Abstract
Participative designs for learning are commonly advocated in networked learning whether generally as ‘collaborative’ approaches to learning or more specifically in the form of models such as the ‘learning community’. Such designs are likely to involve students and teachers in any of the complexities associated with collective endeavour: whether interpersonal, social, cultural or political. In non-virtual education, there is a long tradition of theoretical frameworks but there appears to have been less work of this kind specifically in relation to group work within VLEs. It is as if the tradition of participative pedagogy has found a home within the domain of networked learning but ideas that could be necessary in understanding the dynamics generated within such pedagogies have been left behind. In this chapter we move away from an exclusively virtual framework through which to examine social dynamics in order to mine a richer seam of material for making sense of group dynamics. We use a variation on Potter’s (1979) idea of the ‘dilemmas’ likely to be experienced by members of learning groups, to construct a framework through which diverse interpretations can be accommodated in making sense of online dynamics.
The phrase ‘Here be dragons’ is associated with warnings written, or mythical creatures presented in pictorial form, on mediaeval maps where the cartographer wanted to denote unexplored or dangerous territories. Group dynamics are often experienced as unexplored or dangerous territory.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The authors are grateful for the generosity of the colleagues who agreed to take part in this project as ‘virtual tutors’ and responded with such aplomb. Our special thanks go to Sian Baynes, Tara Fenwick, Vivien Hodgson, David McConnell and Russ Vince, for their thoughtful comments and insights. In order to make the virtual tutor discussion sound as if it is a conversation in real time, we have conflated some individual responses and given them to a single tutor to voice. As a result we took the decision not to attribute the comments of our tutors to named individuals; any inadvertent misrepresentations of the responses given to us are the responsibility of the authors and, we hope, are forgiven.
- 2.
Fenwick (2013) noticed, with some surprise, the appearance of ‘a rather alarming pedagogical self that strode forth to define and prescribe’ when she first read the fictionalised student discussion. The ‘pedagogical self’ struck a chord with us and we have retained the label.
- 3.
There might well be other questions that would be as useful to ask. The questions we have provided are those that seemed common sense ones to us in looking at the dilemma. The utility of this approach is in keeping the questions tied to the dilemma, rather than generating them from a particular interpretive framework. The answers to those questions, as offered by different members of the tutor team (or students) will, of course, be informed by a particular theory in use.
References
Allan, B. (2007). Time to learn? E-learners experiences of time in virtual learning communities. Management Learning, 38(5), 557–572.
Allan, B., & Vince, R. (2006, March 20–22). Emotions shared/emotions hidden: Reflections on emotional dynamics in virtual learning communities. Paper presented at the Organizational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities Conference at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
Bales, R. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bayne, S. (2004). Smoothness and striation in digital learning spaces. E-Learning, 1(2), 302–316.
Bion, W. (1961). Experiences in groups and other papers. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Conrad, D. L. (2002). Engagement, excitement, anxiety, and fear: Learners’ experiences of starting an online course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(4), 205–226.
Crossouard, B., Pryor, J., & Torrance, H. (2004, September). Creating an alternative assessment regime with online formative assessment: Developing a researcher identity. Paper presented to the European Conference on Education Research, Crete, Greece.
De Laat, M., & Lally, V. (2003). Complexity, theory and praxis: Researching collaborative learning and tutoring processes in a networked learning community. Instructional Science, 31, 7–39.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1988). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London, England: Continuum.
Dirckinck Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2012). Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning. New York, NY: Springer.
Fenwick, T. (2013). Here be dragons response [email] (Personal communication, January 15 2013)
Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2004). Advances in research on networked learning. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. ETR&D, 49(1), 65–72.
Hodgson, V., & Reynolds, M. (2005). Consensus, difference and ‘multiple communities’ in networked learning. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 1–24.
Jones, C. (2004). Networks and learning: Communities, practices and the metaphor of networks. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 12(1), 81–93.
Jones, C. R., Ferreday, D., & Hodgson, V. (2008). Networked learning a relational approach: Weak and strong ties. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 90–102.
McConnell, D. (2000). Implementing computer supported cooperative learning (2nd ed.). London, England: Kogan Page.
McConnell, D., Hodgson, V., & Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L. (2012). Networked learning: A brief history and new trends. In L. Dirckinck Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning. New York, NY: Springer.
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Green, A. S. (2002). Virtual group dynamics. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 6(1), 116–127.
Potter, S. G. (1979, September). Three dilemmas. Paper presented to Group Relations Training Association Conference.
Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London, England: Kogan Page.
Smith, R. O. (2005). Working with difference in online collaborative groups. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(3), 182–199.
Staggers, J., Garcia, S., & Nagelhout, E. (2008). Teamwork through team building: Face-to-face to online. Business Communication Quarterly, 71(4), 472–487.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 229–249.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Perriton, L., Reynolds, M. (2014). ‘Here Be Dragons’: Approaching Difficult Group Issues in Networked Learning. In: Hodgson, V., de Laat, M., McConnell, D., Ryberg, T. (eds) The Design, Experience and Practice of Networked Learning. Research in Networked Learning. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01940-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01940-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-01939-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01940-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)