Networked Learning Conference 2010

I hope I do not cross-post but here is my two cents. 
My present research leans heavily on Participatory design/Participatory action research methodological principles.  As such, it follows the theoretical traditions that would support such an approach.  I am exploring a more pragmatic to design for learning in my context.  A number of theories seem to provide some assistance.  These include Activity Theory, Critical theory, Networked learning theory, Social learning and socio-cultural theory.  As I am using a contextual approach, I follow the theoretical themes that emerge through interaction and negotiation with co-designers.  Therefore I follow the assumption that truth is in the context.  In that truth is neither objective nor subject but at the mercies of context.  The truth however, is something that has to be negotiated through participation and interaction, thereby building some consensus.

I follow very closely the traditions that that interaction within the network is primarily an ontological question which is fuelled by action of wanting to know more.  We do not know in order to exist as members within the network but rather because we exist we can generate activity.  This certainly goes against the Decartian assumption of thinking to exist.  This perhaps would make more sense in an alternative approach but since I am using the action research I believe that this provides me with a more appropriate theoretical base to make meaning of my actions as a researcher and designer.

I guess during the days I will continue to explore the true nature of network learning in my context.  I look forward to some interaction and feedback.

I would agree with you there. One of the things that I think it is important to consider alongside the evolving methodological approaches to research these new practices, are the ethical issues that emerge. For example, issues of anonymity, and of using information for research purposes when it was not originally given with that in mind. Possibly not the right strand for this thought, but it was the one that triggered it There's so much to consider in terms of research ethics in our interconnected and networked world, that maybe it merits a strand all of its own.

Grainne wrote:

new technologies bring with them a whole heap of complex new problems/issues

I'm not answering the initial question here, but once problem that has already (as a new researcher) cropped up for me is 'where did the initial idea originate and who owns it?' The potential for plagiarism seems to me to be enormous if we want to go down that route - or are we happy for open sharing and lack of ownership of ideas to the benefit of the common cause? I need to read you paper Grainne before I can have a go at answering your question.

maarten wrote:

we also need to build up (or better to theorise our) an empirical evidence base to really try and understand what a networked learning perspective has to bring to the table about the way in which we learn, socialise and communicate. This can initially be done from a qualitative approach using participatory designs, but recently i have also become interested in trying to quantify this evidence basing using larger samples (in the area of teacher professional development) to see how they think and feel about the added value social networked learning contacts have to them when it comes to professional development as well as to the institutions they work for and communities they are members of.
Crucial here is to study what ' learning'  in social networks is all about, without looking to much into the technologies that support it. Problem with technology is that it evolves so quickly that you are in danger to put the horse behind the wagon in terms of studying it. By focusing more on understanding the learning in networked learning (and the contexts in which this occurs) and how professionals and learners benefit from it, I hope we build up a ground layer of these emerging practices and use this understanding to design and support it further.

Maarten interesting that you would put this twist to the whole inquiry process.  I agree with you that we need to give an account of data but believe that context is key.  In the process of understanding we may or may not use quantitative data.  In my research context, we are using participatory design but we needed some data in which to make these changes...obviously the inclination was to create a survey to collect data from members...because we needed to know how this will serve the needs of educators.  After much discussion some of those themes evolved but the consensus from discussion was felt that this data was too crucial to be left to be negotiated at that level...instead it was felt that it should be part of the sign up process.  And so that evolved in having to place the items as part of the sign up process.

Like all research, there are ethical implications and network learning is no exception to that.  This again is bound by the context in which the design is contextualized.  I think we have to safeguard network learning from empiricist linear thinking with the hope of building more data that propels us to follow the the notion that all research should follow or adhere to the same formalities.  I think we can accept that network learning is quite complex and as such need complex thinking and methodologies to challenge the way things are done.  But in the midst of all of this is the context.  Context is key.  Without which all seem like just a data collection race with little meaning to those who matter (in my case this would be the educators whose interest the network should serve)

THere are some questions that I think are at the forefront of my thinking for some time that I would like to extend to the group.  I believe that other theoretical traditions are helpful in helping us understand network learning more.  I would beg to include Connectivism as an emerging conceptualization of how learning can be seen in network learning.

My real question is one of agency.  The network is key, but is the network god in all of this?  I do not believe the network is superior to the actors and leads me to believe that there is a dynamic dance that takes place where at times agency is questioned.  This is why I believe in a notion of middle ground of negotiation and consensus which builds on the idea of context.