ABSTRACT p. 2

The position of educators as ‘knowledgeable others’ has been challenged as experts can be found online and learners can control their own learning. Social media are changing adult education, because they offer tremendous potential to enhance learning processes. But do they really? p. 2

This doctoral thesis questions the connectivist premise of epistemological transformation. It investigates the position of the learner in the learning experience and his/her level of control in comparison to the tutor and the institution. It examines how social media can be used effectively in communication in learning. This longitudinal qualitative study shows how students, tutors and staff negotiated the intricacies of social media in a formal adult education setting. The researcher surveyed learners participating in three online networks and immersed herself in one for nine months. p. 2

The results show that Web 2.0 technologies can facilitate a high level of communication amongst learners and educators, and consequently raise the level of “presence” in the online environment. New technologies were seen to foster engagement and self-directed learning. The role of adult educators was seen as crucial for all learners, and for those displaying higher levels of autonomy, the educator was perceived as a trusted “human filter” of information. The research adds to the under-conceptualized field of networked learning in the Web 2.0 era, and challenges the notion that knowledge and learning are revolutionized by new social media. It shows that a trusted “knowledgeable other” is still at the heart of a meaningful learning experience. Finally, the thesis provides recommendations for adult educators and institutions to enhance their effectiveness in networked environments characterized by changing attitudes toward interaction for learning. p. 2

the shift in discourse from adult continuing education to lifelong learning (Edwards & Usher 1998) p. 12

Several commentators (Wellman et al, 2003, Shearman, 2000) have indicated that the introduction of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) has blurred the boundaries between home, work, leisure, learning and play, and has reshaped our life-styles and social interaction, while creating a new form of literacy. Being able to read books is not enough to function well in society, “effective” citizens also have to be able to “read” new media, understand and learn from interactive learning programmes and adjust to new ways of communicating. Self-directed and informal learning from videos, television programmes and computers have gained in popularity and a more consumer-oriented field of adult education has been born (Field 1996) in which the learner chooses learning opportunities that suit him or her and which take place wherever he or she likes at the time most appropriate to him or her. p. 12

Learners, particularly adult learners, make choices about the level of control imposed by others on their lives and their learning. Indeed, the choice to study at an institution and with a tutor on a classroom-based course or to study on a course mediated through technology will mean a different level of control imposed on the learning process by different actors and on the different aspects of learning itself. p. 13

The changed position of educational institutions such as universities due to the altered sense of space, place and identity in a virtual learning space has been lamented as a loss, as universities were seen as places where people came together, where minds met and where new ideas were conceived, criticised and tested and provisionally accepted if they were found to stand up sufficiently robustly under criticism. Some academics have expressed reservations about the networked alternatives (Greener & Perriton, 2005) suggesting that Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) have neither managed to be convincing in areas such as communication and in engaging students, nor are they an effective alternative to the actual classroom. However, proponents of the use of peer-to-peer technology in education have argued that tools such as wikis and blogs, the new social media and “Web 2.0 technologies”, can fulfil exactly this role (Downes, 2006; Lamb, B., 2004). p. 13

Peters was reminded of rites with religious undertones, which link location, time and action: ‘Learning and teaching might be based on unconscious, but at the same time “deep-seated” patterns of behaviour, not only of students but also of the teachers. Their ritualisation lends solidity and permanence to the actions taking place in the teaching space’ (Peters, 1999, p. 1) p. 14

Although informal teaching has taken place before, it is only recently that suggestions have been made to seriously change the education system and leave the traditional classroom behind, initially in the 1970s through the radical perspectives of Freire and Illich, and in the past decades, under the influence of developing technologies. Learning Technologists, teachers and learners have started to question the effectiveness of the teaching strategies developed over generations (Peters, 1999; Illich, 1971; Freire, 1972). p. 14

In E-learning over the past decades two different positions on the main aspects in people’s learning have developed (Weller, 2007). In the first view, information and resources are seen to be at the centre of the learning environment, while in the second, communication is seen to be the most important to develop a positive learning environment. Some argue that an emphasis on resources has lead in elearning to the delivery of education as a commodity, which suggested that technology would not be suitable to bring into practice the ideas of Illich and Freire that became prominent in the 1970s. Gur and Wiley (2007, p. 1), for instance, discuss the concept of objectification in relation to online learning and conclude that ‘education is often reduced to the packaging and delivery of information, in which the process of teaching is reduced to the transmission of information and courses are transformed into courseware.’ The development of VLEs has facilitated this depersonalization of learning, as communication in such environments has been seen to be problematic, and turned teaching into “delivery” and the process of teaching p. 14

into a transaction consisting of the transmission of information. Intelligent tutoring is another example of how the delivery of content could be at the centre of learning. p. 15

Weller (2007) highlighted that e-learning might be organised in quite a different way. In the second model information would be related to two-way communication. In this view of e-learning, ‘The Internet encourages discussion, dialogue and community that is not limited by time or place. The role of educators in this world is to facilitate dialogue and support students in their understanding of resources’ (Weller, 2007, p.6). p. 15

Communication has had a place in distance education since the 70s, when Turoff introduced and developed the first conferencing system that progressed into becoming full conferencing and personal messaging systems such as Lotus Notes, Forum, First Class and Participate (Harasim, 1995), which contained synchronous and asynchronous systems. In the late 1980s distance education institutions started their development towards the use of the VLE, which has formed a natural progression from the use of early conferencing systems such as First Class (Mason and Bacsich, 1998). The VLE combines communication with the distribution of resources and information. p. 15

Especially the use of Web 2.0 technologies have been seen to make possible the development of lifelong and lifewide learning with possibilities to facilitate informal and self-directed learning and also opportunities to enhance communication in the online learning environment (Siemens, 2008; Downes, 2009; Dron and Anderson, 2009) p. 15

The first discussions about their 4 p. 15

possibilities for education and learning started about five years ago, just before this study was started (Downes, 2004) and the need for research that analyses critically how Web 2.0 technologies might alter adult learning and teaching in and outside educational institutions was also identified (Conole et al, 2006, Gulati, 2006) p. 16

It became clear very early on that digital inclusion not only involves access to technology and networked connectivity, but especially gaining confidence and realising that technology has relevance to one’s life, and breaking down barriers similar to non-participation in learning. p. 17

Terry Freedman advocated robust research in the use of social software in education to determine if the anecdotes by enthusiasts are a valid indication of the long-term positive effect of the new social tools (Freeman, 2006). p. 17

Gulati’s research in the learning experience of professional students on online and blended courses questioned the use of institutionally controlled VLEs and in particular their discussion boards. Students used informal strategies for communication and learning outside the formal environment to complement the formal structures because the discussion boards created difficulties in the communication process between learners, and between learners and their tutors. She recommended that ‘the new and existing strategies for online socialising needed to be studied for their effectiveness in enabling group and social identities in the formal educational contexts’ (Gulati, 2003, p. 50). p. 17

The speculations amongst technologists on the positive and negative effects of social media and their possible disruption of adult education have raised two interlinked research questions: p. 18

1. The interpersonal informal online networks that people build up throughout their lives provide expertise and knowledge in addition to the guidance that tutors offer in formal education. p. 18

Would it be desirable for the learner to be at the centre of the learning experience rather than the tutor and the institution? p. 18

Other more specific questions will be discussed in answering this research question: How much control could and should be passed over from the institution to the learner in a technology-rich environment to enhance the learning experience? Should students have more say in the content of the learning opportunity and the route the learning journey takes? What would be the implications for the institution? What would be the implications for the concept, reliability and validity of knowledge if knowledge is investigated and created on online networks independently from the institution? p. 18

2. What Web 2.0 technologies could be used effectively in communication and in learning? p. 19

How could their use enhance or hinder the learning experience of adults? p. 19

The term “online networks” will be used throughout this study and will mean networks of people who share information on the World Wide Web. A node on the network will signify a person, or a group of people, distributing and sharing information. p. 19

The design of the online learning environment will be an important factor in the educational issues researched as the design of the learning space influences the learning experience (Barab & Squire, 2004; Cobb et al, 2003; The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003) as well as the informal learning space. Barab and Squire propose that ‘cognition is not a thing located within the individual thinker but is a process that is distributed across the knower, the environment in which knowledge occurs, and the activity in which the learner participates’ (Barab & Squire, 2004, p. 1). The context is an important factor in the learning process, as has been conclusively shown by educationalists and psychologists over the past decades (Bruner, 1999; Lave and Wenger, 2002). This means that the contextual realities need to be taken into consideration when researching adult learning and technology. Moreover, the environment in which young people operate is also an important consideration. p. 19

Research aim p. 20

To investigate how people learn and teach while using social media, and the challenges and opportunities they face, in two different settings: the ABCD project in a formal education institution, and on three online networks. p. 20

In recent years the traditional view of knowledge in a rapidly changing world has been challenged (Lyotard, 1984; O’Hara, 2002; Lankshear et al, 2003; Lewis, 1999; Glaser, 1999). p. 22

History of the internet p. 23

It should be noted however that research is now available that shows that the Internet and the WWW do not act as non-hierarchical networks (Barabasi, 2003; Jones, 2004; Mejias, 2009; Burke, 2007; Bouchard, 2010 forthcoming). p. 24

Control, not freedom has become absolutely distributed and while we enjoy unprecedented access to information and personal communications devices, we are simultaneously smothered by the cloying ubiquity of networks that have no outside, while our media is characterized as “the most highly controlled mass media hitherto known.” (Burke, 2007, p.54) p. 25

Barabasi looked at the mathematics of the Internet and Web as networks and found that they do not perform as “random” networks, but as “scale-free” networks. The difference would be ruled by two characteristics: “growth” and “preferential attachment”, showing that this type of network grows “one node at a time” and that a node chooses to what other node it connects. The more connections a node already has, the more likely it is that other nodes will connect to it (Barabasi, 2003, P.86), thus creating “hubs”. This implies that there are power-relations on the network and Barabasi’s research shows that networks are not neutral. Bouchard (2010, in press) also questions the possibility of hierarchy-free peer to peer connections on the Web: p. 25

However, the notion of 'supernode' predictably emerges when some contributors are recognized by a number of others as having particular relevance to, or knowledge of a problem. There seems to be a natural tendency within the 'perfectly' democratic network to organize itself, over time, in a hierarchical system composed of leaders and followers. We are then left with a social organization that resembles the 'outside' world of government and commerce, with the difference that the currency of exchange in the network is not money or power, but reputation and popularity. (Bouchard, 2010, p. 3) p. 25

Wellman et al (2003) and Jones et al (2008) highlighted another issue relevant to networks on which humans interact; that of the quality of the connection between the nodes. On some networks, such as groups in online class rooms, people have “strong” ties, while on other networks, such as the open online Web, people make connections that are not as strong; they call them “weak” ties. There is a different level of engagement between strong and weak ties. Dron and Anderson (2007) argue that there is a stronger commitment to activities in “groups’, than on “networks”, where the ties are weaker. p. 25

Barabasi found that participants on networks are not only selective, but that the nature of networks prevents network “surfers” from having access to all information at the same level. p. 25

The most intriguing result of our Web-mapping project was the complete absence of democracy, fairness, and egalitarian values on the Web. We learned that the topology of the Web prevents us from seeing anything but a mere handful of the billion documents out there. (Barabasi, 2003, p. 56) p. 26

learning in a network environment p. 26

Fischer and Naumer’s research on people’s information habits found that most people have ‘deeply engrained habitual patterns in seeking information’ (Fischer & Naumer, 2006, p. 2) Their research shows that people will first and foremost find information from people with whom they have a strong relationship, which are usually found in their circle of family, close friends and their local communities and in places such as doctors’ surgeries and libraries. Pettigrew et al state that the Internet is supplementing these ‘information grounds’ and is also creating new options for obtaining information (Pettigrew, 1999). The exponential growth and wide availability of information on the Internet has been seen by some as crucial for the new knowledge industries to perform well and also to offer new opportunities for innovation of old ones. Others see this development as problematic (Burkeman & Johnson, 2005; Bruce, 2000; Armstrong, 2004; Gandel et al, 2004; McKie, 2000; Sandbothe, 2000). p. 26

Burkeman and Johnson wonder if we really want all this new information? They highlight that; The end result of a perfect search world is that as fast as answers are generated and consumed, new questions come quicker, with the consequence that ignorance expands. . . What we know that we don’t know expands faster than what we know. . . . there is this sense that the world is out there to be Googled. But linking from one thing to another is not the same as having something to say. A structured thought is more than a link.’ (Burkeman & Johnson, 2005, p. 5) p. 26

Furthermore, Hagel explains that there are other problems with the information abundance and introduces the notion of the “attention economy”. In an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate the attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it. (Hagel, 2006, p. 1) p. 27

Goldhaber (1997) posits that, by using new technologies, we might end up chatting, but not necessarily about anything of substance. The abundance of information and the poverty of attention could be the cause of changes in thinking processes. p. 27

Suggestions have been made that these new ways of working might influence our thought processes (Bauerlein, 2008; Armstrong, 2004). Dennis and Al-Obaidi (2010) for instance compare changes in modes of thinking and concepts through the new technologies with an “epistemic rupture”, while Greenfield problematizes Internet use as opposed to the book. When we read a book usually authors take you by the hand and you travel from the beginning to the middle to the end in a continuous narrative series of interconnected steps. It may not be a journey with which you agree or that you enjoy, but none the less as you turn the pages one train of thought succeeds the last in a logical fashion. (Greenfield, 2006, p. 1) p. 27

She argues how in traditional education teachers and tutors compare and contrast narratives with one another and help people with the building of a conceptual framework in doing so (Greenfield, 2006, p. 1; Greenfield, 2004). p. 27

Greenfield is concerned however, that if people do not have access to a robust conceptual framework developed over time with the help of knowledgeable others, they might have problems constructing knowledge (Greenfield, 2004). p. 28

Bass, on the other hand, highlighted that there is a great deal of evidence to show that electronic environments encourage analytical and reflective practice. In addition, ‘there are clear indications that the electronic era will provide an unprecedented opportunity for immersion in archival and primary materials, and consequently the making of meaning in cultural and historical analysis for all kinds of learners, from novice to expert’ (Bass, 1999, p1.). p. 29

Bruce saw the information abundance as an advantage over earlier media in ‘the way it can open up our questions. We ask one thing, but the Web leads us to ask more questions and to become aware of how much we do not know’ (Bruce, 2000, p. 107). He would like us to use the Internet not to “pick and choose” what fits in with our own points of view, but also to take on board what discomfits, and to look for alternatives that make us think. It should perhaps be questioned if people will do this of their own accord or that they will need the guidance of an educator. He saw the greatest challenge as a change of our search strategies from looking something up, to incorporating web-searching into thinking and reflection processes in order to enable a fruitful investigation. New emerging collaborative tools that facilitate networking and communication with others might aid in developing such a referencing strategy. p. 29

Tim Berners-Lee saw the development of the Web as follows: The basic idea of the Web was that of an information space through which people can communicate, but communicate in a special way: communicate by sharing their knowledge in a pool. The idea was not just that it should be a big browsing medium. The idea was that everybody would be putting their ideas in, as well as taking them out. This [the Internet] is not supposed to be a glorified television channel. (Berners-Lee, 1999, p. 1) p. 29

The scale and anonymity of the potential audience discourages the kind of personal engagement that might be found in a conversation. The predominantly passive experience of the Web may have reduced in users the capacity for a dialogical response, in spite of the constant emphasis in the ostensible interactivity of Web use. (Standish, 2000, p. 166) p. 30

Dewey saw communication as the most important aspect in making people what they are: mind, consciousness, thinking, subjectivity, meaning, intelligence, language, rationality, logic, inference and truth – all of these things that philosophers over the centuries have considered to be part of the natural ‘make-up’ of human beings – only come into existence through and as result of communication. Dewey (1958, p. 17) p. 30

y communication with others our inner thoughts become clear. In addition, meaning making in communication does not happen for only one participant of the activity. ‘It is because people share in a common activity, that their ideas and emotions are transformed as a result of and in function of the activity in which they participate’. It is not one or the other participant that changes, both participants will be influenced by communication (Biesta, 2006, p. 17-19). p. 30

Meyerson (2001, pg.36) highlighted that in technologically mediated communication we might replace a dialogue between people, ’the human pursuit of common understanding’, with an exchange of messages. He analysed Habermas’ ideas of communication who questioned if it would at all be possible to reach a shared understanding of the world through an exchange of messages. Meyerson perceived a message to be a one-dimensional version of meaning and a ‘narrowed-down model of meaning’ (Meyerson, 2001, pg.40). p. 31

Siemens agrees with this and argued that the more connections with other people we can make, and the more networks we are connected to, the better we will communicate, as long as we have effective structures in place to access and syndicate the messages (Siemens, 2006a, 2008) p. 31

If this is compared with Dewey’s ideas of communication, it seems that the emphasis has changed from “communicating with others and both learning and changing through the interaction”, to a much “looser” form of communication. Wellman (2003) compared these differences forms of communication as the differences between “strong” and “weak” ties” between people. The intensity in the level of communication is different. p. 31

Mortensen and Walker, two academics working on blogs. They explain that our blogs became tools with which to think about our research, its values, connections and links to other aspects of the world. They altered the way in which we approached online communication, and have influenced the writing of both our dissertations. (Mortensen & Walker, 2002, p. 249-251) p. 33

How wikis work p. 34

Tagging and folksonomies p. 34

RSS and semantic web p. 35

Some learning technologists, researchers and educators (Siemens, 2008b; Downes, 2006; Arina, 2006) advocate that Web 2.0 and semantic web technologies could be useful in the educational arena as they could foster informal learning through communication and collaboration with others on online networks in combination with intelligent recommender systems. p. 36

Who has access to the internet p. 38

Young people and technology p. 40

Another example is how people experience immersive environments such as computer games. They use keyboard and mouse unconsciously and are only partially aware what happens around them; they reach a “flow state” (Metros, 2001) in which they lose awareness of the physical world around them, and get totally absorbed in the playful activity. p. 42

While in the past the university would have been the authority in matters of knowledge, there are currently multiple sources of authority (Siemens, 2006b; Delanty, 2001) p. 43

Spencer discussed the shift from liberal adult education towards postmodern ways of thinking and describes some critical views (Spencer, 2004, p. 7), e.g. by Taylor et al who criticized postmodernism as ‘dangerous or ignorant or both’ and argued that it provides a ‘theoretical gloss’ for determinist views on technological change and apologies for ‘free market cultures’. They called for institutions to revitalise Enlightenment humanism. On the other end of the scale one finds people who attack postmodernism with a utopian stance, and feel that the potential of ICT for knowledge creation is not emphasised enough. Raschke (2003, p.102) compared ‘traditional teaching to listening to a Mahler p. 44

symphony on a CD player with headphones while online education is comparable to playing the violin in the orchestra’. This is an analogy that would appeal to Downes and Siemens who both argue that connecting to people in online networks and to online information enhances knowledge creation (Siemens, 2006c; Downes, 2006) as the forming of networks and extensive communication in communities of interest will generate new ideas and a joint quest for new concepts. In section 2.3.3.3. the different views of knowledge will be discussed and analysed as the view that knowledge can be created and constructed is contested. p. 45

Sim (2001, p. 40) discussed another one of Lyotard’s dislikes for computers, namely the way they facilitate the thinking process. She highlighted how they are driven too much by performativity rather than by the unpredictability of human thought. ‘In what we call thinking the mind isn’t “directed” but suspended. You don’t give it rules. You teach it to receive.’ Sim further explained: ‘Computers on the other hand are so directed, and lack the element of rule-defying creativity-or, for that matter, sheer bloody-minded contrariness that is built into the fabric of the human. Without such creativity, Lyotard contends, thinking cannot transpire’ (Sim, 2001, p. 40). p. 45

In a time of profound change it would be wise to reflect on the question “What is education for?” Philosophers of education throughout the ages have pondered this question, and the main issues identified were: the involvement of the state in education, who should be educated, and if education should be a social endeavour or if it should be tailored towards individual interests and abilities (Noddings, 1998). Some would argue that the function of education is to facilitate individual growth in a person, who can then live wisely and serve the wider community (Wheelahan, 2005; Midgley, 1989). Liberal adult educators would argue that education is still the route to emancipation and social change (Delanty, 2001). In a postmodern society, however, governments invest most educational funding in upgrading the skills of the population in order for the country to compete in a global market. Even though politicians aspire to education for social justice in their rhetoric, in reality the majority of the money is spent on skills development (Blunkett, 1998; Leitch, 2006). p. 45

Lee identifies in the teenagers of today a way of “chaotic” learning, happily venturing into the unknown, and learning as they “do” and discover. . . .The “Net” users appear at ease handling a variety of tasks at once, and moving from one activity to another in a seemingly random manner. [They] not only make extensive use of the electronic networks, but network with like minded folk across the world in their learning. (Lee, 2000, p. 1) p. 49

The organisation of information and communication into searchable and interlinked systems has become crucial and is seen to change the overload of information into manageable systems. p. 49

Downes points out that knowledge acquisition does require evaluation and assimilation (Downes, 2003) while Drucker, when discussing e-Learning in the business sector, argues that ‘success depends less on the amount of information you have than on the number of connections you can form and reform to link information and people’ (Drucker, 2000, p. 6). For information to transform into knowledge, human thinking and interaction will be required. Furthermore, as Gulati (2003) and Selwyn and Gorard (2004) argue, for ICTassisted learning to really become effective, formal learning needs to be complemented with informal online learning as students need opportunities to relate what they learn to their own context. p. 49

some learning technologists (Arina, 2006; Wilson et al, 2006; Lankshear & Knobel, 2006) envisage how they can be used to move from a hierarchical teaching approach that is structured in courses, controlled by the institution using a lecturing model in an enclosed environment, accumulating individual knowledge, to a networked approach that is adaptive to learners’ needs, that uses an aggregation model in a personalised open learning environment, that is a fluid extension of the wider informal personal space and that facilitates a new way of knowing and learning. p. 50

Peters (1999) described some of the characteristics of the virtual learning space: the locations are not set, they are not surrounded by walls, but are open and infinite; people can access learning spaces all over the world and people all over the globe, and the amount of information is limitless; the distances between the people involved are variable and varied – one moment people could be interacting with somebody from another country, in another the interaction could be with friends in the same town. Distances do not have an effect on the interaction, and the spaces appear more valueneutral than in the traditional learning environment, and do not have a quality of experience comparable with real spaces. The familiar spatial patterns are missing: left, right, top, bottom don’t matter, it is the hyperlink that connects. In the words of Turkle: all representation is ‘liberated from the constraints of physical reality’ (Turkle, 1995, p.  p. 53

2.3.3. Theories of mind, knowledge and (online) learning Leach et al (1999) at the Open University adapted Alexander’s framework to give a good overview, not only of the observable influences on institutional teaching practice, such as the subjects taught, the administration and pedagogy used, but also of the views, cultures and beliefs that act upon the curriculum in a more subtle way. These influences are not always obvious in day-to-day practice, but teachers are steeped in ideas, beliefs and cultures that influence teaching and learning; ideas rooted in past traditions but still evolving. Figure 1 highlights the influences on educational practice. p. 54

Leach et al (1999, p. 9.) raise some key questions in relation to education: ‘What is an educated person? Why should learners be educated in this way? What should learners learn? And how should it be learned, taught and assessed’? Their framework only deals with formal education based in an institution, but as technology affords possibilities for different, more informal and personalised learning, an informal, networked approach of learning will also be taken into account. p. 55

An important aspect of understanding how people learn is informed by psychology and before considering the theories of the mind relevant to this thesis a brief outline of the main developments in the discipline will be outlined. p. 55

History of psychology p. 56

In the early twentieth century, Watson launched the behaviourist approach to psychology in reaction to the perceived lack of success and objectivity of both the subjective approach of Freud and the introspective studies of Wundt. Behaviourism emphasised the method of laboratory based animal experiments which avoided any reference to the conscious mind and focussed attention on the relationship between behaviour and the environment. Behaviourist methodology had much in common with philosophical positivism and dominated academic psychology until the second half of the twentieth century. This broadly biological approach to psychology has much in common with evolution as an explanation in psychology which has become important in recent decades. (Lyons, 2001) p. 56

The rise of computer science, ideas about information processing, and developments in neuroscience led to the development of the broad field of cognitive science. (Lyons, 2001) A recent influential trend in cognitive science, influenced by ecology, is the consideration of the importance of the environment in addition to the mind and body – situated cognition (Robbins & Aydede, 2008) . p. 56

The thesis will mostly focus on aspects of the cognitive science picture of the mind – the symbol processing / computational model and the situated view - although some reference to behaviourism will be made. p. 56

2.3.3.1. Theories of mind p. 56

Education theorists grappling with the way the mind works have asked a number of questions to establish what influences our learning: How important is the world “inside” our minds when we come to grips with the social processes and artefacts around us? How important is context in the way we acquire knowledge? Educationalists have wondered about the importance of our answers to these questions in devising strategies p. 56

for teaching and learning. The two theoretical traditions within cognitive science already identified for further discussion of this issue are: 1. The “symbol-processing” or “computational” view of mind. The focus of theorists in this tradition has been to understand learning in terms of an individual’s internal mental processing and the symbolic representations of mind. 2. The “situated” view of mind or “culturalism”. In the situated approach theorists see human knowledge and interaction as inseparable from the world in which they operate. (Bruner, 1999) p. 57

Bredo explored the symbol-processing view of mind and provided following definition: ‘The human brain is seen as an information processing system that receives encoded messages through its sensory and motor connections, which interact with information held in its memory, to make sense of them by creating a symbol representation of the problem and using heuristics to identify solutions.’ (Bredo, 1999, p. 28.) p. 57

He identified three dualisms on which this approach is based, Firstly a separation of language and reality. The symbol-processing view of mind accepts that symbols mirror reality. Knowledge is seen as a store of representations, which can be translated into language, which can then be used for reasoning. The only way to find out if our representations of the world are correct is by checking them against the world, which is difficult in this view, as our only contact with the world is via these representations. The second dualism on which the computational view of mind is based, is the separation of mind and body. All learning is seen in terms of conceptual processes located in the individual’s head, without physical interaction with the surroundings. Bredo describes as the third dualism the split between the individual and society. In the symbolprocessing perspective thinking, learning and development are seen as processes taking place inside the individual, with social influences coming from the outside. There is a separation of the learner from the environment, with the learner seen as acting on the environment, rather than as being immersed in it. There is a divide between the knower and the known. Bruner saw this view as involved with information processing: ‘how finite, coded, unambiguous information about the world is inscribed, sorted, collated, retrieved, and generally managed by a computational device.’ (Bruner, 1999, p. 148) In his view this is not the only way the mind works. p. 57

2.3.3.1.2. The situated view of mind Bruner argued that the symbol-processing theory of mind might not offer enough of a view on how the mind works as ‘the process of knowing is often messier, more fraught with ambiguity than such a view allows.’ He also highlighted that how the mind works might depend on the tools it has at its disposal and that with the addition of computers to books in recent years we might ‘change our mind on how mind works.’ Bruner further argued that the mind would not exist without culture and that human knowledge and interaction are inseparable from the world. ‘Although meanings are in the mind, they find their origin and meaning in the community in which they were created. . . . It is culture that provides the tools for organizing and understanding our worlds in communicable ways’ (Bruner, 1999, p. 148-149). The mind is both represented by and realized in the use of human culture. This mode is not only shared by a community, but also passed on from generation to generation to maintain a culture’s way of life and identity. Meanings are in the mind, but they find their origin and meaning in the community in which they were created. Human knowledge and interaction are inseparable from the world. p. 58

2.3.3.1.3. The biological view If we compare these views of mind with biological theories of the brain, starting with the view of Galton in 1869, who argued that human intelligence was largely a matter of genetic inheritance, we can conclude that views have changed considerably over the years. The belief in innate capacities has influenced what was taught, who was taught and how subjects were taught for many years. Research into the effects of coaching and practice on IQ test results has challenged the belief in innate ability. In their argument for the provision of opportunities for all, rather than only to support people with great aptitude for music, Sloboda et al explained how early learning opportunities in music increase musical ability greatly (Sloboda et al, 1999). Edelman who studied the nervous system in detail, saw the mind as a mechanism that continuously communicates through the active maps of the brain and he saw experience as active and constructed by the individual (Sacks, 1999). This is in line with the situated view of mind, which sees the learner acting with rather than on the environment. It is in contrast to the symbol-processing p. 58

view of mind and memory as a database. It also resonates with Resnick’s view of a brain as being “plastic”: it will change through intellectual activity (Leach et al, 1999). p. 59

2.3.3.2. Theories of knowledge p. 59

Throughout the ages the concept of knowledge has been defined in different ways. The earliest accounts of discussions on knowledge, which I will throughout this thesis refer to as “traditional knowledge” were associated with Plato’s Republic (Lewis, 1999). Plato made the distinction between episteme, knowledge, which was valued highly as it was considered to be pure truth, and which was reached by means of intelligence and reason, exemplified in mathematics. Doxa on the other hand was “opinion”, and included the visible physical realm, culture, that could never be “true knowledge”. Knowledge was identified with justified true belief and has a reliability that belief does not have (O’Hara, 2002; Delanty, 2001). This idea was developed by the classical thinkers of antiquity and the medieval scholars (Hadot, 2002) but even today there is an important sense in which Plato’s definition of p. 59

knowledge is still considered to capture an important aspect of the concept of knowledge (Boghossian,2007; Gutting, 2009) . However, this changed in emphasis and detail substantially with the invention of the printing press. p. 60

Since the Enlightenment and in the era of “mass print literacy”, the textbook was the medium of instruction and the prime goal of the education system was effective transmission of the canons of scholarship. This traditional form of knowledge was shaped inside the university, which meant that universities were the authority of knowledge. Knowledge was closely related to the sciences and seen to be objective, based on facts. In the more human areas of science, e.g. ecology and psychology, the objectivity started to be lost to a certain extent as the context in which these domains were situated were seen to play a more prominent role. Usher et al state that postmodernism enables a questioning of the scientific attitude and scientific method, of the universal efficacy of technical-instrumental reason, and of the stance of objectivity and value-neutrality in the making of knowledge claims. (Usher et al, 1997, p.7) p. 60

In late modernity, in addition to traditional knowledge, “useful knowledge” became more prominent. Knowledge became commodified and its main value was to be its usefulness to society (Wheelahan, 2005; Delanty, 2001); the application of knowledge, which is problem-driven and characterised by the context of its application. It crosses boundaries of disciplines, is seen by some to be more creative and less hierarchical than traditional knowledge, and is shaped outside the university (Wheelahan, 2005). ‘Traditional knowledge is homogenous and relatively autonomous. Useful knowledge is heterogeneous and, it is claimed, more socially accountable and reflexive’ (Delanty, 2001, p. 110). p. 60

Some argue that the authority of particular people in developing knowledge has been influenced by the circumstances of the time. Gandel et al (2004) stated that in antiquity the scarcity of written material ensured a highly controlled environment. Knowledge dissemination was slow and access to knowledge and learning was restricted to the privileged elite. The prevailing technologies did not allow for extensive distribution until printing was invented and developed (Gandel et al, 2004). At that time the need for expertise in social and economic development required universities to be developed, but mainly disciplinary knowledge was valued and taught. Guy argued that ‘the debate – p. 60

indeed the war – over what counts as knowledge is intrinsically linked to who gets to say what counts as knowledge’ and that the people who were the authority on knowledge throughout the ages might have only shown one part of the knowledge picture because of the context in which they operated (Guy, 2004, p. 142). Does this imply that a different type of knowledge is called for? p. 61

Barnett (2004) had his own interpretations of knowledge in relation to uncertainty and change. He would like to see curriculum and pedagogy to move away from knowledge and skills to be a “pedagogy for human beings”. He discussed a third form of knowledge which would involve learners thinking about and confronting themselves with the uncertainties and dilemmas in their lives and in their field of knowledge, in which the human being itself is implicated. This is similar to ideas by Beck (1986) and Jansen & van der Veen (1992) on learning in the Risk Society. Delanty broadened this from individual learners to society and institutions: ‘By knowledge I mean the capacity of a society for learning, a cognitive capacity that is related to the production of cultural models and institutional innovation’ (Delanty, 2001, p. 5). He particularly referred to the way knowledge has penetrated all areas of life. The notion of a knowledge society has developed at a time when the distance between professional and lay knowledge has diminished. p. 61

Wheelahan, when discussing vocational education, indicates that a person needs all three modes of knowledge to live in an ever changing world: Learning that is entirely based in the work-place or in the educational institution is inadequate – both are needed, and students need to be able to make connections between them. This provides the scaffolding students can use to consider propositional knowledge – it is not to be learnt for its own sake or as dead knowledge, but as an intellectual tool to be used in practice. (Wheelahan, 2005, p. 639) p. 61

The Internet has added fuel to the debate on knowledge as learning technologists can see a different form of knowledge emerging through the connective nature of new Internet tools. Downes speaks of ‘connected knowledge’, Siemens of ‘Connectivism’. They argue that ‘knowledge … is distributive, that is, not located in any given place (and therefore not ‘transferred’ or ‘transacted’ per se) but rather consists of the network of connections p. 61

formed from experience and interactions with a knowing community’ (Downes, 2006, p. 1). p. 62

The third form of knowledge, as defined by Barnett and Wheelahan (2005), and ideas of distributive knowledge are contested. Paul Boghossian (2007) for instance rejects these forms of knowledge. He emphasises the need for knowledge to be objective. He particularly values ‘universality’ and ‘mind-independence’ of knowledge. In addition, he sees ‘justified true belief’ as the best definition of ‘knowledge’ and rejects knowledge as ‘socially constructed’. He does not deny that knowledge could be produced collaboratively, or that people’s social and political values may influence the knowledge they produce; but he argues that ‘many facts about the world are independent of us, and hence independent of our social values and interests’ (Boghossian, 2007, p. 20). He further claims that there should always be evidence to support that particular beliefs are independent from our social background to transform them into knowledge. He rejects the relativist view that constructivists, such as Rorty, hold that there are no facts independent from the world in which people live and that the justification of facts will never be independent from us and our social context. p. 62

Rorty (1997) does not reject the traditional view of knowledge and truth, but argues that they are always influenced by the context in which they are applied. He also states that as soon as we try to think about these concepts in an abstract way and move away from their contextual application, they lose their core critical content and do not provide us with guidance to action at all; they become semantic ‘word games’ without substantive meaning to everyday life. p. 62

2.3.3.3. Theories of learning - From Behaviourism to Connectivism p. 62

Many theories of learning have been proposed over the ages and two main positions have been identified in these theories, although some cross between the two positions: 1. Didactic models linked to symbol-processing views of mind, such as behaviourism and cognitivism, where the tutor is thought to transmit knowledge and the student will acquire it. 2. Models linked to situated views of mind, such as social constructivism and community of practice, where the learner is thought to build on experience and formerly acquired knowledge by participating and interacting in a social context (Rogers, 2002). Sfard (1998) related these two positions in theories of learning to the way learners p. 62

interact with knowledge. The first group was linked to an “acquisition metaphor”, while the second group of views was linked to a “participation metaphor”. To provide clarity about theories of learning, these metaphors will be used to highlight the major differences for learners in each theory. p. 63

In the introduction of this section, 2.3.3. , psychological issues in relation to behaviourism have already been highlighted. Behaviourism has developed a considerable body of ideas and methods that show how to shape and modify behaviour and aid learning. These approaches concentrate on overt behaviour. Behaviourists posit that we learn by receiving stimuli from our environment that provokes a response. The teacher reinforces the approved responses while discouraging the ‘wrong’ responses. An example would be training how to ride a bike or car, or indeed the acquisition of almost any skill. Once acquired these skills are no longer subject to any conscious thought and this typifies the most important area of behaviourist method for this dissertation. Indeed, behaviourist research has discovered a wealth of learning that requires no, or almost no, conscious thought. This makes the acquisition metaphor the only one applicable to this theory. Of course, conditioning by reinforcing, encouraging, and discouraging, implies that the tutor is in charge in this interaction; he or she is allknowing and leads the process. This may be most appropriate for skills training but perhaps less appropriate for more complex learning and thinking. p. 63

In cognitivism the subject material that the teacher-agent has chosen and that the learner seeks to master dominates the learning process. On the one end of the spectrum a form of computational learning takes place, but moving to the other side, more reflection and reasoning take place in learning. There is an active engagement of the mind in learning . Both behaviourist and cognitive theorists recognise that low-level and high-level learning takes place. Learning is hierarchical and advances as more and more learning takes place. Not all learners will achieve the highest level. In this view knowledge can be thought of as a commodity, easily divided into ‘chunks’ which can be digested and internalized by learners. The acquisition metaphor applies. Once acquired, knowledge can be ‘banked’ as an abstract entity stored in the mind of the learner (Freire, 1972). p. 63

Constructivism developed from cognitivism and, in addition to the subject knowledge that tutors supply, formerly acquired knowledge and experience of students is 52 p. 63

acknowledged and students are encouraged to actively construct their ways of knowing, while building an understanding linking what they learn with their personal experience. There should be room for self-directed problem solving, so the participation metaphor applies and a tutor will have to allow for a dynamic process, give more options to allow for students with different backgrounds. p. 64

From this developed social-constructivism with which the name of Vygotsky is most often connected. He identified two important elements in the learning process: “language” and “scaffolding.” He noted that children used self-talk to work their way through complex problems and externalized them through self-guidance and selfdirection. This is important as social interaction with others helps to formulate speech in the child. In addition, instructional scaffolding, in the form of encouragement and reviewing of materials provides support for learning and problem solving and reduces complex problems into “manageable chunks” (Kop & Hill, 2008). Social interaction and participation in activities with (more knowledgeable) others are key to this view of learning and make the participation metaphor most appropriate. p. 64

Wenger, while arguing for social interaction, suggests that learning does not only take place within a learning institution: ‘Our institutions . . . are largely based on the assumption that learning is an individual process, that it has a beginning and an end, that it is best separated from the rest of our activities, and that it is the result of teaching’ (Wenger, 1998, p. 3). He put forward that learning is lifelong and lifewide, embedded in our lives. Other theorists have argued that most of our learning takes place outside a formal classroom (Illich, 1971, Dron, 2002). With the introduction of new technologies a new intensity in the debate on the role of informal and non-formal learning has ignited. (Sharples et al, 2005; Gulati, 2006; Selwyn, 2005; Vavoula, 2005; Downes, 2006). p. 64

We learn across space as we take ideas and learning resources gained in one location and apply or develop them in another. We learn across time, by revisiting knowledge that was gained in an earlier, in a different context, and more broadly, through ideas and strategies gained in earlier years providing a framework for a lifetime of learning. We move from topic to topic, managing a range of personal learning projects, rather than following a single curriculum. (Sharples et al, 2005, p. 2) p. 64

Lave and Wenger researched the way people learn in their daily lives and suggested the typology of a ”community of practice”, which is based on the premises that humans are p. 64

social beings, that knowledge is developed through active engagement in valued undertakings. Learning is no longer seen as individual, but learners make sense of their surroundings in a social setting, by communicating with others. Knowledge is situated within a community, and knowledge is dependent on its social context. People build on earlier experiences and knowledge (Lave & Wenger, 2002). Translating this into an educational environment, they aim to leave behind a curriculum dominated by the teacher, the institution and the government, and to embrace a curriculum in which the students take control of their learning, make connections with their own experiences and knowledge in cooperative activities with their fellow learners. Initially the tutor might be the expert, but by engaging the learners in participation in problem-solving activities, information gathering exercises and communication with peers, experts facilitate their move from the periphery to the centre of the learning community, which they call “legitimate peripheral participation”. They advocate an apprenticeship model, where the master guides the apprentice to the centre of the community of practice. Active participation in learning activities, rather than passively receiving knowledge from the teacher is key in their theory and Sfard’s (1998) metaphor of participation would fit best. p. 65

Fenwick described the notion of ecological pedagogy that takes this one step further. She argues that ‘pedagogy is grounded not only in community and in social relations, but also in the natural, the cultural and biological. Learning is embedded in our lived-in world”. (Fenwick, 2005, p.1.). p. 65

Siemens (2008a) and Downes (2006) have argued in the past few years that it is time for a new learning theory fit for the 21st century that would take account of the new technological realities of the Internet and the new tools it brings with it. They started a debate via the Internet, in the blogosphere in 2005, through online global conferences (200 participants in 2007) and large online courses (number of participants 2200 in 2008). As their ideas are pertinent to this thesis, their theory has been examined more closely than the other theories. p. 65

2.3.3.3.1. Is Connectivism a learning theory? p. 65

Kop and Hill (2008) in Connectivism: Learning Theory of the Future or Vestige of the Past? provided an analysis of a body of literature to establish if Connectivism can be p. 65

2.3.4. Discussion of theories of online learning and knowledge p. 68

Lave and Wenger (2002) and Cobb (1999) emphasised constructivist and socio-cultural perspectives, aimed at leaving behind a teaching curriculum dominated by the teacher as expert in her discipline, and embracing a learning curriculum in which the students take control over their own learning, making connections with their own experiences and knowledge in cooperative activities with fellowlearners (Lave & Wenger, 2002; Cobb, 1999). Active participation in collaborative learning activities would be at the heart of the learning experience, rather than passively receiving traditional knowledge from the teacher. This active element, and especially in a social context, has been embraced by p. 68

developers of e-learning (Salmon, 2004; Laferièrre, 2006). The crux to active learning and understanding of new concepts in these views would be online collaboration. (Laferièrre, 2006; Mayes, 2002; Salmon, 2004, Gur & Wiley, 2007). Furthermore, as Mayes suggests, ‘activity, motivation and learning are all related to a need for a positive sense of identity shaped by social forces’ (Mayes, 2002, p. 169). In the words of Lyotard: ‘A self does not amount to much, but no self is an island; each exists in a fabric of relations that is now more complex and mobile than ever before’ (Lyotard, 1984, p. 15). p. 69

Sfard (1998) emphasised, however, that it might not be a good idea to totally disregard theories that adhere to the acquisition metaphor rather than the participation one, as in situated theories knowledge is not only based on participation, but also on experience and earlier acquired knowledge that might have been acquired. p. 69

2.3.4.1. Connected learning – networked learning p. 69

Siemens, Downes, and Rennie & Mason have all argued that something fundamentally has changed with the latest developments of the Web: the ease of communication and also the possibilities to use aggregators to bundle communications and information together and filter them has meant that the context of learning has changed (Downes, 2006; Siemens, 2006; Rennie & Mason, 2004). Downes coined the phrase ‘connective knowledge’, Siemens speaks of ‘Connectivism’, Rennie and Mason speak of ‘the connecticon’. All three speak of connected learning. Goodyear et al (2004) and Dirckinck-Holmfeld et al (2009) seem to prefer the term networked learning. There does not seem to be a fundamental difference between the two forms of learning, apart from a preference by particular authors to use one or the other term. Goodyear mentioned that ‘networked learning is a diffuse idea’ (Goodyear, 2009,p.viii) and to clearly understand what we mean by “connected learning” or “networked learning”, it would be good to look at how to define the term. Goodyear et al (2004) defined networked learning as: p. 69

learning in which ICT is used to promote connections: between one learner and other learners; between learners and tutors; between a learning community and its learning resources (2004, p.1.) p. 69

2.3.5. Online pedagogy p. 70

Owen et al explored several models of knowledge building in which the new Internet developments could be used to create a more open and less stifling learning environment. They drew on work by Nonaka, Ashby and Bereiter and Scardamalia to link their findings to the ‘crit’, which is the central feature in the teaching of creative practice in art, design and architecture schools as they could see similarities between the ‘crit’ and Internet-based learning using the latest technologies. ‘It consists of a critical dialogue between peers where work-inprogress is exposed for developmental discussion.’ They identify five qualities for the ‘crit’ to function well: p. 71

Intention/aspiration to create knowledge: a passion which needs encouragement to flourish; autonomy of workers: the students should have freedom to create; fluctuation and creative chaos: there should be few boundaries to the resources and the timescales across which students work (creativity is very difficult to fit into a room with bounded resources and a 50-minute period); redundancy: working on only one idea is counter-productive. Learners should not accept their first idea as the only idea; requisite variety: in this context we might mean sources of inspiration, cultural and physical tools, and sources of knowledge and so on. This implies access to a lot of resources. Thus a good writer’s workshop or art and design studio is not limited in thought, or by the walls, and should draw on all the world’s knowledge. (Owen et al, 2006, p. 36) p. 71

The online community of practice is seen by them as the ideal place to achieve these qualities, as the judgement by a group of trusted people and the place where you can present ideas without fear of rejection are important: ‘acquiring knowledge involves an interplay between socially defined knowledge and personal experience which is mediated by membership of a group’ (Owen et al, 2006, p. 37). p. 71

Illich p. 72

2.3.5.1. Communication and dialogue in online learning p. 72

Issues of power and control, lack of autonomy, high level of tutor support required, in addition to affective issues and a low level of personalisation have all been identified as being challenging (Mason & Weller, 2001; Mann, 2005; Kop, 2006; Conrad, 2005). p. 73

This “transactional nearness” resonates with the thoughts of critical educators such as Freire and Macedo (1999, p. 48) who emphasised that tutors should have a directive role. In this capacity, tutors would enter into a dialogue ‘as a process of learning and knowing’ with learners, rather than the dialogue being a ‘conversation’ that would remain at the level of ‘the individual’s lived experience’. Freire felt that this capacity for critical engagement is not present if the role of educators is reduced to facilitators. It should be questioned if this capacity for critical engagement is possible at all in a connectivist networked environment where people are likely to communicate with likeminded people, rather than look for the challenge that a local tutor would provide. p. 73

Dron & Anderson, presence p. 74

Jones - difference in engagement between strong and weak ties p. 74

Chaves in his “On-Line Curriculum Interaction Model” emphasises the need for the development of ‘virtual community learning platforms’ that would incorporate tools facilitating verbal and nonverbal immediacy (Chaves, 2009, p. 7) in order to really engage learners. p. 74

As technologies have proliferated and immersive environments and games have emerged, the literature on presence has also grown (Metros, 2001; Carroll, 2008; Shedroff, 2009, Anderson, 2008). In Lombard and Ditton’s (1997) literature review on presence six conceptualisations of presence were identified. Even though their review was carried out in the late 90s, the six interrelated variations that they identified on the concept of presence appear to be valid today. They are: p. 74

1. Presence and social richness. p. 74

Scholars interested in communication and organisations identified the word presence with a medium which was ‘perceived as sociable, warm, sensitive, personal and intimate when it is used to interact with other people’ (Lombard & p. 74

Ditton, 1997, p.4). In communications theory it was seen that communications media would have to overcome different communications constraints, such as ‘time, location, permanence, distribution and distance’ and also would be expected to convey the ‘social, symbolic, and nonverbal cues of human communication’. This form of presence is associated with ‘two important forms of non-mediated interpersonal communication: intimacy and immediacy’ in the form of body language through for instance smiling and eye contact, and also voice quality, speech duration and laughter (Lombard & Ditton, 1997, p.4-5). In this sense a medium high in ‘presence as social richness’ would convey a high level of intimacy. In addition, it is suggested that ‘choice of language can help create a sense of psychological closeness or immediacy’ and that the ‘choice of medium for interaction can also influence this sense of immediacy’ (Lombard & Ditton, 1997, p.5) p. 75

2. Presence as realism p. 75

By creating a sense of reality in the pictures they produce and create an experience that would be plausible in real life (Lombard & Ditton, 1997) and thus make that people would like to be involved in the experience. p. 75

3. Presence as transportation p. 75

Presence as transportation could take three forms: it could transport people or scenes from different times or different places to the here and now, it could move us to other locations or other time zones, or these two are mixed to a time and place where they are shared. The idea in this form of presence is ‘the degree to which participants of a telemeeting get the impression of sharing space with interlocutors who are at a remote physical site’ (Mulbach et al, 1995, p.293). This could be in video or film, or through videoconferencing. p. 75

4. Presence and immersion p. 75

In this form of presence the participant perceives to be immersed in a virtual environment. This could entail not only psychological immersion, but also through the senses in for instance immersive virtual reality systems, simulations, IMAX theatres wearing 3D-glasses. As in 2, this would heighten people’s engagement with the experience. p. 76

5. Presence as social actor within medium p. 76

In this form of presence a para-social interaction is created. This would entail for instance that ‘personalities use direct address camera views. . . informal speech patterns, sincerity, and simplicity . . . . In a parasocial interaction media users respond to social cues presented by persons they encounter witin a medium even though it is illogical and even inappropriate to do so’.(Lombard & Ditton, 1997, p.8). A heightened form of presence is created, where it seems that an interaction with the viewer or another person is taking place on the screen, while in reality this is not the case. Examples of these would be avatars, or examples have been highlighted of people talking to people on television screens (Lombard & Ditton, 1997) p. 76

6. Presence as medium as social actor p. 76

In this form of presence participants in the media experience will interact socially to clues provided by computer programmes themselves (not representations of people). It seems that people respond to computers as social entities, especially if there are associations in the activity with social activities in real life, such as education. Lombard and Ditton (1997) gave the example of people being more susceptible to praise by a tutor in an intelligent tutoring system if it was given by a different computer than when their own computer praised its own performance. p. 76

The main characteristic running through all six conceptualisations of presence is that of ‘perceptional illusion of nonmediation’ (Lombard & Ditton, 1997). Lombard and Ditton define presence as follows: p. 76

The computer user experiences the subjective feeling that a medium or media-use experience produces a greater or lesser sense of presence is attributable to there p. 76

being a greater or lesser number of instants during the experience in which the illusion of nonmediation occurs. (Lombard & Ditton, 1997, p. 10) p. 77

In other words, if a participant in an online activity experiences the activity as if it was taking place in real life, without the mediation of the computer there is a high level of presence. p. 77

Anderson (2008a) analysed how presence relates to online teaching and learning in particular and posit that deep and meaningful learning results if three forms of presence play a role in education. He highlighted cognitive presence, that ensures a certain level of depth in the educational process, which could be compared to “intensity” as highlighted by Shedroff (2009) and “Vividness” by Lombard and Ditton (1997) in the creation of meaningful online experiences. Anderson also refers to social presence, which would be similar to the social presence described by Lombard and Ditton, and in a formal educational environment that of a teacher presence. p. 77

Lombard and Ditton (1997) further expand on the causes and effects of presence and posit the most important factors related to presence are “sensory richness” and “vividness”, which are also issues brought up by Shedroff (2009) as important factors in enhancing online experiences in the form of “sensorial triggers” and “intensity”. Moreover, they highlight that the higher the number of human senses engaged in the activity, the higher the presence experienced will be. Lombard and Ditton (1997) argue that ‘visual media have more social presence than verbal (audio) media, which in turn have more social presence than written media. p. 77

Lombard and Ditton, and Shedroff , all emphasise that the level of interactivity is another aspect that enhances presence. ‘The number of inputs from the user that the medium p. 77

accepts and to which it responds’ could affect presence and the level of experience, while the type of input by the user, ie. through voice, video, or button clicks, and the type of response received was also seen as an influence on the level of presence (Lombard & Ditton, 1997, p.18), in addition to the speed with which the medium responds to user inputs. Furthermore, the number of people involved in the activity was seen as a factor in the level of presence, as was the content of the online presentation during online activities. Moreover, Lombard and Ditton reported on a possible effect of the level of enjoyment and “fun” that people experience on presence, while Metros (2001) described how people moved into a “flow state” in immersive environments that had a positive effect on their involvement in a learning activity. p. 78

Carroll et al (2008) argue that there is a need for such a place in the online learning environment and posit that there are similarities with the concept of “Third Place” as used by Oldenburg, who saw it as an environment that ‘hosts the regular, voluntary, informal and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of home and work’ (Oldenburg, 1989, p.16). Beyond the first and second places of home and work, Oldenburg referred for his third place to physical spaces such as pubs and town squares; informal public places where individuals meet up with others and interact. He argued that the relationships forged in these environments, both close and casual, add richness to society (Carroll et al, 2008). p. 80

Carroll et al (2008) also relate the “Third Place” to “serendipic learning”; ‘learning that occurs by chance in a learner-centred environment in which participants are enabled to build and maintain their online presence’. And they highlighted similarities with the ideas of Pettigrew who writes about the creation of information grounds – ‘i.e. places where individuals meet informally for one purpose but from whose behaviour emerges a social atmosphere that fosters the spontaneous and serendipitous sharing of information' (Carroll et al, 2008, p. 154). Fisher et al (2004 – later writing as Pettigrew) present the propositions of the information grounds framework and Carroll et al (2008) explain that there are aspects of this framework, for instance the fact that different social groups play important roles in the information flow, that people engage in formal and informal information sharing, that people use information in alternative ways and that many sub-contexts exist within information grounds, that can be present in a learner-centred online environment if the concepts of personal and emotional presence are allowed to foster. (Carroll et al, 2008, p. 154) p. 81

2.3.5.4. Interaction – Personalisation – Control p. 81

Several authors have suggested a particular model for e-learning, most notably Gilly Salmon, who developed a 5-step model, initially facilitating access to technology and fostering motivation, followed by online socialisation, after which information exchange between tutor and learner is fostered, followed by knowledge construction and further development (Salmon, 2004). Terry Mayes also developed a model, but that was based on how technology can support three steps of learning: conceptualisation by presenting the subject matter, construction by clearly outlining tasks, and contextualisation where learners make meaning within their own contexts, at which stage communication and feedback with the tutor are required. He also noted advantages in storing the communications of current learners for future learners and creating a form of “vicarious” learning (Mayes, 2002) as an additional dimension. p. 81

Salmon’s model is the most widely used and is linked to an institutionally controlled VLE, where the tutor controls what is happening in the virtual classroom and only in the latter stages of the model the tutor will relinquish some control to the learners. Moule (2007) and Gulati (2006) criticised Salmon’s model. Moule (2007) identified especially p. 81

problems with the length of the period of engagement in the 5-step model and its association to a constructivist view of learning. She contrasts it with the “e-learning ladder model”. The basic difference with this model being it’s acknowledgement of a range of educational theories and pedagogical approaches, including an instructivist one, and not just an over-emphasis on a constructivist learning method. Moule argues that not all e-learning is constructivist, and that in each step the learner adopts different learning approaches relevant to his or her requirements, rather than to follow each step set out in Salmon’s model hierarchically. p. 82

Gulati (2006), in her PhD thesis, questioned if the model supports a constructivist approach at all. She problematised Salmon’s approach by asking a number of questions: Does this linear approach support a socio-constructivist view, in which knowledge building on formerly created knowledge and experience would be possible? Does the requirement to participate in online discussion offer enough options for personalisation? Or is it mainly devised to conform to a tutor-led way of working? Do online learning spaces facilitate trust and are they open enough for learners to ask questions and to question others in line with a constructivist and community of practice view? Does the stress on participation in discussion boards cause power relations that are to the advantage of some and not to others? p. 82

She carried out an extensive review of the research literature to find answers to these questions and found that compulsory participation in asynchronous discussion by learners was more ‘driven by the need for online tutors to monitor their learners, than to promote autonomous, flexible, meaningful, and social constructivist experiences’ (Gulati, 2006, p. 42). Meaning making involves the making of mistakes and reflection on learning. It is doubtful that people will fully expose their thinking processes if their writing is there for all to see and graded by the tutor. Aviv and Picciano found that there is quite a range of difference in the students’ learning processes (Gulati, 2006). Learners construct knowledge in a variety of ways and have a varying need to belong in a community, which all depend on their own needs that originate in their own context. Some people will perform well by not contributing much in discussions, but instead spend time in self-directed study away from the course site, while others perform well by communicating extensively with tutor and other learners. Nonnecke and Preece explain that when people are not participating in the discussion board (otherwise called p. 82

‘lurking’) this is not necessarily a bad thing: ‘Lurking is not free-riding but a form of participation that is both acceptable and beneficial to most online groups. Public posting is only one way in which an online group can benefit from its members’ (Gulati, 2003, p. 51). Research by Bedouin in non-participation in online discussion found that the people who were not very visible in the online classroom ‘spent most time reading assignments, reading others’ comments, web searches, writing assignments and spent less time on writing online messages’ (Gulati, 2003, p. 52). p. 83

Gulati’s research indicated that half of these learners identified themselves as selfdirected learners, rather than social learners. The way people participate in online discussion depends, apart from a tendency to autonomous learning, also on a number of other factors as argued by Mann and also Levy. They posit that the openness in online dialogue and the power-relations within an online learner group are important issues in creating relations of trust within the online community (Mann, 2005; Levy, 2006). This resonates with Gulati’s research results that also identified that the power relations in the discussion forum influence participation. She found that confidence and affective issues were important aspects, while the level of knowledge displayed by some participants was also a determining influence on the level of participation and confidence of others. Moreover, she noticed that the lack of informality on the discussion board resulted in people moving to other, more direct and informal forms of communication such as email, while the presence of the tutor also deterred some students from participating (Gulati, 2006). This was confirmed by Levy (2006), who used synchronous instant messaging to mimic the informality of classroom communication, which helped some students, but not all. A few very much disliked this instant form of communication and did not use it again, while others thought it a very poor substitute for classroom interaction. p. 83

Gulati indicated that ‘communication-overload’ and a move too soon from ‘lower challenge’ discussion to ‘higher challenge’ discussion meant that learners did not engage as much with the communication activities as anticipated (Gulati, 2006, p. 54). Levy pointed out that discussions were more successful if they were linked to practical activities than if they were used for topic-based and more abstract purposes. Her research supports the view that multiple modes of communication are best to promote a wide participation in learning, as it caters for ‘different communication styles, preferences and purposes’ (Levy, 2006, p. 274). p. 83

Roberts and McInnerney (2007) highlighted some problems with online group learning. They found in their research that most problems are inter-related and the seven most common ones ranged from student antipathy towards group work, the selection of the groups, a lack of essential group-work skills, to “the free-rider”, possible inequalities of student abilities, the withdrawal of group members, and the assessment of individuals within the groups. These are similar problems as have been described for the use of discussion boards. p. 85

Conole et al (2008) carried out research in the student learning experience and included how people used technology outside the formal educational setting and found that students used technology extensively. They highlighted the importance of Web 2.0 technologies and Voice Over Internet Protocol for communication, and web-searching for information. p. 85

. Standish would not use a curriculum that is too closed in online learning: ‘A programmed curriculum dedicated to learning outcomes drains the life out of what is to be learned, yet there are many well-intentioned educators who would develop online education just the same way’ (Standish, 2000, p. 159). p. 86

2.3.5.5. Learner autonomy – self-directed learning p. 86

Gerald Grow (1991) developed a model of ‘matches’ and ‘mismatches’ of teaching styles and learning stages and highlighted the fact that learners move through different phases of self-direction. He also suggested that the tutor helps or hinders that development by imposing different levels of control at different stages of the learning programme. Adult learners make choices about the level of control imposed by others on their learning and the choice to study through an institution and tutor, independently, or mediated through technology will mean a different level of control being imposed on the learning process by different actors and on different aspects of the learning itself. As Dron (2007) emphasised, there is a fine balance between the control of an institution and a tutor on the one hand, and the making of independent choices by the learner on the other. He referred to Knowles, Moore, Boud, Schwartz and Laurillard when he argued that the learning process breaks down if learners have more choice than they can handle, or, likewise, if the tutor imposes p. 86

too much control on the learning process. Bouchard (2009a, p. 96) has identified several factors that are significant in learner control. p. 87

There seems to be a discrepancy between the way people use communication technology on their informal, personal networks and in their educational environment. Dron and Anderson (2007) have given considerable thought to the transactional distance between participants on these networks. They are particularly interested in the use of these networks in an educational context and make a clear distinction between learning in groups, on networks and in collectives. They argued that there is a difference in presence and subsequent engagement in these three entities. They saw the level of emotional engagement and presence being the highest in groups, which would be the typical classroom or distance education student group. They would be lower on online networks, which would typically be the blogosphere, or the large informal online courses that are currently experimented with (Siemens & Downes, 2008, 2009); and the lowest on collectives, which would use tags to connect. Dron and Anderson (2007) emphasised that there is an interrelationship between ‘engagement in learning’, ‘transactional nearness’, and ‘emotional involvement’: the closer the feeling of connectedness, the higher the level of commitment to the learning activity; the closer the relationship with the people involved in the undertaking, the higher the inclination to engage in communication and learning. p. 101

Transactional distance and granularity of collaboration? p. 101

Setting one was an educational setting, and to be more precise, a two and a half year long project that had as its aim the development and delivery of an online programme in a University Department of Adult Continuing Education. The programme plan had a certain flexibility in the way it was developed. It entailed the development of a bespoke learning environment, the use of Web 2.0 technologies on an online adult education programme. p. 119

An ethnographic approach through the use of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, as advocated by Terry Mayes (2006) would allow for the close examination of the experience of 10 learners and 4 tutors as a sample of the participants involved in the programme. p. 120

Through interviews at different stages of the programme it would be possible to elicit their preferences for a tutor-led or learnerled learning environment. By analysing the content of their blogs, wikis and discussion board participation it would be possible to analyse their experience with Web 2.0 tools for communication. In addition a deep understanding of the teacher experiences would be acquired. Analyses of statistics generated by the learning environment would provide an overall picture of how often people used the learning environment and at what critical times. p. 120

A developmental blog that archived the experiences of the design team at each stage of development, and the problems that they experienced in the process, would also be used. p. 120

De Laat highlighted the complexity of researching networked learning in his PhD thesis. He emphasised as key problems, the issues of human agency and the multitude of issues involved, such as the dynamics of the network, power-relations on the network, and the amount of content generated. Effective analysis would require a multi-method approach. He suggested the use of computer-generated content analysis to explore what people are discussing. In addition, interviews with an emphasis on critical event recall focussing on the experiences of participants to find out ‘why they are talking as they do’ and Social Network Analysis to find out the dynamics of the network to see ‘who communicates with whom’ (de Laat, 2006, p. 110). p. 122

To interrogate the research questions in the study effectively, the most fitting research approach in this setting was seen to be an ethnographic approach. I became immersed in the network for nine months, in which I posted on my blog and in which p. 122

I also commented on and linked to other blogs and became a participant observer, taking part in the typical activity on the network. I wrote my own blog, www.ulearnspace.info, to see how easy it was to become enculturated in the network. I became a member of the network of “learning technology”. I was to find the “gatekeepers” and “key-nodes” of the network and research how these networks “worked”. In addition, questionnaires were used with participants on three open online networks to examine the nature of new knowledge generated and if learning took place. This method was also used to establish how reliable participants found the information available through the network, and how important communication was in this process. Were there issues of power and control that prohibited learning in online networks? How did participants’ knowledge develop? Did they need to directly communicate with people, or was the communication that took place between others and the information they provided enough to help the meaning making process? This meant that a limited form of network analysis was used by asking particular questions regarding the networks used by participants to add an extra dimension to the ethnographic method of observation. p. 123

I immersed myself in the worldwide online network of learning technologists as participant observer by creating my own blog (www.u-learnspace.info), where for nine months I wrote regular blog posts related to learning technology: I commented on blogs by other educational technologists, I participated in an online conference on Connectivism and in a very large open online course on Connectivism. I took part in discussions and wikis, wrote blog posts and comments on other people’s blogs and analysed how others participated on the network. I also made an effort to find out who were the important nodes on the network, i.e. the important participants and aggregators of information on the network and asked what made them important. In addition, I analysed who were perceived as being the experts on the network and how easy or difficult it was to move from the periphery of the network to the centre and become a more important member. A qualitative analysis of the network was carried out to find out the roles of the different nodes on the network. p. 129

Connectivism network/course is 1st network p. 129

The two other networks surveyed were of librarian bloggers and of ICT researchers linked to JISC, the Joint Information Systems Committee, a body funded by the UK government to enhance the research and development of Information Technology in education. p. 129

It was impossible to know if all members on the group email list would read all their emails, which meant that it was impossible to know the response rate p. 130

The total number of respondents to the surveys has been 65; 46 on the “learning technology” network, 13 on the “ICT research network” and 6 on the “library blogger” network. p. 130

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS OF THE ABCD PROJECT p. 137

The ABCD Project was a two-year programme for people working or managing a small or medium-sized Enterprise (SME) or Social Enterprise, or volunteering in the community sector, and lead to a Level 1 Higher Education Certificate, a total of 120 credits. Aims were to upgrade the technological, innovation, problem-solving and action research knowledge and skills within their work environment. It was assessed for quality through the usual university quality systems. Learners and tutors were using the latest technologies in both learning and creating online content, which meant that students would learn how to use and produce blogs, podcasts, wikis, social bookmarking, videos and chats in addition to using these tools in their learning and assessments. The first module took place in a face-to-face setting in four areas of the UK. All other modules were online p. 138

From the start of the programme it was envisaged that the learners would move from a very structured learning environment that would be controlled by the tutor towards an environment that would facilitate a higher level of self-direction in the students’ learning approach. There were two clear transitional phases in learner self-direction: during the first phase the learners moved online and were expected to carry out activities by themselves, in cooperation with others. The second phase began during the Action Research module, where learners were expected to make choices about resources. p. 150

Discussion boards, for example, can be problematic because of a variety of reasons. One of these is the power-relations amongst participants in the forum, another one is that forums are sometimes used as “confessionals” and include long monologues, rather than a true dialogue (Kop & Woodward, 2006; Conrad, 2005; Gulati, 2006). These were some of the reasons that a multitude of communications tools were chosen in the design of the ABCD programme. p. 152

JISC has over the past years carried out two research projects into the learning experience (Mayes, 2006; Conole et al, 2006) and this research will add to the knowledge of how adult learners use and experience e-learning and technology would be valuable for the development of tools, pedagogy and teaching practices in adult education. p. 156

the higher the number of interactions in the diary between student and tutor, and the higher the intensity of the interactions and the quality of tutor feedback, the higher the motivation and engagement. This was the same in the chat; the sense of meeting up in the fourth module and enjoying each other’s company created a positive atmosphere in which students engaged more with the course, in the sense that they learnt from each other, tutors and learners alike: p. 161

The Project Manager was initially quite concerned when a learner would not communicate for a week, but by looking at the Moodle “back-office” course statistics, it was possible to see that learners spent a long time accessing different resources. It seems that people need this “lurking” time, when they do not speak to others, but when they are, as the Project Manager called it, “being passively active” in addition to spending time communicating with others. This shows a synergy with the research by Gulati (2006) who highlighted the need in students for time to digest information, while she also found that this was most profound in learners with a high level of learner autonomy. p. 194

She discussed the literature on monitoring discussion boards which says that by using the ‘5-stage Gilly Salmon model’ (which entails a welcoming stage, an induction stage, a teaching stage, a knowledge construction stage, and a development stage; Salmon, 2004) for instance the communication can be good, but the practice on the ABCD project showed that dialogue at a deep level did not happen. p. 200

Higher order thinking was facilitated through engaging activities , such as ‘visualising action research’ where images and podcasts hightened the “intensity” , as was also expressed by Shedroff (2009), and through interactive resources. Moreover, the tutors all thought that especially feedback, the asking of pointed questions and the challenging of beliefs, were the key to a higher level of thinking in the students. p. 208

I need to visit private journals more often, appraise them & respond quicker. Yet also, is it a ‘cop out’ as I have noticed that allowing time for reflection is a very useful strategy – that sometimes quick responses migh impede student reflection and decision making.’ (T4, reflective diary) p. 209

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS OF THE ONLINE NETWORK PROJECT p. 225

We define online networks in this chapter as the scale-free open online Web-based networks (Barabasi, 2003) that were discussed in section 2.2.2. p. 225

In particular the implications for the reliability and validity of knowledge generated on online networks would be relevant, as knowledge is investigated outside the control of the critical tutor and the institution, and is instead developed on the part of the learner by accessing information and connecting with people on online networks. p. 225

Although people on the network were friendly when I communicated with them, it was not easy to entice people into communication with me. p. 227

Perhaps the network of bloggers is not quite the network of non-hierarchical connections that “connectivism” enthusiasts such as Downes (2007b) and Siemens (2006) might like us to believe. The central nodes on networks might perceive that they create many connections to people, but it seems likely that for most other p. 227

participants the links to information and resources are similar to the ones that in formal education would be provided by the library, albeit at a greater scale. p. 228

Participants were then asked how they think best, using the following categories: Do you have to be on your own without distractions? Would it be talking and communicating with people? Is it while you are reading? Is it while watching a video? Is it while writing? Is it when an expert asks questions? Is it when you receive feedback from a knowledgeable person? These categories were ranked equally high in the responses, apart from ‘Is it while you are reading?’, which was considered slightly less important. Apart from these categories, quite a few other issues were seen to be significant. Many were related to having time to reflect. It was interesting that this time was usually also related to relaxation, e.g. thinking while daydreaming, while walking in nature, before falling asleep and at the time of waking up, and while driving long distances. Other responses were: when someone asks a good question, it doesn’t have to be an expert; during creating, producing and observing processes; while visualizing the relatedness of concepts. It seemed that the circumstances that make people think were varied and very much dependent on the context in which they occurred. p. 231

The people behind the main nodes on the learning technology network believed that knowledge is created on networks and made a case for the creation of knowledge on online networks through their Connectivism theory. From my observations and analysis of online networks, I believe they are correct. p. 234

Participants in the survey confirmed that they thought some people on the network were more knowledgeable than others. When asked how they judged if someone was knowledgeable, they found it most important that these people ‘talk about the work of others that I know is interesting’, closely followed by ‘other people on the network discuss what they say’, ‘many people include links to their sites in their blogs’, ‘I like what they say’, and ‘they refer to books and sites that I have read’ (see chart 3). In addition they commented: their work has intellectual integrity; people are inherently  p. 234

knowledgeable, so everyone has some type of knowledge; their analysis resonates with my experience; they can find quickly references to people or readings that matter; they speak from years of personal experience; they provide me with deep questions and new ideas that prompt my own thinking and questioning; they share common interests; the discussion is furthered by their participation; they are experienced and respected in their own field; I meet them at conferences; interesting ideas, practical and theoretical. p. 235

There is a role for “central nodes” on networks, namely to act as “critical friends” as they are the ones entrusted with the role of providers and disseminators of “valid knowledge”, similar to educators in formal institutions. However, participating on networks is informal and there rests no obligation with anyone to feel a responsibility towards validating knowledge, or helping people in their journey of epistemic growth. p. 241

Another level of intensity can be reached by immersion. Metros (2001) for instance described a continuum from a very low level of engagement, eg. using email, to reaching a ‘flow-state’ in computer game simulations, where people are so engrossed in the activity that they do not realize that they are learning. Sensorial and cognitive triggers built into the learning experience can aid a move towards a ‘flow-state’. p. 246

‘There are many ways to view the same thing, though we often become so accustomed to certain standard views that we take the possibilities for granted and forget to even explore alternatives’ (Shedroff, 2009, p. 70). p. 246

‘New cognitive models can often revolutionize an audience’s understanding of data, information, or an experience by helping them understand and reorganize things previously understood in a way that illuminates the topic or experience’ (Shedroff, 2009, p. 60). p. 246

Conole et al (2008) for instance found through their research that more students indicated a dislike for VLEs, rather than a preference. Also that an increasing number of students preferred to use alternative communications channels than the discussion boards provided by the institution and concluded that students need to be able to use the tools that suit them, rather than that the institution imposes their structures on the p. 249

Dron and Anderson (2009) proposed to call “learning management systems” “teaching management systems” instead, which expresses their opinions of LMSs. They would like to see a “mesh-up” of old and new technologies. They support strategies by institutions to discover ‘different ways of assembling what we already have in ways that match the needs of teachers and learners, giving them (rather than technology designers and maintainers) the control they need over their learning environments: (Dron and Anderson, 2009, p. 11). p. 250

6.2. TOWARDS A THEORY OF NETWORKED BUT MEDIATED LEARNING p. 251

Weller (2009) for instance highlighted a move towards a ‘pedagogy of abundance’ as a positive step in a technology-rich learning environment. He argues that on the Web, amongst other issues, content is free and varied and can be shared easily as social interaction is at the heart of the new Web 2.0 tools, and is not taxing as it is at the level of a conversation rather than of a dialogue; it is lightweight and is easy to organize (Weller, 2009). Learning can take place on informal networks rather than in formal institutional structures. Others, however, feel that adult educators also have a duty to be critical of the technologies and teach adults what the implications of the technologies are for their lives. The views expressed by Wheelahan (2007, p. 145) seem more fitting than Weller’s (2009). She promoted a ‘pedagogy for human  p. 251

beings’, where ‘pedagogy itself must be characterized by uncertainty, with knowledge loosely framed, provisional, and open-ended’. She argued that different forms of knowledge are required to be able to live and learn successfully in uncertain times. p. 252

6.2.2.1 Communication: dialogue or conversation? p. 253

In recent years major discussions have taken place about the level of importance and the nature of communication in the processes of learning and teaching. Questions such as “Is knowledge transferred from teacher to learner?” “Do people acquire knowledge or is it produced through participation in activities?” as suggested in Sfard’s metaphors (1998) and “Do people construct knowledge and learn from each other in the context of their community (of practice)?” are at the heart of this debate. As been highlighted by Weller (2007) there are different “camps” in the e-learning community; some who put the main emphasis on “content” while the other puts the main emphasis on communication, and people’s position in this and their responses to the questions above will influence the learning process and, in particular, the vexed question of who will control what takes place and what is being learnt. p. 253

Will a learner explore his online network and find out from his friends what he would like to know, or will the tutor provide him with a particular piece of knowledge? The views of the controlling participant of knowledge and learning will determine who the main communicator during the learning experience is and what the role of the participants in the exchange will be. They will either be active or passive depending on the view of education that the organisation or person in charge holds. p. 253

The participants in the networked learning research experienced their learning quite differently. Although they valued the “central nodes” on the network, their learning was much more independent. As Dron and Anderson (2007) indicate, the emotional level of engagement while learning on networks is lower than in groups and their engagement with the learning activity would typically be lower than that of the learners on the ABCD project, who felt they were part of a group. p. 260

The learners on the networks would “dip in and out” to obtain information, but would not expect close ties with the other participants, although they did show a sense of affinity with the “central nodes” on the network. Between the learners on the ABCD programme these strong ties did develop and influenced the learning experience in a positive way. p. 261

The tutor or instructor in a formal education setting is always available to provide that opposing point of view, and to ask these important questions and devise activities that challenge the learner. How are people challenged into ‘higher order thinking’ in an informal online environment? Kerr suggests that theories that promote technology, including the Connectivist one, do not explain higher-order thinking adequately. He challenges Downes and Siemens to explain ‘transferring understanding, making understanding and building understanding’, and the internal processes that lead to ‘deep thinking and creating understanding’ (Kop & Hill, 2008, p.8). Some suggestions of ‘vicarious’ learning have come to the fore (Mayes, 2002), where recommender systems based on learner data and on data of similar learning experiences by others could help learners to access relevant information to further their learning, but these systems are in their infancy (Downes, 2009a) and will further develop in line with the development of the semantic web (Matthews, 2005) and Personal Learning Environments. p. 261

The participants in the network research however felt that online networks provide opposing views to challenge them as long as the networks are open and diverse. Research observations and participation in networks, however, suggest that people do not respond and comment in depth to what others have written. It is rare that an extensive discussion is carried out, usually on a topic people feel passionate about. p. 262

That means that what is written in the blogosphere remains, in general, in the sphere of beliefs and opinions and highly tuned skills of participants to evaluate the content on the network will be required to find alternative points of view, especially as there is a tendency of people to sign up to networks where they are likely to encounter similar views to the ones they already hold. (Mejias, 2009). p. 262

Much has been written in the literature on education about the need for a knowledgeable other in the learning process. This knowledgeable other can be a parent, an elder in a community, a ‘master’ in a work situation (Lave and Wenger, 2002), a teacher to achieve transformational learning (Freire and Macedo, 1999) or the transfer of knowledge (Rogers, 2002). In an online environment the knowledgable other can be a member of a ‘community web’ as discussed by Illich p. 263

(1971), or a node on a network, not embodied in a person, but as a ‘connection point’ on an online network as envisioned by Downes (2009a) and Siemens (2008b). During the two parts of this study, the knowledgeable other has been shown to play an important role in the learning of others in an informal online setting, a formal one, or a mixture of the two. p. 264

In his PhD thesis Dron (2002, p. 91.) analysed the role of the tutor. He began by setting out how a teacher’s role is firmly based on his or her expertise in a particular p. 266

subject matter. Communicating this subject matter to students and motivating students, ‘making students curious’, are seen as other factors that are important in the teacher’s kaleidoscope of competencies, although Dron emphasized that these motivational factors are extrinsically motivational factors, not intrinsical ones. He also identifies some other teacher roles: the sequencing and structuring of learning activities, in addition to the gathering and organising of resources and the setting and evaluation of learning objectives. Dron not only saw positive roles for the tutor, he also pointed out that the tutors maintain potentially harmful systems, which cause a rigidity and a ‘lack of adaptation to students’ needs and unwanted artefacts, which are antithetical to effective learning, such as examinations and lectures’ (Dron, 2002, p. 101). p. 267

However, as Bouchard (2002) and Dron (2007) emphasised, learner autonomy is not a particular quality or level of independence in learning that people have, but a relational interplay between contextual and personal factors. Depending on people’s life circumstances they will choose what is the right option for them at that time. If they choose a formal course, they will choose to have a tutor who will carry out some tasks for them, such as organizing and gathering of resources, and finding challenging information. p. 269

The more control the tutor hands over to the learner, the more the learner moves towards autonomy as represented in Figure 19. The level of autonomy in a “flow-state-inducing” environment is a contradictory one, as the learner can move and be active in the learning environment and feel in control, while the underlying learning is still planned by an educator. p. 269

Gulati (2006) emphasised the need for formal education to also embrace informal learning as it provides learners with the opportunity to make connections with the knowledge and experience they already hold and to relate it to their context. p. 274

This thesis argues that the emergence of Web 2.0 technologies and the different levels and the nature of connectivity do not necessary change epistemological concepts in themselves. The research suggests that it is still produced by thinking and researching human beings, and transferred and constructed in the teaching and learning process. Claims that knowledge is distributed and resides on online networks do not seem justified as there is not a high level of in-depth communication, but rather monologues: central hubs on networks distributing information. The scale and access to information and knowledge has changed and the speed of the dissemination process has altered. There are possibilities for an increased level of conversation about information that could help learners advance in level of epistemological maturity, but the online conversations on the networks researched rarely exhibited the level appropriate to a dialogue, in which more indepth discussion leads to new knowledge. p. 277

It is also the responsibility of educators to ensure that all students in their care move on to a higher level of development, growth, learning and autonomy. This is where the main differences in formal and informal network-based learning reside: a Web-based “node” can provide any view he or she likes: the onus is on the people negotiating the network to find the opposing points of view in order not to build up a mistaken view of the world. As research has shown, the open WWW has a hierarchical structure and is not the power free environment that some would like us to believe p. 278

(Barabasi, 2003; Mejias, 2009). Negotiating the intricacies of the web requires a high level of autonomy, critical analysis, information literacy and media literacy, which not all adult learners possess. p. 279

In addition to social interaction, a form of vicarious learning (Mayes, 2002) is envisaged in PLEs, where data collected during earlier searches, learning activities and personal profiles will drive databases in finding relevant information for future learning. This in addition to helper applications to make connections to formal education institutions and communications platforms as ‘providing pedagogical driven scaffolds and narratives to support new forms of learning is essential’ (Walton et al, 2008, p. 2) to ensure that information and content for learning are not approached in isolation. After all, particular skills and competencies are required to learn outside an institutional framework. Areas for actively producing artefacts and writing that can be disseminated and discussed online are also seen to be important in PLEs to re-envisage earlier information. p. 282

Rennie & Mason (2004) argued that the connected web, the ‘Connecticon’ as they call it, has empowered people in their learning more than they have ever been before and that the interactions and collaboration around information that the current technologies provide are significant and cannot be disregarded by educators (Rennie & Mason, 2004). p. 286

In the search to make sense of the information overload, to identify the good ideas from the bad, and to spot “the next big thing”, we should realize that it is not only “good” ideas that can grab our attention, but simply the ideas that are best at replicating themselves. As competing ideas attempt to undermine our trust in others, information from trusted sources becomes even more valuable. Although there are increasingly sophisticated technological tools to identify, transfer, and store relevant ideas, this does not undermine the importance of peer support networks, and only serves to strengthen the role of the tutor/teacher as facilitator of knowledge sources, rather than an oracle. (Rennie & Mason, 2004) p. 140) p. 287

7.4. AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH p. 290

1. This research on networks could form the basis of a larger study to find out how people learn in an online environment without a tutor: how do they make sense of the high volume of information available? What hierarchy in knowledge is there on the Web and how does this affect individuals’ learning? Do people still build up affective relations to create a sense of trust with their sources of information? p. 290

2. What level of epistemological maturity is required to cope with the level of autonomy and self-direction required in such an open learning environment? p. 290

What competencies and skills are required to be a self-directed learner independent of institutional support? How does the high level of information affect learners psychologically? p. 291

3. How could Personal Learning Environments help learners? Could they recommend information? Recommend challenging papers to stimulate critical inquiry and thinking in an informal learning environment? Could a PLE bring together people with the same interest? Can information and critical skills development be incorporated in such an environment to foster thinking at a deep level? If PLEs are developed to support learners throughout their lives, a longitudinal study would be appropriate. p. 291

4. What are the effects on society and on people’s learning, positive and negative, of the exponential growth of information and communication caused by the new developments? p. 291

5. How does the Internet as a network of congregating human beings impact on learning? This would best be addressed in an analysis of the power-relations, democracy and equality on networks. p. 291

6. What would educational institutions have to do to remain of importance for intellectual inquiry in a society that is technologically driven? p. 291

7. Would current theories of knowledge, learning and education be sufficient to explain what is happening in formal and informal practice? p. 291

8. What is the learning experience with new technologies and what are the ICT needs of undergraduate learners? A longitudinal study to see how IT is being used, what learner preferences are for its use over a longer period of time. p. 291

APPENDIX 1 RELATED PUBLICATIONS ARTICLES IN ACADEMIC JOURNALS Kop, R. (2010 - in press) The journey towards self-direction: The interplay between tutor and learner in a connectivist learning environment, International Journal of Self-directed Learning. Walters, P. and Kop, R. (2009) Heidegger, digital technology and post-modern education: from Being-in-cyberspace to meeting on MySpace, in Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol.29, No.4, 278-286. Kop, R. and Hill, A. (2008) Connectivism: Learning Theory of the Future or Vestige of the Past? in The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Vol 9, No 3. BOOK (EDITED COLLECTION) R. Kop, S. Downes and G. Siemens (Eds, forthcoming in 2010) Personal Learning Environments and Personal Learning Networks: Understanding learning in a networked learner centred environment, Athabasca University Press, Athabasca. BOOK CHAPTERS Kop, R. and Fournier, H. (2010, in press) Developing a framework for the evaluation of Personal Learning Environments, in R. Kop, S. Downes and G. Siemens (Eds) Personal Learning Environments and Personal Learning Networks: Understanding learning in a networked learner centred environment, Athabasca University Press, Athabasca. Kop, R. and Bouchard, P. (2010, in press) The Role of Adult Educators in the Age of Web 2.0., in M. Thomas (Ed) Web 2.0 in Education: Applying the New Digital Literacies. Kop, R. (2010, in press) Using Web 2.0 tools to create a place that supports communication, in G. Veletsianos (Ed) Using Emerging Technologies in Distance Education, part of the ‘Issues in distance Education’ series, Athabasca University Press, Athabasca. Kop, R. (2007) Blogs and Wikis: Innovative Tools for Informal Knowledge Creation or Technologies Irrelevant to Education? in M. Osborne et al (Eds.) The Pedagogy of Lifelong Learning: Understanding Effective Teaching and Learning in Diverse Contexts, Routledge, London, pg 192-202. CONFERENCE PAPERS Kop, R. (2010) Moving towards a Personal Learning Environment, Annual Conference of The Canadian Network for Innovation in Education, Heritage Matters: Inspiring tomorrow, June 2010. Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada. p. 295

Kop, R. (2009) The journey towards self-direction: A dance between tutor and learner in a connectivist learning environment, 23rd Annual International SelfDirected Learning Symposium, International Society for Self-Directed learning, Cocoa Beach, Florida, USA, February 4-7, 2009. Kop, R., Carroll, F., and Woodward, C. (2008) Sowing the Seeds of Learner Autonomy: Transforming the VLE into a Third Place through the use of Web 2.0 Tools, in Proceedings 7th European Conference on E-Learning, University of Cyprus, Cyprus, 6-7 November 2008, pg 152-160. Kop, R. (2008) Web 2.0 Technologies: Disruptive or Liberating for Adult Education? In S. Lundry and E. Isaac (Eds.) Gateway to the Future of Learning, Proceedings of the 49th Annual Adult Education Research Conference, University of Missouri, St. Louis, Missouri, USA 4-7th June 2008, pg 222-227. Kop, R. (2008) Connecting local and global communities: could Web2.0 technologies invigorate adult education? In Thinking Beyond Borders: Global Ideas, Global Values, Annual Conference Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 1-3 June 2008. Kop, R., Woodward, C. and Carroll, F. (2008) Get your hands dirty: Personalisation for Whom? Digital Learning: Repurposing Education, Plymouth E-learning conference, Plymouth University, 4 April 2008. Kop, R., Carroll, F. and Woodward, C. (2007) Which side of the wall are you on? At the 14th International Conference of the Association for Learning Technology, ALTC 2007: Beyond Control, Learning Technology for the social network generation, Nottingham, UK, 4-6 September 2007. Kop, R. (2006) Blogs, Wikis and VOIP in the virtual learning space: the changing landscape of communication in online learning in D. Whitelock and S. Wheeler (Eds.), ALT-C 2006: The next generation, research proceedings, 13th International Conference, ALT-C, 5-7 September, Heriott-Watt University, Edinburgh, pg. 50-58. Kop, R. (2005) Blogs and Wikis: Innovative tools for informal knowledge creation or technologies irrelevant to education? in What a Difference a Pedagogy Makes: Researching Lifelong Learning and Teaching, Conference proceedings – Volume 1, Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning, Glasgow , pg. 348-355. Kop,R., Woodward, C. and Morgan, G. (2005) Partnerships, progression and professional development: taking teaching and learning online , Towards a global understanding of lifelong learning: making a difference, 2005 annual conference of Forum of Access and Continuing Education, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. p. 296

BIBLIOGRAPHY p. 320