I was excited to see that Professor Chris
Jones had published a substantial contribution to this topic. He was my
personal tutor in Lancaster from 2002-2008 and I have since followed his
published work with interest. He is one of the only scholars I would trust or expect
to take this project on and carry it off.
Chris Jones' depth of analysis and breadth
of perspective are rare, and when he writes, in my opinion, anyone with a role
in learning technology policy, practice or scholarship, particularly within
higher education, should pay close attention. He does not shy away from teasing
apart the contributions of some big names in educational technology: Conole,
Weller, Siemens, Oliver. Nor does he become lost in the morass of
complexity that characterises such a multi-faceted area. As networked
learning researchers have found, it is difficult to circumscribe networks in
order to isolate a unit of analysis. But limiting the scope of enquiry to where
IT is used does not stymie the field, it rather attunes its focus, allowing
research to coalesce. Networked learning’s values are at the heart of
sustaining its vision, meaning that while social theories of learning are preferred,
it has avoided collapsing into privileging a particular version of that. Nor
has it obsessed over the latest ed-tech fads, such as MOOCs. Yet it does have
an informed view on all these things and, indeed, most aspects of the entire
learning landscape, underpinned by critical and humanistic values. Indeed,
some pages make networked learning more ‘movement’ than ‘paradigm’. For
example,
“Good learning
involves discourse, mediation and interaction between people and their learning
resources. As a consequence networked learning has a view about the university
as a public institution. This view of networked learning supports strong
institutional public provision… [which] separates [this view of networked
learning]… from those who see institutions as barriers to good learning and
technology as a means to undermined current institutional provision.” (page
132)
Prof Jones argues for a clear distinction
between networked learning and e-learning, reiterating claims dating back to at
least 2001, for a definition of networked learning that deliberately homes in
on networks mediated by information
technology (IT) (see http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/).
In spite of seismic technological change since the late 1990's, this definition
has proved remarkably robust and fruitful as the basis for a field of research
spanning 20 years. Prof Jones' writing is typical of the best that the
networked learning field has to offer: not founded upon mere fascination with
technology and its assumed agency, neither does networked learning lapse into
mere tirade at the many shortcomings and fault-lines in learning technology's history
and literature. Instead the networked learning tradition has picked out a
careful line of positive scrutiny. Prof Jones own recent research demonstrates
the importance of empirical work to counter wooly theories like ‘Net
Generation’ and ‘digital natives/immigrants’, yet the persistence of these
educational memes is like a microcosm of networked learning's ongoing battle
for a stake in learning technology conversations at all levels. I was
reminded of the 2001 JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) ‘Effective
Networked Learning in Higher Education: Notes and Guidelines’ (see http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/jisc/guidelines.htm):
a brilliant contribution but one that was hard to translate. Similarly, I hope
this book’s strength and message will not be its weakness.
No comments:
Post a Comment