The model of networked learning

The NL framework is not a simplistic cause/effect conceptualisation of individual learning. Its social view of learning allows for connections and interactions with others

and with resources, and considers critical dialogue within these interactions as affording construction of knowledge. As a theoretical lens for this study it provided a deeper explanation of what was described in these accounts and there is evidence of learning taking place in this fashion. This study also echoes findings and discussions in other NL research regarding the role of the lecturer, designing for critical dialogue, and the balance between the individual learner and the community. However, as with the ATL model, the NL framework does not fully capture the complexity of the described experiences. Once again the categories of lowest levels of complexity, specifically those which describe not engaging with the act of networked learning, have aspects which are not so easily explained. While some of the reasons for non-engagement are possible to explain through familiar NL themes of lecturer role, programme design and student engagement, without considering the transnational context, findings such as inability to engage due to confusion or the challenge of developing the required skills for Master’s level learning are more difficult to address. As was demonstrated in the discussion above when context is taken more directly into consideration a deeper explanation of these findings is possible.

The often cited definition of networked learning is that provided by Goodyear et al. (2004) where it is seen as:

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

Jones (2015) claims this core definition, which was established at one of the early NL conferences, “has provided a degree of stability for researchers, allowing for the

development of a coherent body of work with a common focus” (p. 5). While this is undoubtedly true it is worth considering amending this definition to allow more fully for the multiple levels of context at play which impact the processes of learning within this network of connections. Dohn (2014a) suggested an amendment to the NL definition coming from a social practice perspective. She proposed adding one more set of connections “between the diverse contexts in which the learners participate” (p. 30). Her concern is that activities in NL are seen as stand-alone and do not take account of the ‘primary contexts’ of individuals. As with this study she is arguing for a consideration of context, although her perspective focuses on a particular conceptualisation of the individuals’ contexts rather than acknowledging the broader contexts within which such activities are situated. It is proposed here that multiple levels of context are included in the NL definition acknowledging their fundamental importance in learning, from the individual up to broader societal levels, but that this inclusion allows individual researchers to decide in which way they want to define context depending on the focus of their study. The suggested amended definition therefore is one which defines the learning in networked learning as:

learning in which information and communications technology (ICT) is used to promote connections: between one learner and other learners; between learners and tutors; between a learning community and its learning resources; and is situated in multiple contexts.

This amendment directly acknowledges the situatedness of any networked learning activity and therefore context must be considered. Using ‘multiple contexts’ acknowledges the macro, meso and micro levels at which context can be conceptualised and the use of quite generic language allows researchers to define these in whichever

way they choose. For example, with a definition such as this, researchers could define context using structure and agency (after Ashwin, 2009) or be informed by complexity theory (after Haggis, 2011) or use social practice theory (after Dohn, 2014). This inclusion of learning situated in multiple contexts could lead to a more powerful NL framework and richer explanations of networked learning.

A final comment about the NL model is that, as with the ATL model, it is in danger of describing the ideal learner and inadvertently leaving in the shadows that which does not meet this ideal. The ideal NL learner is ready, willing and able to engage in co- operative work with others and if not they are ignored8, are problematic or have to be ‘designed’ in to ensure they participate in the desired way. At the heart of this is the tension which has been discussed in the literature review (Chapter 2) between the historical privileging of community, collaboration and strong ties in NL over the individual and connections with weaker ties. Much NL research seems focused on the former and it would be welcomed if there was, as in a study such as this, a deeper exploration of weaker ties and more specific inclusion of connections and interactions with resources rather than human-human interactions only.

8 _{An example of ignoring that which is not ideal can be seen in Veldhuis-Diermanse et al. (2006) . A}

coding scheme is proposed to code the quality of knowledge construction in NL. To do this they use a SOLO taxonomy of understanding which has five levels. However, they only transfer over four levels to their coding scheme leaving out the first level (prestructural, no understanding). No explanation is given for this but not providing a code for ‘no understanding’ in NL assumes understanding has been achieved and ignores that which does not meet this ideal.

6.4 Reflections on phenomenography

Phenomenography as a methodology proved a rich approach to answering the research questions in this study and provided an interesting collective picture of postgraduate transnational students’ accounts of their experiences, resulting in both expected and unexpected findings. As with all phenomenographical research, this collective picture is acknowledged as a partial one of the phenomenon under study and represents one researcher’s construction of the students’ constructions of their experiences of learning (see Chapter 3). Within these limitations the findings and analysis provide a useful and unique contribution to our understandings of processes of learning in networked learning environments and experiences of transnational students. As an approach this methodology allows for a broad view of the phenomenon and its focus on difference allowed for the emergence in this study of often ignored challenges in learning, which is very useful. Its focus on the collective however removes the individual voice and for some of the more unexpected findings further study, using a different type of analysis focused on the individual, would be helpful.

Within the methodology itself this study developed an approach to presenting phenomenographical findings not seen in other work, in particular in its separation of the hierarchy of complexity and hierarchy of inclusivity within the outcome space. Reaching the point of developing a unique approach was the result of having concerns with structuring outcome spaces before analysis began (Chapter 3), reviewing other approaches in the literature (Chapter 4), and then moving between the data in this study and the literature in an iterative way to formulate an approach which made sense for these research questions (Chapters 4, 5).

In Chapter 3 (Section 3.2.2), before data analysis began, attention was drawn to the concept of ‘value judgements’ being made in determining which were the most and least complete categories of description in outcome spaces and it was suggested at that stage that value judgements for higher and lower categories could be argued for in studies of the ‘what’ of learning (content) but would be questionable for studies of the ‘how’ of learning (processes). In Chapter 4, a review of 15 phenomenographical studies was conducted to compare the ways they presented their findings, and in particular how they structured their outcome spaces. The review revealed a multiplicity of ways to present phenomenographical findings, including many studies that do not address the structure of the outcome space at all. For those that do there are wide differences in the use of terminology, in the ways to analyse relationships between the categories, and in the way to present the final outcome space. Comparing across such different studies is problematic with the result that as an approach phenomenography can seem opaque and confusing. Questions are also raised about the breadth of difference in approach seen and the minimum expectations for depth of analysis in phenomenographical studies. For this particular study the implication drawn from the review was there is no standard approach which ‘must’ be used but any approach must be in-depth, with clarity for how particular phenomenographical terms are being used. The resultant approach developed for this study differentiates between outcome spaces focusing on the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of learning with the suggestion that fully inclusive outcome spaces are to be expected for the ‘what’ of learning (the first research question) but non-inclusive outcome spaces may be appropriate for the ‘how’ of learning (the second research question). See Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1 for the full rationale. One of the critiques of phenomenography is its reproduction of what is expected (Webb, 1997b) and therefore its ignoring of that

which does not neatly fit. By separating out inclusivity where appropriate, some of the shadows may be thrown into the light within this methodology.

6.5 Implications for educational policy and practice

The findings of this study have implications at institutional, programme and lecturer level for transnational programmes as well as networked learning and Masters programmes. They are outlined here under two sub-headings but they also overlap.