
meanings and which constitutes us quite as much as we constitute it”. A meeting of minds with connotations
of equality!
Networked learning in
this sense becomes an exercise in humility, whereby in our interactions with other
human (as well as non-human) elements, we gain an increased awareness of the
limits of our knowledge(s) but also, the increased possibilities brought about
by such learning being collaborative and mutual. As described by Bates (2019) in citing Wenger
(2000), “more important is the generation of newer or deeper levels of
knowledge through the sum of the group activity”. Traditional classroom hierarchies in
networked learning are broken down both physically and cognitively, no longer experiencing education via
a know-it-all god-like teacher on podium with passive students at their seat. As stated by McConnell et al. (2012, cited in
Cutajar, 2018, p. 79):
“In networked learning (NL) practice…there
is a significant shift from the prevalent classroom-based lecture…Teachers are
assumed to take a less prominent position permitting students to experience
learning through active participation in cooperative and collaborative activities
with others.”
This
becomes especially possible in Higher Education where students (assuming here
more maturity and in possession of a greater portfolio of experiences and
knowledge) can usually contribute to the shared knowledge of the cohort,
leading to what Dr. Maria Cutajar (2018, p. 91) refers to as “NL
participants…as teachers and learners for each other”.
The Networked
Learning Editorial Collective (2020, p. 316) critique the customary definition of
NL as being “restricted to formal education”.
In reality, NL can include less formal contexts which bring together
people with a shared interest, such as for instance communities of practice
(Wenger, 2004). Digital technologies have definitely enabled
communities of practice even further and may promote an education that is far
from being transmissive but more focused on knowledge-sharing “between more or
less equal participants” (Bates, 2019). A
meeting of minds would yet again be an apt description for CoPs.
If NL is taking apart
the traditional hierarchies and creating a transformative education reminiscent
of Freire’s (2016) call against a banking education, or as Connell (2019, p. 49) describes it, “empty-vessel pedagogy”, is NL all
good? As with everything, nothing comes
without its challenges. Paola Tubaro
(2016) in fact questions whether platforms are “the new face of hierarchy”, and
if that is so, novel hierarchies, albeit different ones, may still
prevail. Moreover, the body of knowledge
relating to NL may as yet be one-sided rather than multi-faceted to be a fairer
representation of the world. As claimed
by NLEC (2020, p. 317), “[c]ontributions and theory from disadvantaged spaces
and the Global South are few and far between”.
In the face of such challenges or deficits, I do not believe we should forfeit such a positive and hopeful idea as that provided by NL. In NL, a meeting of minds can gain added meaning to those given earlier in the introduction. For the sake of a more socially just world, where there is a lack in the knowledge, we should seek to be more inclusive, not least to aim for a true internationalisation of HE, for a wider and more equitable meeting of minds.
Block 3: Sociomateriality of learning networks and networked learning
References:
Bates, A.W. (2019). Teaching in a Digital
Age. Second Edition. Tony
Bates Associates Ltd. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev2/
Connell, R. (2019). The Good University: What universities actually
do and why it’s time for radical change. Zed Books Ltd.
Cutajar,
M. (2018). Variation in Students’ Perceptions of Others for Learning. In:
Bonderup Dohn, N., Cranmer, S., Sime, JA., de Laat, M., Ryberg, T. (eds) Networked
Learning. Research in Networked Learning. (pp. 79 –
94) Springer,
Cham. https://doi-org.ejournals.um.edu.mt/10.1007/978-3-319-74857-3_5.
Eagleton, T. (1996). Literary
Theory: An Introduction. Second Edition. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Fenwick, T. (2015). Sociomateriality and
Learning: a critical approach. In D. Scott & E. Hargreaves (Eds.), The
Sage handbook of learning. Sage publishers.
Freire, P.
(1996). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin.
Greene, M. R. (2022, July 29). insurance. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/insurance.
Harasim, L. (2017). Learning
Theory and Online Technologies. Routledge.
Networked Learning Editorial Collective (NLEC). (2020). Networked
Learning: Inviting Redefinition. Postdigital Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00167-8
Oxford Learners’ Dictionaries. (n.d.) meeting of minds. In Oxford
Learners’ Dictionaries. Retrieved from meeting
noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced
Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com
Tubaro, P. (2016) Hierarchy,
market or network? The disruptive world of the digital platform.
Data Big and Small. https://databigandsmall.com/2016/04/07/hierarchy-market-or-network-the-disruptive-world-ofthe-digital-platform/.
Wenger, E. (2004). Communities of
practice: A brief introduction. [Electronic version]. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/11736
You show how Networked Learning can be seen as ‘an exercise in humility’, and I appreciate this viewpoint where humans understand their limits and possibilities. Perhaps, it can also be seen as ‘an exercise in power’ and in the wrong hands, networked learning can also lead to unethical use of power and control. Do you agree with this, and which safeguarding measures can ensure equitable Networked Learning?
ReplyDeleteYes I would agree and it probably is already so. Who owns the major platforms, which as I quoted Tubaro saying, are the new face of hierarchy, will affect after all the market, the workforce, the conditions...there are always biases and agendas. In fact, why is it that research in NL is far from being a fair representation? Regarding measures I would say that charity begins at home so a good solid education that promotes critical thinking and allows for diversity is key in all countries. That is where it starts and everybody should be given the right of education, regardless of money or status.
Delete