Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Networked Learning in 2021: A Community Definition

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Networked Learning in 2021: A Community Definition

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published

Standard

Networked Learning in 2021: A Community Definition. / (NLEC), Networked Learning Editorial Collective; Gourlay, Lesley; Rodríguez-Illera, José Luis; Barberà, Elena; Bali, Maha; Gachago, Daniela; Pallitt, Nicola; Jones, Chris; Bayne, Siân; Hansen, Stig Børsen; Hrastinski, Stefan; Jaldemark, Jimmy; Themelis, Chryssa; Pischetola, Magda; Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Lone; Matthews, Adam; Gulson, Kalervo N.; Lee, Kyungmee; Bligh, Brett; Thibaut, Patricia; Vermeulen, Marjan; Nijland, Femke; Vrieling-Teunter, Emmy; Scott, Howard; Thestrup, Klaus; Gislev, Tom; Koole, Marguerite; Cutajar, Maria; Tickner, Sue; Rothmüller, Ninette; Bozkurt, Aras; Fawns, Tim; Ross, Jen; Schnaider, Karoline; Carvalho, Lucila; Green, Jennifer K.; Hadžijusufović, Mariana; Hayes, Sarah; Czerniewicz, Laura; Knox, Jeremy.

In: Postdigital Science and Education, Vol. 3, No. 2, 30.04.2021, p. 326-369.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Harvard

(NLEC), NLEC, Gourlay, L, Rodríguez-Illera, JL, Barberà, E, Bali, M, Gachago, D, Pallitt, N, Jones, C, Bayne, S, Hansen, SB, Hrastinski, S, Jaldemark, J, Themelis, C, Pischetola, M, Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L, Matthews, A, Gulson, KN, Lee, K, Bligh, B, Thibaut, P, Vermeulen, M, Nijland, F, Vrieling-Teunter, E, Scott, H, Thestrup, K, Gislev, T, Koole, M, Cutajar, M, Tickner, S, Rothmüller, N, Bozkurt, A, Fawns, T, Ross, J, Schnaider, K, Carvalho, L, Green, JK, Hadžijusufović, M, Hayes, S, Czerniewicz, L & Knox, J 2021, 'Networked Learning in 2021: A Community Definition', Postdigital Science and Education, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 326-369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00222-y

APA

(NLEC), N. L. E. C., Gourlay, L., Rodríguez-Illera, J. L., Barberà, E., Bali, M., Gachago, D., Pallitt, N., Jones, C., Bayne, S., Hansen, S. B., Hrastinski, S., Jaldemark, J., Themelis, C., Pischetola, M., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Matthews, A., Gulson, K. N., Lee, K., Bligh, B., ... Knox, J. (2021). Networked Learning in 2021: A Community Definition. Postdigital Science and Education, 3(2), 326-369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00222-y

Vancouver

(NLEC) NLEC, Gourlay L, Rodríguez-Illera JL, Barberà E, Bali M, Gachago D et al. Networked Learning in 2021: A Community Definition. Postdigital Science and Education. 2021 Apr 30;3(2):326-369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00222-y

Author

(NLEC), Networked Learning Editorial Collective ; Gourlay, Lesley ; Rodríguez-Illera, José Luis ; Barberà, Elena ; Bali, Maha ; Gachago, Daniela ; Pallitt, Nicola ; Jones, Chris ; Bayne, Siân ; Hansen, Stig Børsen ; Hrastinski, Stefan ; Jaldemark, Jimmy ; Themelis, Chryssa ; Pischetola, Magda ; Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Lone ; Matthews, Adam ; Gulson, Kalervo N. ; Lee, Kyungmee ; Bligh, Brett ; Thibaut, Patricia ; Vermeulen, Marjan ; Nijland, Femke ; Vrieling-Teunter, Emmy ; Scott, Howard ; Thestrup, Klaus ; Gislev, Tom ; Koole, Marguerite ; Cutajar, Maria ; Tickner, Sue ; Rothmüller, Ninette ; Bozkurt, Aras ; Fawns, Tim ; Ross, Jen ; Schnaider, Karoline ; Carvalho, Lucila ; Green, Jennifer K. ; Hadžijusufović, Mariana ; Hayes, Sarah ; Czerniewicz, Laura ; Knox, Jeremy. / Networked Learning in 2021: A Community Definition. In: Postdigital Science and Education. 2021 ; Vol. 3, No. 2. pp. 326-369.

Bibtex

@article{7e69462f73e84df8ae56a549011a5a26,
title = "Networked Learning in 2021: A Community Definition",
abstract = "Since the turn of this century, much of the world has undergone tectonic socio-technological change. Computers have left the isolated basements of research institutes and entered people{\textquoteright}s homes. Network connectivity has advanced from slow and unreliable modems to high-speed broadband. Devices have evolved: from stationary desktop computers to ever-present, always-connected smartphones. These developments have been accompanied by new digital practices, and changing expectations, not least in education, where enthusiasm for digital technologies has been kindled by quite contrasting sets of values. For example, some critical pedagogues working in the traditions of Freire and Illich have understood computers as novel tools for political and social emancipation, while opportunistic managers in cash-strapped universities have seen new opportunities for saving money and/or growing revenues. Irrespective of their ideological leanings, many of the early attempts at marrying technology and education had some features in common: instrumentalist understandings of human relationships with technologies, with a strong emphasis on practice and {\textquoteleft}what works{\textquoteright}.It is now clear that, in many countries, managerialist approaches have provided the framing, while local constraints and exigencies have shaped operational details, in fields such as e-learning, Technology Enhanced Learning, and others waving the {\textquoteleft}Digital{\textquoteright} banner. Too many emancipatory educational movements have ignored technology, burying their heads in the sand, or have wished it away, subscribing to a new form of Luddism, even as they sense themselves moving to the margins. But this situation is not set in stone. Our postdigital reality results from a complex interplay between centres and margins. Furthermore, the concepts of centres and margins {\textquoteleft}have morphed into formations that we do not yet understand, and they have created (power) relationships which are still unsettled. The concepts … have not disappeared, but they have become somewhat marginal in their own right.{\textquoteright} (Jandri{\'c} and Hayes 2019) Social justice and emancipation are as important as ever, yet they require new theoretical reconfigurations and practices fit for our socio-technological moment.In the 1990s, networked learning (NL) emerged as a critical response to dominant discourses of the day. NL went against the grain in two main ways. First, it embarked on developing nuanced understandings of relationships between humans and technologies; understandings which reach beyond instrumentalism and various forms of determinism. Second, NL embraced the emancipatory agenda of the critical pedagogy movement and has, in various ways, politically committed to social justice (Beaty et al. 2002; Networked Learning Editorial Collective 2020). Gathered around the biennial Networked Learning Conference,Footnote 1 the Research in Networked Learning book series,Footnote 2 and a series of related projects and activities, the NL community has left a significant trace in educational transformations over the last few decades.Twenty years ago, founding members of the NL community offered a definition of NL which has strongly influenced the NL community{\textquoteright}s theoretical perspectives and research approaches (Goodyear et al. 2004).Footnote 3 Since then, however, the world has radically changed. With this in mind, the Networked Learning Editorial Collective (NLEC) recently published a paper entitled {\textquoteleft}Networked Learning: Inviting Redefinition{\textquoteright} (2020). In line with NL{\textquoteright}s critical agenda, a core goal for the paper was to open up a broad discussion about the current meaning and understandings of NL and directions for its further development.The current collectively authored paper presents the responses to the NLEC{\textquoteright}s open call. With 40 contributors coming from six continents and working across many fields of education, the paper reflects the breadth and depth of current understandings of NL. The responses have been collated, classified into main themes, and lightly edited for clarity. One of the responders, Sarah Hayes, was asked to write a conclusion. The final draft paper has undergone double open review. The reviewers, Laura Czerniewicz and Jeremy Knox, are acknowledged as authors.Our intention, in taking this approach, has been to further stimulate democratic discussion about NL and to prompt some much-needed community-building.",
author = "(NLEC), {Networked Learning Editorial Collective} and Lesley Gourlay and Rodr{\'i}guez-Illera, {Jos{\'e} Luis} and Elena Barber{\`a} and Maha Bali and Daniela Gachago and Nicola Pallitt and Chris Jones and Si{\^a}n Bayne and Hansen, {Stig B{\o}rsen} and Stefan Hrastinski and Jimmy Jaldemark and Chryssa Themelis and Magda Pischetola and Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld and Adam Matthews and Gulson, {Kalervo N.} and Kyungmee Lee and Brett Bligh and Patricia Thibaut and Marjan Vermeulen and Femke Nijland and Emmy Vrieling-Teunter and Howard Scott and Klaus Thestrup and Tom Gislev and Marguerite Koole and Maria Cutajar and Sue Tickner and Ninette Rothm{\"u}ller and Aras Bozkurt and Tim Fawns and Jen Ross and Karoline Schnaider and Lucila Carvalho and Green, {Jennifer K.} and Mariana Had{\v z}ijusufovi{\'c} and Sarah Hayes and Laura Czerniewicz and Jeremy Knox",
year = "2021",
month = apr,
day = "30",
doi = "10.1007/s42438-021-00222-y",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
pages = "326--369",
journal = "Postdigital Science and Education",
issn = "2524-4868",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Networked Learning in 2021: A Community Definition

AU - (NLEC), Networked Learning Editorial Collective

AU - Gourlay, Lesley

AU - Rodríguez-Illera, José Luis

AU - Barberà, Elena

AU - Bali, Maha

AU - Gachago, Daniela

AU - Pallitt, Nicola

AU - Jones, Chris

AU - Bayne, Siân

AU - Hansen, Stig Børsen

AU - Hrastinski, Stefan

AU - Jaldemark, Jimmy

AU - Themelis, Chryssa

AU - Pischetola, Magda

AU - Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Lone

AU - Matthews, Adam

AU - Gulson, Kalervo N.

AU - Lee, Kyungmee

AU - Bligh, Brett

AU - Thibaut, Patricia

AU - Vermeulen, Marjan

AU - Nijland, Femke

AU - Vrieling-Teunter, Emmy

AU - Scott, Howard

AU - Thestrup, Klaus

AU - Gislev, Tom

AU - Koole, Marguerite

AU - Cutajar, Maria

AU - Tickner, Sue

AU - Rothmüller, Ninette

AU - Bozkurt, Aras

AU - Fawns, Tim

AU - Ross, Jen

AU - Schnaider, Karoline

AU - Carvalho, Lucila

AU - Green, Jennifer K.

AU - Hadžijusufović, Mariana

AU - Hayes, Sarah

AU - Czerniewicz, Laura

AU - Knox, Jeremy

PY - 2021/4/30

Y1 - 2021/4/30

N2 - Since the turn of this century, much of the world has undergone tectonic socio-technological change. Computers have left the isolated basements of research institutes and entered people’s homes. Network connectivity has advanced from slow and unreliable modems to high-speed broadband. Devices have evolved: from stationary desktop computers to ever-present, always-connected smartphones. These developments have been accompanied by new digital practices, and changing expectations, not least in education, where enthusiasm for digital technologies has been kindled by quite contrasting sets of values. For example, some critical pedagogues working in the traditions of Freire and Illich have understood computers as novel tools for political and social emancipation, while opportunistic managers in cash-strapped universities have seen new opportunities for saving money and/or growing revenues. Irrespective of their ideological leanings, many of the early attempts at marrying technology and education had some features in common: instrumentalist understandings of human relationships with technologies, with a strong emphasis on practice and ‘what works’.It is now clear that, in many countries, managerialist approaches have provided the framing, while local constraints and exigencies have shaped operational details, in fields such as e-learning, Technology Enhanced Learning, and others waving the ‘Digital’ banner. Too many emancipatory educational movements have ignored technology, burying their heads in the sand, or have wished it away, subscribing to a new form of Luddism, even as they sense themselves moving to the margins. But this situation is not set in stone. Our postdigital reality results from a complex interplay between centres and margins. Furthermore, the concepts of centres and margins ‘have morphed into formations that we do not yet understand, and they have created (power) relationships which are still unsettled. The concepts … have not disappeared, but they have become somewhat marginal in their own right.’ (Jandrić and Hayes 2019) Social justice and emancipation are as important as ever, yet they require new theoretical reconfigurations and practices fit for our socio-technological moment.In the 1990s, networked learning (NL) emerged as a critical response to dominant discourses of the day. NL went against the grain in two main ways. First, it embarked on developing nuanced understandings of relationships between humans and technologies; understandings which reach beyond instrumentalism and various forms of determinism. Second, NL embraced the emancipatory agenda of the critical pedagogy movement and has, in various ways, politically committed to social justice (Beaty et al. 2002; Networked Learning Editorial Collective 2020). Gathered around the biennial Networked Learning Conference,Footnote 1 the Research in Networked Learning book series,Footnote 2 and a series of related projects and activities, the NL community has left a significant trace in educational transformations over the last few decades.Twenty years ago, founding members of the NL community offered a definition of NL which has strongly influenced the NL community’s theoretical perspectives and research approaches (Goodyear et al. 2004).Footnote 3 Since then, however, the world has radically changed. With this in mind, the Networked Learning Editorial Collective (NLEC) recently published a paper entitled ‘Networked Learning: Inviting Redefinition’ (2020). In line with NL’s critical agenda, a core goal for the paper was to open up a broad discussion about the current meaning and understandings of NL and directions for its further development.The current collectively authored paper presents the responses to the NLEC’s open call. With 40 contributors coming from six continents and working across many fields of education, the paper reflects the breadth and depth of current understandings of NL. The responses have been collated, classified into main themes, and lightly edited for clarity. One of the responders, Sarah Hayes, was asked to write a conclusion. The final draft paper has undergone double open review. The reviewers, Laura Czerniewicz and Jeremy Knox, are acknowledged as authors.Our intention, in taking this approach, has been to further stimulate democratic discussion about NL and to prompt some much-needed community-building.

AB - Since the turn of this century, much of the world has undergone tectonic socio-technological change. Computers have left the isolated basements of research institutes and entered people’s homes. Network connectivity has advanced from slow and unreliable modems to high-speed broadband. Devices have evolved: from stationary desktop computers to ever-present, always-connected smartphones. These developments have been accompanied by new digital practices, and changing expectations, not least in education, where enthusiasm for digital technologies has been kindled by quite contrasting sets of values. For example, some critical pedagogues working in the traditions of Freire and Illich have understood computers as novel tools for political and social emancipation, while opportunistic managers in cash-strapped universities have seen new opportunities for saving money and/or growing revenues. Irrespective of their ideological leanings, many of the early attempts at marrying technology and education had some features in common: instrumentalist understandings of human relationships with technologies, with a strong emphasis on practice and ‘what works’.It is now clear that, in many countries, managerialist approaches have provided the framing, while local constraints and exigencies have shaped operational details, in fields such as e-learning, Technology Enhanced Learning, and others waving the ‘Digital’ banner. Too many emancipatory educational movements have ignored technology, burying their heads in the sand, or have wished it away, subscribing to a new form of Luddism, even as they sense themselves moving to the margins. But this situation is not set in stone. Our postdigital reality results from a complex interplay between centres and margins. Furthermore, the concepts of centres and margins ‘have morphed into formations that we do not yet understand, and they have created (power) relationships which are still unsettled. The concepts … have not disappeared, but they have become somewhat marginal in their own right.’ (Jandrić and Hayes 2019) Social justice and emancipation are as important as ever, yet they require new theoretical reconfigurations and practices fit for our socio-technological moment.In the 1990s, networked learning (NL) emerged as a critical response to dominant discourses of the day. NL went against the grain in two main ways. First, it embarked on developing nuanced understandings of relationships between humans and technologies; understandings which reach beyond instrumentalism and various forms of determinism. Second, NL embraced the emancipatory agenda of the critical pedagogy movement and has, in various ways, politically committed to social justice (Beaty et al. 2002; Networked Learning Editorial Collective 2020). Gathered around the biennial Networked Learning Conference,Footnote 1 the Research in Networked Learning book series,Footnote 2 and a series of related projects and activities, the NL community has left a significant trace in educational transformations over the last few decades.Twenty years ago, founding members of the NL community offered a definition of NL which has strongly influenced the NL community’s theoretical perspectives and research approaches (Goodyear et al. 2004).Footnote 3 Since then, however, the world has radically changed. With this in mind, the Networked Learning Editorial Collective (NLEC) recently published a paper entitled ‘Networked Learning: Inviting Redefinition’ (2020). In line with NL’s critical agenda, a core goal for the paper was to open up a broad discussion about the current meaning and understandings of NL and directions for its further development.The current collectively authored paper presents the responses to the NLEC’s open call. With 40 contributors coming from six continents and working across many fields of education, the paper reflects the breadth and depth of current understandings of NL. The responses have been collated, classified into main themes, and lightly edited for clarity. One of the responders, Sarah Hayes, was asked to write a conclusion. The final draft paper has undergone double open review. The reviewers, Laura Czerniewicz and Jeremy Knox, are acknowledged as authors.Our intention, in taking this approach, has been to further stimulate democratic discussion about NL and to prompt some much-needed community-building.

U2 - 10.1007/s42438-021-00222-y

DO - 10.1007/s42438-021-00222-y

M3 - Journal article

VL - 3

SP - 326

EP - 369

JO - Postdigital Science and Education

JF - Postdigital Science and Education

SN - 2524-4868

IS - 2

ER -