Discussion, collaborative knowledge work and epistemic fluency


I received a request for this paper earlier today. It started life as a keynote at the Networked Learning conference in Lancaster in 2006. Maria Zenios visited us in Sydney later that year, and we were able to work together and develop a more extensive treatment of the issues. We used a recent paper in BJES by Effie MacLellan as a springboard. We combined ideas from Stellan Ohlsson, Allan Collins, Dave Perkins and Carl Bereiter to introduce epistemic tasks, forms, games and fluency. Then we linked this with research on learning through discussion by Helen Askell-Williams and Michael Lawson and by Rob Ellis and myself, to distinguish between weaker and stronger forms of collaborative knowledge building. If you’re serious about helping students prepare for work in complex knowledge creating jobs, then you need the stronger form.

I hadn’t reread this paper for a while, and I think it still stands up quite well. As of today, it’s had 87 citations, not all of them by me. I’m also glad to see that research on learning through discussion in higher education has been growing in the last 10 years. The literature was quite thin in 2006/7.

In 2008, Lina Markauskaite and I wrote a grant proposal that allowed us to do some of the ‘cognitive anthropology’ hinted at in this paper. The outcomes, and a much richer understanding of matters that were only sketched in the BJES paper, can be found in our ‘magnum opus’ – Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer.


Slides from my invited lecture at ascilite

ascilite title slide

This may not be the final version, but will have most of the references, ideas etc.


Analysis and design for complex learning …

Over the last year or so, there has been a good deal of online soul-searching about the field or discipline of educational technology: about its nature, foundations, scope and purpose – including whether and how it can make a difference to policy and practice in higher education, which is ascilite’s home ground. In this talk, I want to focus on the production of educational design knowledge: knowledge that is useful to people who design for other people’s learning. I will use, as an illustrative example, the ACAD framework – an Activity-Centred approach to Analysis and Design – to make some points about the creation of useful design knowledge. In so doing, I hope to (a) draw attention to a family of approaches to research and development that are particularly well-suited to understanding and improving complex learning systems through local action, and (b) explain why analysis and design processes involve epistemic fluency (an ability to work with different kinds of knowledge and ways of knowing). The talk should be of interest to anyone who is concerned about connecting inquiry and action in educational technology.

Activity centred analysis and design in the evolution of learning networks

Screen Shot 2017-06-04 at 10.44.20 am

A talk at the 10th International Conference on Networked Learning at Lancaster University in the UK (May 2016).


This paper provides an overview of, and rationale for, an approach to analysing complex learning networks. The approach involves a strong commitment to providing knowledge which is useful for design and it gives a prime place to the activity of those involved in networked learning. Hence the framework that we are offering is known as “Activity Centred Analysis and Design” or ACAD for short. We have used the ACAD framework in the analysis of 20 or so learning networks. These networks have varied in purpose, scale and complexity and the experience we have gained in trying to understand how these networks function has helped us improve the ACAD framework. This paper shares some of the outcomes of that experience and describes some significant new refinements to how we understand the framework. While the framework is able to deal with a very wide range of learning situations, in this paper we look more closely at some issues which are of particular importance in networked learning. For example, we discuss the distributed nature of design in networked learning – acknowledging the fact that learning networks are almost invariably co-configured by everyone who participates in them, and that this aspect of participation is often explicitly valued and encouraged. We see participation in (re)design as a challenging activity: one that benefits from some structured methods and ways of representing and unpicking the tangles of tasks, activities, tools, places and people

Here’s a pdf of the paper, which is also freely available online as part of the conference proceedings. Cite as: Goodyear, P., & Carvalho, L. (2016). Activity centred analysis and design in the evolution of learning networks. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Networked Learning, Edited by: Cranmer S, Dohn NB, de Laat M, Ryberg T & Sime, JA. Pp218-225. (ISBN 978-1-86220-324-2) http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/abstracts/pdf/P16.pdf

And a copy of the slides, though not all were used in the presentation.


Roberto presents our Design studio paper at CHI

Screen Shot 2017-06-03 at 11.05.23 pm

May 2016: Roberto Martinez-Maldonado presented our work at the CHI conference in San Jose.

Abstract: There is a steadily growing interest in the design of spaces in which multiple interactive surfaces are present and, in turn, in understanding their role in group activity. However, authentic activities in these multi-surface spaces can be complex. Groups commonly use digital and non-digital artefacts, tools and resources, in varied ways depending on their specific social and epistemic goals. Thus, designing for collaboration in such spaces can be very challenging. Importantly, there is still a lack of agreement on how to approach the analysis of groups’ experiences in these heterogeneous spaces. This paper presents an actionable approach that aims to address the complexity of understanding multi-user multi-surface systems. We provide a structure for applying different analytical tools in terms of four closely related dimensions of user activity: the setting, the tasks, the people and the runtime co-configuration. The applicability of our approach is illustrated with six types of analysis of group activity in a multi-surface design studio.

Further information and video on the CHAI website.

QUT HERN Symposium 17 November 2015

I’m really looking forward to being back in Brisbane for a few days – giving a keynote on networked learning at the HERN Symposium: Future Higher Education Research for Future Learning

Slides are here.

The abstract:

In this talk, I will use some of our recent research on networked learning and learning networks to illustrate an approach to researching complex learning situations – an approach which gains power and focus from a commitment to informing real-world design activity. This commitment to serving the needs of (re)design provides a valuable source of constraints on what counts as useful knowledge. In the case of learning networks, periodic redesign can be undertaken by small teams entrusted with the role, or it may be distributed more broadly across many or all involved in the network. Either way, there is a need for methods of analyzing and representing how the network functions, such that those participating in the evolution of the network can co-ordinate their activities.

Some suggestions for follow up reading:

Books on networked learning

Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (Eds.). (2014). The architecture of productive learning networks. New York: Routledge.

Carvalho, L., Goodyear, P., & de Laat, M. (Eds.). (2016). Place-based spaces for networked learning. New York: Routledge.

Jandric, P., & Boras, D. (2015). Critical learning in digital networks. Dordrecht: Springer.

Jones, C. R. (2015). Networked Learning: An educational paradigm for the age of digital networks. Dordrecht: Springer.

Design for learning in HE

Ellis, R., & Goodyear, P. (2010). Students’ experiences of e-learning in higher education: the ecology of sustainable innovation. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Goodyear, P. (2015). Teaching as design. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 2.

Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Abingdon: Routledge.

Background on socio-material; grounded, embodied & distributed cognition

Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor network theory in education. London: Routledge.

Fenwick, T., & Nerland, M. (Eds.). (2014). Reconceptualising professional learning: sociomateral knowledges, practices and responsibilities. London: Routledge.

Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: tracing the sociomaterial. Abingdon: Routledge.

Gatt, C., & Ingold, T. (2013). From description to correspondence: Anthropology in real time. In W. Gunn, T. Otto, & R. Smith (Eds.), Design Anthropology: Theory and Practice (pp. 139-158). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Hodder, I. (2012). Entangled: an archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.

Hutchins, E. (2010). Cognitive ecology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 705-715.

Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. Abingdon: Routledge.

Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: essays on movement, knowledge and description. Abingdon: Routledge.

Ingold, T. (2012). Toward an Ecology of Materials. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 427-442.

Ingold, T. (2013). Making: anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Abingdon: Routledge.

Knappett, C. (2011). Networks of objects, meshworks of things. In T. Ingold (Ed.), Redrawing Anthropology: Materials, Movements, Lines (pp. 45-63): Ashgate.

Knappett, C. (Ed.) (2013). Network analysis in Archaeology: new approaches to regional interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind: a theory of material engagement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Malafouris, L., & Renfrew, C. (Eds.). (2010). The cognitive life of things: recasting the boundaries of the mind. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological ResearchUniversity of Cambridge.

Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (forthcoming, 2016). Epistemic fluency and professional education: innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer.

Online learning doesn’t happen online …

Jo McKenzie tweeted a nicely tidied up comment from me at the ISSOTL conference recently.

Jo tweet

One of the reasons I wanted to mention this at the conference is that good empirical research into the study practices of “online” learning is surprisingly scarce. We have a couple of nice examples of research on people configuring their learning spaces in the next book to come from the Laureate project. The book is called “Place-Based Spaces for Networked Learning” and should be published by Routledge in 2016. Two chapters that are right on the topic:


Chapter 7: THE SONIC SPACES OF ONLINE, DISTANCE LEARNERS  (Michael Sean Gallagher, James Lamb and Sian Bayne)

If you are interested in this area, see also: Kahu, E. R., Stephens, C., Zepke, N. and Leach, L., 2014. Space and time to engage: Mature-aged distance students learn to fit study into their lives. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(4), 523–540 ( http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02601370.2014.884177 )

The Art and Science of Learning Design

There’s a chapter from the work of our ARC Laureate team featuring in this new book. Really pleased with it.

Goodyear, P., Thompson, K., Ashe, D., Pinto, A., Carvalho, L., Parisio, M., . . . Yeoman, P. (In press, 2015). Analysing the structural properties of learning networks: architectural insights into buildable forms. In B. Craft, Y. Mor & M. Maina (Eds.), The art and science of learning design (pp. 15-29). Rotterdam: Sense.

Here’s the Overview


A good repertoire of methods for analysing and sharing ideas about existing designs can make a useful contribution to improving the quality and efficiency of educational design work. Just as architects can improve their practice by studying historic and contemporary buildings, so people who design to help people learn can get better at what they do by understanding the designs of others. Moreover, new design work often has to complement existing provision, so the sensitive analysis of what already exists is an essential part of enhancing, rather than undermining, prior work (Goodyear & Dimitridis, 2013). Since many factors can affect what and how people learn, the scope of analysis for design is broad. In fact, it has to go beyond what has been explicitly designed for learning, to take into account the various configurations of things, places, tasks, activities and people that influence learning. Part of the skill of analysis is knowing how to put a boundary on what one studies (Hutchins, 2010). We believe that analysis of this kind can help improve the design of all kinds of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) systems. But to focus our argument, this chapter draws on our recent collaborative analyses of learning networks (Carvalho & Goodyear, 2014). Our thinking has been influenced quite strongly by the writings of Christopher Alexander on the properties that ‘give life’ to places and artefacts. The first part of the chapter has an ontological function – since analysis involves some decisions about the nature of the existence of its objects of inquiry. The second part illustrates the application of some of Alexander’s ideas to the analysis of the structural properties of learning networks, where the goal of analysis is to inform design.


Book review: The Design, Experience and Practice of Networked Learning

Review of Hodgson, V, de Laat, M, McConnell, D, & Ryberg, T. (eds) The Design, Experience and Practice of Networked Learning
Springer, Heidelberg, 2014.
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-01940-6

Note: this is my pre-publication version of this invited review, which appeared in the journal Technology, Knowledge & Learning in Jan 2015. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9243-3)

The review is structured according to standard sub-headings used for book reviews in the TKL journal. Unfortunately, the published version of the review omits the final word of the book’s title. The journal published an erratum to this effect (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10758-015-9247-7 ). To help make up for that, I’m posting the pre-publication text here too.

Author(s) and Contents of the Book

This book draws together a selection of outstanding papers from the 8th biennial Networked Learning Conference, held in 2012 in Maastricht, The Netherlands. The editors – Vivien Hodgson, Maarten de Laat, David McConnell, and Thomas Ryberg – are well known, within Europe and more widely, as leading figures in the field of research and development that has emerged in the last 15 years or so under the name ‘networked learning’. Indeed, Hodgson and McConnell are among the originators of this field, which focuses on researching situations in which people learn in collaboration with others, with much or all of their interaction being mediated through network technologies (Steeples & Jones, 2002; Goodyear, 2014).

Conference proceedings can be of uneven quality and sometimes offer an unsatisfactory sampling of contemporary work. This is not the case here. The editors have been able to select from among strong papers, which authors have revised in light of feedback at the conference itself and from the editors. Overall, this makes for a good representation of the field, with contributions from a number of its best-known researchers and educational innovators. The coherence of the book emerges from several sources, in addition to the editors’ judgement and commentary. This is quite a tight-knit area of work, with substantial overlaps of interest, not just in substantive issues but also in terms of theoretical perspectives and pedagogy.

The book contains 12 main chapters preceded by an editors’ introduction. They are grouped into three sections: “Networked Learning Spaces and Context: Design and Practice”, “Networked Learning in Practice: The Expected and Unexpected” and “The Practice of Informal Networked Learning”. It should come as no surprise to hear that many of the chapters take a practice-based view of learning: there is not much here that reflects cognitive psychological perspectives. Moreover, the book includes a number of contributions that are influenced by socio-material theorizing, with more than a smattering of Actor Network Theory. It would be unfair to some of the authors to try to capture the flavour of the book in a single sentence, but the essential elements that come together here are: learning as engaging with others in substantial projects of shared concern, drawing together and held together by complex assemblages of people, digital and material tools and other artefacts. Teachers’ work then becomes a matter of designing for such learning, guiding and facilitating some of the activities that unfold, and promoting reflection on the shared experiences and their outcomes. Dewey, Illich, Freire and Schön meet Latour, Schatzki, Hutchins and Orlikowski.

This book will, of course, be read by researchers who already identify with the Networked Learning conferences and with the spin-off book series in which this volume sits (see also Dirckinck-Holmfeld et al., 2009, 2012; Goodyear et al., 2004). It should also be required reading for other researchers who are serious about the broader field of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). One can still see the joins between European and North American traditions of research in CSCL. The latter still appears to be mainly concerned with small group learning, by school-aged students, in formal educational settings, using framings that mainly derive from educational psychology and/or sociolinguistics. The European tradition in CSCL is more diverse, with a wider range of interests, drawing on a richer set of theoretical and methodological resources. This book sits closer to that tradition: indeed there is some overlap in personnel between the networked learning and European CSCL research communities, and naturally enough some shared interests in adult learning, informal learning, practice theory and socio-material studies.

For example, the last four chapters in the book are all concerned with networked learning to which the label ‘informal’ can be applied. Two are concerned with continuing professional development, one with investigating the ego-networks of school age children and one with serious hobbyists. Most intriguing of these is Steve Wright and Gale Parchoma’s chapter, based on Wright’s PhD research, which uses Actor Network Theory (ANT) in a careful tracing of the network of interacting entities (human and not) implicated in the practices of home-brewing.

“we follow non-human actors, tracing the movements of recipes through two different breweries, enmeshing and assembling a network of actants including a brewer, brewery equipment, an iPhone, apps, podcasts, YouTube videos, grains, yeast, hops and more.” (Wright & Parchoma, 2014, p247)

The authors acknowledge Steve Fox’s seminal contribution to the use of ANT in networked learning (e.g. Fox, 2002) and take this much further by giving us an exemplary illustration of the power of ANT in helping identify how people assemble and hold together learning networks. In formal education, it can appear that learning networks are defined by educational providers – as if they can be brought into being by fiat. Wright & Parchoma’s example shows how ‘informal’ learning networks need to be mapped empirically. The additional step that needs to be taken is to assert that all learning networks need this kind of scrutiny – the network which is defined by the educators organizing network learning is usually only a part of the network experienced by participants, whose learning activities and other life projects extend the network into areas that may be invisible to the providing educators (Goodyear & Carvalho, 2014).

In many of the early writings in what has become the networked learning field, there was a strong focus on online facilitation – how to provide guidance in online discussions, for example (Mason & Kaye, 1989; McConnell, 1994; Salmon, 2000). More recently, there has been something of a swing towards design, with less attention, relatively speaking, being paid to understanding the tutor’s role. So the chapter by Hilary Periton & Mike Reynolds, in Part II of the book, is a welcome corrective. Their focus is on ways in which networked learning tutors can collectively tackle emerging difficulties in online groupwork. They don’t offer tips and tactics. Much better than this, they offer some productive ways for teachers to think about, and discuss among themselves, the dilemmas that it is sensible to expect in collaborative learning. They do this using an imaginative methodology – one in which a group of experienced networked learning teachers react to a fictionalized online discussion among students. Anyone with teaching experience in this field will smile with recognition at the contradictions that emerge between our idealized and embodied ‘pedagogical selves’.

The final chapter I want to pick out in this review is by Janne Gleerup, Simon Heilesen, Niels Henrik Helms and Kevin Mogensen, in Part I of the book. It is concerned with the use of networked learning approaches in the education of apprentices, with the express goal of strengthening connections between learning and work. Gleerup et al (2014) can be recommended as a compelling example of how to analyse needs and design for vocational learning in a way that reflects the best of what we know about learning in practice, learning with others, and learning as authentic engagement in innovation. It builds on activity theory and the Scandinavian tradition of participatory design. It offers a compelling picture of design for learning as a learning activity.

I have picked out a favourite chapter from each of the three parts in the book. There is much more to be enjoyed in this collection. Nina Bonderup Dohn offers a beautifully constructed lesson to those among us who are not so careful in our use of theory – pointing out how ‘practice’ is an ill-used construct in much of the networked learning literature, and how we are prone to favour explicit over tacit knowledge, and to work with very hazy images of how learning matters in our students’ lives. Bart Rienties and colleagues give us a nice analysis of ‘knowledge spillovers’ in networked learning, showing how a construct from regional economic development, combined with empirical research using network analysis tools, can illuminate some valued learning processes: collateral benefit, when it works well.


It should be clear by now that I like this engaging, useful book. Its contributions are well-written and well-judged. They are cautiously positive, which I find refreshing when contrasted with the self-promoting salesmanship or jaded critical analysis of much of what one finds in today’s ed. tech. literature.

That said, I think it would be fair to make the following remarks, particularly as there are likely to be more books in this series, and book editors and conference organisers have a responsibility to offer some leadership to a dynamic field.

First, it is clearly time to make a rapprochement with psychologically-informed accounts of human action, competence and learning. Some of the most interesting research and writing about these complex phenomena is drawing on recent developments in grounded and distributed cognition as well as on ideas about materials and materiality (e.g. Clark, 2003, 2008; Clark & Chalmers, 1998; Hodder, 2012; Hutchins, 2010; Ingold, 2011, 2013; Kirsh, 2013; Malafouris, 2013; Malfouris & Renfrew, 2010).

Among these insightful thinkers, Tim Ingold is particularly insistent on the need to take materials seriously. So my second, future-oriented, point is that networked learning researchers should be taking a few more gambles about the likely nature of the tools and artefacts that will be bound up in networked learning in the next decade or so. There has been too much (premature) fuss about the ‘the internet of things’, but we do need some strategies to ensure our research methods and problems aren’t locked to technologies that were new in the 1980s. David Kirsh puts this very nicely, if provocatively, writing about the ‘magical future of interaction design’:

“Good design needs good science fiction; and good science fiction needs good cognitive science” (Kirsh, 2013, p2)

The surge of interest in materiality across the social and human sciences has not been accompanied by (a) a proper interest in the importantly different qualities of materials (Ingold, 2007), or (b) convincing treatment of the qualities of complex digital-material objects in human activity (Faulkner & Runde, 2011). Archaeologists and anthropologists have been developing some useful ways of framing relations between tools, human cognition and collaboration, but (understandably) have not paid much attention to the digital (Malafouris, 2013, Sterelny, 2012). Some of the French ergonomists have been finding interesting ways to trace the coupled evolution of (digital) tools and human capabilities, but are not much interested in education (Rabardel & Bourmaud, 2003; Lonchamp, 2012; Ritella & Hakkarainen, 2012).

An obvious opportunity for networked learning researchers is to make some significant contributions to this space – for once, adding to theoretical developments in the human/social sciences and not merely drawing on them.

Summary Statement

This is an invaluable overview of research in the field of networked learning. It’s a very accessible introduction to the mix of theory, pedagogy and experimental practice that characterises this field. I recommend it highly to all researchers interested in contemporary developments in educational technology, collaborative learning, and the entanglement of digital tools and resources in human activity.


Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7-19.

Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2012). Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning. Dordrecht: Springer.

Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Jones, C., & Lindström, B. (Eds.). (2009). Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2011). The social, the material, and the ontology of non-material technological objects. Paper presented at the 27th EGOS (European Group for Organizational Studies) Colloquium, Gothenburg. http://webfirstlive.lse.ac.uk/management/documents/Non-MaterialTechnologicalObjects.pdf

Fox, S. (2002). Studying networked learning: Some implications from socially situated learning theory and actor-network theory. In C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.), Networked learning: perspectives and issues (pp. 77-92). London: Springer.

Gleerup, J., Heilesen, S., Helms, N. H., & Mogensen, K. (2014). Designing for learning in coupled contexts. In V. Hodgson, M. de Laat, D. McConnell & T. Ryberg (Eds.), The Design, Experience and Practice of Networked Learning (pp. 51-66). Heidelberg: Springer.

Goodyear, P. (2014). Productive learning networks: the evolution of research and practice. In L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks. New York: Routledge.

Goodyear, P., & Carvalho, L. (2014). Framing the analysis of learning network architectures. In L. Carvalho & P. Goodyear (Eds.), The architecture of productive learning networks. New York: Routledge.

Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2004). Advances in research on networked learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hodder, I. (2012). Entangled: an archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hutchins, E. (2010). Cognitive ecology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 705-715.

Ingold, T. (2007). Materials against materiality. Archaeological dialogues, 14(01), 1-16.

Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: essays on movement, knowledge and description. Abingdon: Routledge.

Ingold, T. (2013). Making: anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Abingdon: Routledge.

Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(1), 1-30. doi: 10.1145/2442106.2442109

Lonchamp, J. (2012). An instrumental perspective on CSCL systems. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 211-237. doi: 10.1007/s11412-012-9141-4

Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind: a theory of material engagement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Malafouris, L., & Renfrew, C. (Eds.). (2010). The cognitive life of things: recasting the boundaries of the mind. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological ResearchUniversity of Cambridge.

Mason, R., & Kaye, A. (Eds.). (1989). Mindweave: communication, computers and distance education. Oxford: Pergamon.

McConnell, D. (1994). Implementing computer supported cooperative learning. London: Kogan Page.

Periton, H., & Reynolds, M. (2014). ‘Here Be Dragons’: Approaching Difficult Group Issues in Networked Learning. In V. Hodgson, M. de Laat, D. McConnell & T. Ryberg (Eds.), The Design, Experience and Practice of Networked Learning (pp. 109-129). Heidelberg: Springer.

Rabardel, P., & Bourmaud, G. (2003). From computer to instrument system: A developmental perspective. Interacting with Computers, 15(5), 665–691.

Ritella, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). Instrumental genesis in technology-mediated learning: From double stimulation to expansive knowledge practices. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 239-258. doi: 10.1007/s11412-012-9144-1

Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.

Steeples, C., & Jones, C. (Eds.). (2002). Networked learning: perspectives and issues. London: Springer.

Sterelny, K. (2012). The evolved apprentice: how evolution made humans unique. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Wright, S., & Parchoma, G. (2014). Mobile learning and immutable mobiles: using iPhones to support informal learning in craft brewing. In V. Hodgson, M. de Laat, D. McConnell & T. Ryberg (Eds.), The Design, Experience and Practice of Networked Learning (pp. 241-261). Heidelberg: Springer.

Peter Goodyear

University of Sydney



New article on taking over someone else’s design

Karen Scott (CoCo PhD 2012) has an article in the latest issue of Research in Learning Technology. Details below.

Taking over someone else’s e-learning design: challenges trigger change in e-learning beliefs and practices

Karen M. Scott


As universities invest in the development of e-learning resources, e-learning sustainability has come under consideration. This has largely focused on the challenges and facilitators of organisational and technological sustainability and scalability, and professional development. Little research has examined the experience of a teacher dealing with e-learning sustainability when taking over a course with an e-learning resource and associated assessment. This research focuses on a teacher who was inexperienced with e-learning technology, yet took over a blended unit of study with an e-learning resource that accounted for one-fifth of the subject assessment and was directed towards academic skills development relevant to the degree program. Taking a longitudinal approach, this research examines the challenges faced by the new teacher and the way she changed the e-learning resource and its implementation over two years. A focus of the research is the way the teacher’s reflections on the challenges and changes provided an opportunity and stimulus for change in her e-learning beliefs and practices. This research has implications for the way universities support teachers taking over another teacher’s e-learning resource, the need for explicit documentation of underpinning beliefs and structured handover, the benefit of teamwork in developing e-learning resources, and provision of on-going support. Keywords: e-learning sustainability; e-learning beliefs and practices; reflection; longitudinal research (Published: 30 July 2014) Citation: Research in Learning Technology 2014, 22: 23362 – http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.23362