Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Knowledgeability and modes of identification in (dis)embodied boundary practice in networked learning.

164 views

Published on

Paper presented at the Networked Learning conference, May 14-15, 2018, Zagreb, Chroatia

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Knowledgeability and modes of identification in (dis)embodied boundary practice in networked learning.

  1. 1. KNOWLEDGEABILITY AND MODES OF IDENTIFICATION IN (DIS)EMBODIED BOUNDARY PRACTICE IN NETWORKED LEARNING Marianne Riis, Senior Lecturer, Ph.d. – University College Copenhagen, Denmark Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Professor, Ph.d. – Aalborg University, Denmark
  2. 2. AGENDA •Background •Focus •Method and context •A socio-cultural perspective on design for learning •Boundary practice and boundary objects •Findings from study I ( a 2DVLE, 2006) •Findings from study II (a 3DVLE, 2016) •Discussion → a socio-material perspective on design for learning
  3. 3. BACKGROUND •All learning – especially networked learning - involves boundaries •Learning and collaborating at and across boundaries is complex due to lack of shared vocabulary, habits, world view etc. •Boundary objects → a way of talking about objects that mediate knowledge between practices and discourses ↓ •The challenge is to create possibilities for the learners to participate in meaningful ways while transcending the boundaries
  4. 4. FOCUS •Differences and similarities in 2D and 3D virtual learning environments (VLE) with regards to boundary practices and boundary objects •Two studies at the same educational programme 10 years apart The Master Programme of ICT and Learning (MIL) at Aalborg University, Denmark •Students were predominantly in-service teachers •Students and teachers/researchers only met f2f four times a online teaching and learning
  5. 5. METHOD AND CONTEXT Analysis of findings from two different studies: •Study I (Dirckinck-Holmfeld, 2006) – focus on student learning and practice in a project-based module •Study II (Riis, 2016) – focus on student engagement, learning practice in a course-based module •In both studies the students were asked to work with real from their practices → Problem-Oriented Project Pedagogy
  6. 6. DOMINANT FEATURES IN THE TWO SETTINGS
  7. 7. A SOCIO-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE Initially a socio-cultural perspective on learning:  Learning is constructed  Learning is social  Learning is situated  Learning is mediated  Learning is distributed  Learning is coming to be (Riis, 2016)
  8. 8. KNOWLEDGEABILITY AND IDENTIFICATION Knowledgeability: the body of knowledge and complex relations that people build and maintain between intersecting practices ↓ Identity modulation through modes of identification (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger Trayner, 2015) (Riis, 2016)
  9. 9. BOUNDARIES IN EDUCATION Akkerman & Bakker (2011): •A boundary is any socio-cultural difference that leads to discontinuity in action or interaction •Not static or predefined, but rather experienced subjectively and contextually Wenger-Trayner et al. (2017): •Boundaries should be regarded as learning assets – design for boundary practices
  10. 10. BOUNDARY OBJECTS Star & Griesemer (1989): an object that serves to mediate several intersecting social worlds while simultaneously satisfying both Carlile (2002;2004): ‘effective’ boundary objects hierarchically organized ←
  11. 11. BOUNDARY OBJECTS IN 2D – STUDY I •Group products •Ideal types of frameworks, concepts, models •Standards and guidelines •Communication infrastructure ↓ •...What determines the ‘efficiency’ of boundary objects is relational to the situation and to the objectives (Dirckinck-Holmfeld, 2006, p. 7) •Efficiency of boundary objects depends on design
  12. 12. BOUNDARY OBJECTS IN STUDY I
  13. 13. BOUNDARY OBJECTS IN 3D – STUDY II •Group products •Ideal types of frameworks, concepts, models •Standards and guidelines •Communication infrastructure •The avatar •It was through the avatar the students experienced and participated in the learning activities → the materialisation of identity struggles and a medium of agency and performance •Boundaries are not only cultural, but material as well
  14. 14. BOUNDARY OBJECTS IN STUDY II
  15. 15. BOUNDARY OBJECTS IN THE TWO STUDIES
  16. 16. A SOCIO-MATERIAL PERSPECTIVE The question of producing knowledge and learning shifts from a representational idiom, mapping and understanding a world that is out there, to a view that the world is doing things, full of agency. Not only humans act, because non-humans act on and with humans. (Fenwick, Edwards & Sawchuk, 2011, p. 3) ↓ •Attention to the entanglement of material artifacts and the bodily performance of the learners – still entwined with discourse! •Facilitation of boundary practices emphasizing the dependencies between agency and identity
  17. 17. DESIGN FOR LEARNING IN NETWORKED POPP In both studies the strongest dependency between learners and boundary objects, occurred in relation to the dialogical and collaborative fabric of the learning designs, calling for a continued focus on the social and relational aspects of design for learning in problem- oriented and problem-based networked learning.
  18. 18. Questions?
  19. 19. REFERENCES Paper available at: http://networkedlearningconference.org.uk/abstracts/riis.html

×