In Chapter 3 we raised an argument about the need for a theory praxis conversation; one in which net- worked learning design and practice is informed by theory and where the practice is used to critically reflect on our networked learning experiences, theories, pedagogies, and design to enhance our praxis. This is an ongoing process on various levels of scaling. First of all, it is not expected that every study has to lead to theoretical advancement, but they can be a smaller part of a chain, where advancement is made over a larger period of time. Secondly, research can be aimed at reproducing certain findings to strengthen or weaken a particular theoretical framework. Thirdly, research can be directed towards theory-building, for example, through theorising practice or logical reasoning. The focus of this thesis was to firstly undertake exploratory research to describe how participants of networked learning com- munities learn collaboratively. We started with describing the theoretical perspectives that influenced the networked learning practice we were focused on. However, we soon realised that ‘completing’ a theory praxis conversation, through a process of synthesising findings, followed by a systematic analy- sis of how theories are used in networked learning research, proved to be beyond the scope of this thesis. However some issues for theoretical considerations have been put forward.
The studies have shown that during collaborative learning the role and position of the individual should not be overlooked. Theories on social construction of knowledge and community-learning might need to have more emphasis on the importance of the needs of the individual, instead of being so focused on collective outcomes. In this thesis we have seen that participants reward collaborative learning and engage in learning processes on a social level in the group where knowledge is shared, discussed and constructed, but their reasons for doing so are also connected with personal growth. On several occasions we have seen that students express a need for a teacher (or moderator) to provide reassurance that they are still on the right track, and prefer for their shared product to be ‘verified’ before being convinced of the quality of their own/collective product. It seems that they seek approval before accepting their learning outcomes. Some researchers argue that students need to learn to be-
come constructive collaborators, but one could also wonder whether this is a by-product of our need (or being used) to be rewarded. The role of reinforcement during (social) learning processes influences the way we operate (Ravenscroft, 2003) and might need to be taken into account when reflecting upon theories currently used to design networked learning. Do we need to build in reward-driven approaches to become successful collaborators or are they hurdles preventing us from experiencing a pure collaborative experience? In other words; “would collaboration occur if we [teachers/designers] did nothing?” (Downes, 2005).
We have discussed that collaborative learning, or learning communities, in higher education might be too much consensus-driven and inward focused. Learning is participating in situated activities, but also about crossing boundaries as a way to seek new practices to participate in; ones that inspire you to grow as a person. The balance between learning in social interactions and collective learning activities needs to be addressed further to build a theoretical framework to guide design for networked learning.
The emerging tension between teacher and student control and their changing relationship is an issue that needs further attention. At the moment the role of the teacher and its status is somewhat unclear. The question arises to what extent we need to re-conceptualise teaching in networked learning envi- ronments. How can teachers renegotiate their traditional roles and give room for new learning? How can teachers gradually withdraw from their responsibilities and hand over control to the students? Do teachers want to give up control, and if not, what makes them resistant? More research is needed to understand and deal with these tensions effectively.
Another point to put forward is the notion of inter-metacognitive knowledge. The capability to reflect on your personal learning strategies has been widely acknowledged; but the design of learner-centred learning environments, where students are stimulated to learn in groups, has extended this notion even further. It also requires students to have interpersonal metacognitive knowledge and skills, in or- der to take (shared) control and manage their learning together. Further investigation and connection with theories on metacognitive knowledge is needed to study how different these skills are from each other. In networked learning we have seen how course design models have developed from teacher- centred to learner-centred (Simons & De Laat, 2005). But the findings presented in this thesis point towards the need for a more community-centred model, where both individual as well as collective learning processes and outcomes are accounted for and negotiated by the community. We have seen that the participants themselves are actively involved in managing and regulating their learning. Many design principles or pedagogical models are strongly focused on the role of the teacher to (pre)design, facilitate, moderate and assess networked learning. We would like to shift this focus somewhat to include all the participants in the design process and develop a more community-centred approach to networked learning.
We will now try to translate the themes we have identified in this thesis, into guidelines for networked learning design. In doing so, we will take a process approach (including a start-up, beginning, mid- dle and ending phase) with the aim to describe events that need to take place during a collabora- tive project. These actions are not prescriptive and there are sufficient design principles and studies available that provide more detailed information about what to do in these specific circumstances (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison & Archer, 2001; EQUEL Position Paper, 2004; Goodyear, 2002; Kirschner, Martens & Strijbos, 2003; Lockhorst, 2004; Mason, 2001; Salmon, 2000; Van Merrienboer & Kester, in press; Veldhuis-Diermanse, 2002; Verdonschot, 2003; Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002). Using these principles in combination with the outcomes of this thesis we will attempt to outline design guidelines for a community-centred approach to networked learning. These guidelines will apply more specifical-
ly to learning activities in networked learning communities within higher education, but we think they can be a source of inspiration for networked learning in general, where people try to solve problems together in groups. A summary of this community-centred approach is presented in Table 1.
Start-up period
The aim of this period is to get familiar with the networked learning environment, be introduced to the pedagogical models, get to know each other and start building a sense of community.
Prior to the actual collaborative project, the group should organise a pre-meeting where they can share their experiences with networked learning. At this point they should also share their expecta- tions and involvement with the coming collaborative project. Here they can negotiate some rules of engagement and what it means to them to participate in a collaborative project. During this period they can get to know each other and provide some background information about the work they do and/or why they signed up for the course.
This is the opportunity for the teacher to explain more about collaborative learning in groups and discuss what the role and position of the teacher is during this process. The main issues are to set the right tone for the discussion and contribute to the development of a sense of community. The teacher should raise the awareness that collaborative learning is not limited to a task focus but that group processes will have to be regulated as well. Within the group they can start reflecting on their personal learning preferences and capabilities to manage group processes and express their interests in doing so.
The previous phase provided some initial information about the collaborative project. In the beginning phase the group needs to start conceptualising their collaborative project together. The communica- tion is not only task focused but also socially centred, aimed at building trust and promoting group wellbeing.
Based on the information about the task and what they know about their group, they can negotiate amongst themselves what their collaborative project could be about and which problems it will ad- dress. Here they will start thinking about individual and shared responsibilities, develop an action plan and set up several deadlines to be met throughout the project.
It is recommended that this project has a personal and professional focus. This way the members in the group can personalise their project and identify and recognise the issues that need to be addressed. Ownership of the collaborative project is created in this period through a process of negotiation within the group. During this phase the group could make explicit how their project meets both group and individual needs and how they can support and help each other realising these learning goals. This way any overlap or gaps between individual (both individual learning and learning in social interac- tion) and collective-learning processes and outcomes can be monitored by the group.
In the beginning period the students appreciate active guidance from the teacher. The teacher can play an active role during this phase by making sure that the collaborative project will not become too ambitious. The teacher can facilitate the group’s processes to make sure everybody has a voice in establishing their project. We have seen that teacher involvement is mainly to make sure the group develops a healthy learning climate, develops a method to work together, and develops a learning agenda. Based on the conversations held during the starting-up phase the group can make some deci- sions about participant involvement and the preferred way of working. This can be used to build a more explicit learning culture in the group, based on roles and focuses that emerged from the interest and competencies available in the group.
Teacher participation should be exercised in a way where ‘control’ is gradually handed over to the group. That this would happen was already discussed during the start-up period and should have stimulated the group into thinking more actively and strategically about their group work. However, the effects brought on by a teacher who is gradually withdrawing start to surface in this period. During the middle phase, where the group is mainly working on the task, they need to regularly reflect on their progress and processes, in order to monitor their learning agenda. We have seen that groups welcome teacher involvement, but also that they are more than capable of carrying out their task themselves. The initial group structure, developed during the beginning phase, will help them make necessary adjustments. This is based on the work that needs to be carried out during this phase, as well as the support needed and the participation in the project. The group moved on from thinking about how to carry out the task to actually working on the task. During this period the participants are discussing ideas, looking for additional information and building up an understanding of their project’s topic. This requires a journey in learning where they must deal with uncertainties regarding their direction. The group needs to build trust amongst themselves to believe in the quality of their work. The presence of a facilitator in the group that supports these processes is very important. The tu- toring roles are concerned with connecting members of the group and drawing in participants to take part in the discussions, stimulate reflection on the content, and assess the efficacy of the process. It is important to maintain a learning climate within the group by making people feel confident enough to express their opinions. Through this process of managing the group’s functioning and emerging dynamics, the group will be able to adjust accordingly; changing the roles needed during this phase, dealing with personal growth of participants and changing interests, setting new deadlines, etc. The teacher’s role is to provide the group with feedback regarding their performance and to keep connected with the direction in which they are going, and being ready to facilitate when necessary. A constant monitoring of the group (both content and process) by the teacher is required to be able to tune in when needed.
In the ending period the group will gradually turn its focus from predominantly working on the project to reflecting on the work done. The group needs to work towards a conclusion and tie loose ends together. We have seen that learning activities tend to decrease and there is more reflection on the task. But the group still requires a high level of facilitation and design activities. The group needs to develop a working structure to find the best method of finalising their project. This phase is a dif- ficult one to manage as some members might start to focus on other activities outside the group. We have seen that density drops and people start to disconnect from the group. This period benefits from a stronger teacher presence, providing guidelines on how to end the project and remind the group about the deadlines and procedures that need to be followed. However the teacher should be careful not to take over the control given to the group earlier on.
In the following table the community-centred approach to networked learning is summarised. This summary is based on findings of the case studies, outcomes of the synthesis paper and additional de- sign studies previously mentioned.
Table 1. A community-centred approach to networked learning
Phase Group activities Teacher activities Start-up phase
Initial networked learning design Use previous pedagogical frame- work and share with other teach- ers on this (or similar) course Familiarisation with networked learn-
ing environment
Organise pre-meetings and share experiences
Provide an introduction to the open-learning space
Get to know each other
Provide background information about the work they do, their inter- ests and why they signed up for this project
Be an active participant and ad- dress changing relationship
Familiarisation with pedagogical models
Discuss what collaborative learning means within the group
Explain the approach to collabora- tive learning and attitudes towards knowledge construction
Discuss what the role of the teacher is during this process Raise awareness of regulating both task and group processes
Negotiate individual learning prefer- ences with learning goals and group capability to learn
Community building Develop rules of engagement and etiquette
Participate in these conversations, set the right tone and contribute to the development of a sense of community
Build trust and discuss how to pro- vide support and guidance to each other
Set the stages in the beginning, provide guidance and reassurance to the group
Discuss intended level of participa- tion and availability during the project
Teacher participates in this and discusses their presence and avail- ability during the project Build up a collective understanding
of each others desires, commitment and work (or learning) preferences
Beginning phase
Conceptualise collaborative project Negotiate what the project could be about and which problems it will address
Active teacher guidance and fa- cilitating the group’s processes to make sure everybody has a voice in establishing their project
Task-focused communication Create personal and professional focus to increase personalisation, identification and recognition of the issues that need to be addressed in the project
Participate in developing a work- ing method and learning agenda
Identify and address overlap and gaps between individual and collec- tive learning processes and outcomes Socially centred communication Creating a healthy learning climate
and think about their individual and shared responsibilities
Develop a learning agenda based on personalising the group structure and task ownership
Based on previously discussed desired ways of working, the group develops a structure that is true to their own situation and connected with the content of their task
Teachers can open up these conver- sations and use their pedagogical framework to induce students in this process
Phase Group activities Teacher activities Beginning phase (continued)
Develop an action plan and set up several deadlines and milestones to be met throughout the project Students develop roles and strate- gies to structure the collaborative learning
Stimulate the group to make roles and strategies explicit
Develop a group rhythm Based on previously discussed levels of participation and duration of the task
Discuss teacher presence
Inter-metacognitive knowledge and skill
Gradually develop inter-metacognitive skills
Gradually hand over control to the group and withdraw
Middle phase Close monitoring (both content and process)
Strong focus on the content of the task and ongoing facilitation of group processes
Group is actively working on the task Ongoing reflection on group func-
tioning and dynamics
Group is in control of regulating and managing their project
Teacher has handed over control to the group
Make necessary adjustments based on emerging roles, levels of partici- pation and work needed during this phase
Provide access to feedback mate- rial on how the group is working Monitor and adjust overlap and gaps
between individual and collective learning processes and outcomes
Monitor and adjust overlap and gaps between individual and collective learning processes and outcomes
Community spirit and trust building Facilitate each other and maintain a healthy learning climate in the group
Believe in the quality of the work Provide scaffolding or guidance when needed
Ending phase
Gradual shift towards reflection on the work done
Wrapping up the project Active teacher participation to pro- vide guidelines and procedures Reflect on the current group struc-
ture to facilitate and design
Revisit original structure to deal with emergent structures
Providing guidelines on to how to end the project, provide deadlines and procedures
Reflection on the project Assess individual and collective learn- ing outcomes, using self and peer assessment reports
Update pedagogical framework