Remixing and -using of resources: Actor-Network Theory

Last week’s lecture on actor-network theory reminded me on my final paper written for my first course on “Technology, knowledge and learning: An introduction”. The resources and discussions in this course turned out to be a solid base for understanding the Actor-Network Theory (ANT). In fact, my final conclusion partly aimed at this theory, by saying that technology is neither fully determined nor neutral. However, this is only a scratch on the surface and this blog post is intended to support my personal reflection in the ANT and the collection of some useful material.

Actor-Network Theory in brief

ANT can be described as

[…]¬†a vocabulary that does take the distinction between subjects and objects, the subjective and the objective, into consideration. […]¬†an “actant”, for example, is more than a human actor. Both humans and nonhumans may be actants.

The important fact here is not that humans and nonhumans are treated symmetrically (a given in social semiotics and ecosocial dynamics) but that they are defined relationally as arguments or functors in the network, and not otherwise. This leads to a relational epistemology which rejects the naive positivist view of objects or actors as existing in themselves prior to any participation in ecosocial and semiotic networks of interactions (including the interactions by which they are observed, named, etc.).

This framework (network) is comprised of components (actors) not all of which are usually (if ever) considered by the academically oriented sociologists. The network consists not only of people and social groups, but also artifacts, devices, and entities. Engineers who elaborate a new technology as well as all those who participate at one time or anotherin it’s design, development, and diffusion constantly construct hypotheses and forms of argument that pull these participants into the field of sociological analysis. Whether they want to or not, they are transformed into sociologists, or what Callon calls engineer-sociologists.¬†(Resource)

Given the fact, that I am fairly new to this theory, I found it very helpful to think about the following question: “Can technology force us to learn in a specific way?” (adapted from a question our professor asked us during the lecture). I said, that without the motivation to learn there is no possibility for technology to force anyone. However, reflecting on my statement now, this assumed that technology would (be) develop(ed) in a “social vacuum”, where motivation is not considered but instead would possibly change the intended purpose of a technology. What is missing here, that it can be the other way around: technology could trigger motivation as well. By saying so, it could be an actant in the network.

I still find this hard to grasps and will surely develop further on this. As a foundation, I attach my final assignment for reviewing purposes (not changes made, this is how it was handed in) and I hope some of you might find it useful.

The final assignment

The final paper was supposed to be¬†an answer to a fictive friend,¬†asking for advice regarding a planned university course. This covered the learning outcomes¬†of the course, in particular (in the field of IT and learning) “identify epistemological differences and theoretical contributions,¬†identify and critically examine current popular theories and applications¬†in relation to major historical research traditions,¬†demonstrate and problematize the relations between theories of learning, knowledge and technological change and¬†contextualize technology use within different designs of learning and knowledge domains.”

I’ve heard you‚Äôre attending an International Master‚Äôs programme in IT and Learning ‚Ästcongratulations!¬†I‚Äôm contacting to ask for some advice. I am a planning a similar introduction course you are attending at the moment (ours is part-time and offered in Swedish however). My problem is that my colleagues have different opinions on how we should design and plan for the¬†course. Many think that the most important thing is that students have flexibility in time and possibility to take net-based self-study course modules. However, others think we should have more of live-streamed lectures and on-campus group work. Could you give me some pros and cons on whether to choose one or the other? Or rather, are there other aspects we should consider instead in our pedagogical approach or design of the course? We know our¬†students are geographically spread and are working or studying part time, but we are also required to offer the students some on-campus meetings during the course.
You know I‚Äôm a novice here, but very curious about the insights into the field of IT and Learning ‚Äď what are the big differences in ways of approaching designs for learning? And if you can, please update me on important movements, ideas, or technologies etc, relating to our dilemma, so that we might read about them in my work team.

Hej Peter,

thanks for your letter ­ I hope you find my explanations useful. Your requests consists of three main themes, asking for

(1) guidance in terms of your course design that is
(2) related to contrasting design approaches for learning within the field of IT & Learning in general
(3) and to input on important (current) developments concerning your situation.

Your course is designed for Swedish­speaking part­time students, which are geographically spread ­ however, on­campus meetings are required. The two views on the course design can be described as flexible (net­based self­study) and less flexible (live­stream lectures and on­campus group work). Each of these designs has its assets and drawbacks. You should be aware of common mistakes when designing a distance education programme (including false expectations, missing technical support, vague requirements, etc.) and of implications of terminology when it comes to distance and online education [Garrison, R. (2009)]. Let me emphasize the learners’ needs as the primary source for course design implications. By examining these constantly the course can be tailored to individual needs, improving both ­ the learner’s performance and the course quality. The emerging field of learning analytics facilitates this immediate feedback process and research on related phenomena such as predicting course drop­outs [Baker, R., & Siemens, G. (2014)]. In your letter you are missing this point ­ you are describing the participants in a broad manner. What are their expectations? Why do they choose your programme? How can you ensure that the expectations are met and that your course idea is communicated properly to the learner ­ before and throughout the course?

Comparing your proposed designs, the flexible programme offers more individual freedom with the possible shortcoming of a slower socialising process due to missing face¬≠to¬≠face meetings. In contrast, the less flexible programme limits individual freedom but attendance classes can support socialising and the group¬≠work process. Due to the requiredattendance classes at least a mixture of net¬≠based and on¬≠campus meetings is useful. There are more pros and cons to be named when evaluating design approaches. I want to focus on the aspect of socialisation. The field of IT & Learning has changed over time recently specifically targeting the learner and his/her social learning environment. It has become important to evaluate interdependencies of technology and learning understanding their (historical) development plays a crucial role in it. In the science of learning we have come a long way from more or less radical behaviorists (e.g. Watson, Skinner, Thorndike) that believed in observable behavior as the true scientific approach to research on learning, over the serious study of mental functioning triggered by the new field of cognitive science in the late 1950s (e.g. Simon, Turkle) to the importance of the social and cultural contexts of learning. In addition we may not forget the focus on the processes of knowing in the new science of learning (e.g. Piaget, Vygotsky) [Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, 2000]. Including the work of Suchmann we reach the level of defining human¬≠machine¬≠interaction and aliveness. The development from behaviorism over cognitivism to situative/pragmatistic¬≠ sociohistoric views can be seen in educational technology as well. Some of the above mentioned authors state the potential of technology in the learning process. Learning theories can be related to paradigm shifts in instructional technology. Whereas CAI (computer assisted instruction) can be classified as behavioristic (how well can software support the learner to achieve specific knowledge), ITS (Intelligent Tutoring Systems) belong to the cognitivistic theory (how well does software mimic a real teacher). Logo¬≠as¬≠Latin can be arranged within the constructivistic tradition (how well can software support students in transferring knowledge) whereas CSCL (computer supported collaborative learning) is connected to situated learning (how well does the software support learners in engaging in knowledge communities) [Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M. & Resnick, Lauren B. (1996)Õĺ Koschmann, T. D. (1996)]. The major outcome of this development is that knowledge, learning and transfer are seen dissimilarly in learning theories and thus the role of technology is shifting, too. Likewise, the generations of distance education exemplify the changing roles of cognitive, social and teaching presence [Anderson, T. & Dron, J.Õĺ 2011].

Current developments in IT & Learning emphasize learner¬≠centered learning environments and scaffolding. Learner¬≠centeredness describes the focus on the learner‚Äôs psychological learning process or her/his participation in a sociocultural learning process [Hoadley, C. & Van Haneghan, J. (2012)]. Although the notion of scaffolding has changed over time one of it‚Äôs main implication is individual cognitive growth through a more competent tutor adapting to evolving knowledge and skills of a less competent tutee [Puntambekar, S., & H√ľbscher, R. (2005)]. These current developments point towards the individual learner and his/her learning needs. I am referring back to the beginning of my letter, where I emphasized these needs as well. Learning technologies become tailor¬≠made and can adapt flexibly to different users. Some examples of emerging trends in education are gaming, MOOCS and EduPunk. [Open University (2013), Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Adams, A. A. & Williams, S A. (2013), Innovation Unit (no date), Kamenetz, A. (2010)]. This broad range speaks for itself and is reflected and linked to the aspect of the crossdisciplinarity of the field [Kalz, M. and Specht, M. (2014)]. As many fields of research, IT & Learning does not withstand critique on e.g. it‚Äôs methodical capacity [Bulfin, S., Henderson, Johnson, N F, Selwyn, N. (2014)] or technological determinism [Oliver, M. (2011)]. Selwyn, N. & Fracer, K. (2013) cover the critical use of digital technology in education from a broader perspective, by analysing the stakeholders in educational technology, the use of technology in education and how it should be used for which educational causes. Gaming as a panacea has been criticized [Linderoth, J. (2012) as well as the underestimated use of procedural rhetoric [Bogost, I. (2007)].

After understanding where the learning sciences and the implications for educational design come from, we need to emphasize the evaluation of interdependencies between learning and technology. There is an ongoing discussion on the question if technology influences education or if education influences technology. In my opinion, the most critical item is avoiding technological neutralism and determinism at the same time. Technology is not just a tool that can be added to educational approaches nor does it have an undefined impact we can’t grasps. What is it then? I think as educators we are in the position to evaluate technology more critical ­ not to give one definite answer.

Related to your letter, I can understand your request for practical and applied guidance towards solving your course design question. Yet, you are mostly taking into account the design itself and how to implement it with the help of technology. As a researcher in the field of IT & Learning let me tell you that a good course design depends on more factors than being flexible . Do new approaches in IT & Learning change the way of learning or do they try to change the learner? How do we ensure keeping the focus on the learners’ needs and on implementing the social aspect of learning with the support of technology? How do we define digital literacy and how to we implement a critical and evaluating view on educational technology?

Best regards


Anderson, T. & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International review of Research on Distance and Open Learning, 12(3), 80­97.

Baker, R., & Siemens, G. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics. Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences.

Bogost, I. (2007). The rhetoric of video games. In Salen, K. (Ed.), The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning (pp. 117­140). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bulfin, S., Henderson, Johnson, N F, Selwyn, N. (2014). Methodological capacity within the field of ‚Äúeducational technology‚ÄĚ research: an initial investigation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 403¬≠414.

Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School.

Garrison, R. (2009). Implications of Online Learning for the Conceptual Development and Practice of Distance Education. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 93­104.

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M. & Resnick, Lauren B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 15‚Äď46). New York: Macmillan.

Hoadley, C. & Van Haneghan, J. (2012). The Learning Sciences: Where they came from and what it means for instructional designers. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.),
Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3rd ed., pp. 53­63). New York: Pearson.

Innovation Unit (no date). Ten ideas for 21st century education.Kalz, M. and Specht, M. (2014). Assessing the crossdisciplinarity of technology­enhanced learning with science overlay maps and diversity measures. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 415­427.

Kamenetz, A. (2010). DIY U: Edupunks, edupreneurs, and the coming transformation of higher education

Koschmann, T. D. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: An introduction. In T. D. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 1‚Äď23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Linderoth, J. (2012). Why gamers don t learn more. An ecological approach to games as learning environments. Journal of Gaming and Virtual Worlds, 4(1), 45­61.

Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Adams, A. A. & Williams, S A. (2013). MOOCs: A Systematic Study of the Published Literature 2008­2012. International Review of Research on Distance and Open Learning, 14(3), 202­227.

Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: some alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 373‚Äď384.

Open University (2013). Innovating pedagogy 2013 OU.

Puntambekar, S., & H√ľbscher, R. (2005). Tools for Scaffolding Students in a Complex Learning Environment: What Have We Gained and What Have We Missed?.Educational
Psychologist, 40(1), 1­12. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1

Selwyn, N. & Fracer, K. (2013). Introduction. The need for a Politics of Education and Technology. In. N. Selwyn, & K. Facer: (Eds.). The Politics of Education and Technology: Conflicts, Controversies, and Connections. New York, London: Palgrave MacMillan.

How I was educated, how I learn and how I would teach tomorrow

Summing up the first week of my Master’s programme, it was all about how we have come to the¬†current idea of¬†digital education and what underlying theories of learning and instructional technology paradigms relate to this development.

Taking a step back resulted in some reflections on my personal¬†schooling history, it’s relevance for the person I am today and my concept¬†I hold on education & learning.


The hardliners of behaviorism


Throughout school I was lucky to meet the hardliners of behaviorism¬†(if one can say that) focusing on memorizing and recalling this memory (responding) in a particular occasion (to a stimuli). That resulted in me being able to …

  • recall all German federal states and their capitals without knowing where they actually are located,
  • being able to recite the multiplication table but struggling when working on complex math problems,
  • being able to cite Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum but not being able to translate one single Latin phrase properly.

I don’t want to say that this is solely¬†an outcome of the way I was taught. But it becomes clear dto me how much influence schools do have on families (as they assume, that teachers know how to teach, and might copy their teaching style¬†at home to support their children) and on the individual idea/concept¬†of knowledge (if there has always been the one correct answer, I am likely to struggle in reality where there are mostly not one but several ways to answer).

Talking to a friend of mine about this he said “Well, but these are some facts, you could always get a good impression with.” Or as my old Latin teacher would put it: “Reciting Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum makes you the superstart of your regular’s table.”


Aversive contingencies = punishment?

Browsing good old Skinner and “The Technology of Teaching” for my Classics seminar next week, I can find the keyword of ”¬†aversive contingencies” or “aversive control” (describing an “unpleasant¬†stimulant to change undesirable behavior” or in simpler words punishments such as extra work or detention [very happy that I missed the times of corporal punishment])¬†. Source

That keyword somehow describes my relation to school, as I was pretty often scared being in class. Especially when I knew that the teacher randomly assigned tasks to be solved at the blackboard (in front of the class) or presenting homework (as an impromptu speech). Whereas for other students that was a reward Рfor me it was hell.

What brings me to the importance of seeing students as individuals and recognizing their learning needs not only regarding content and pace, but regarding learning type and motivational aspects.

What for one student might be the most engaging activity ever, might be the scariest for another. 


Tracing the influences of the past

So this is how I have been taught mainly (although I have to admit, that especially during my A-Levels and my studies this schema of education vanished Рand especially five years of working full-time have taught me that it is not important to know all facts, but to know where to can find them).

I can still find back some traces of this influence in my actual learning style and my assumptions of learning theories. I tend to …

  • think that there is alway this one correct answer,
  • have something done and then avoid developing it further (especially with feedback that comes too late)
  • think that I have to know it all by heart – which sometimes makes me lose track on my focus and get stuck with too many details.


Making the best of it for tomorrow

Knowing this enables me to develop further. But what about education and technology in general? Reading about emerging technologies and how they can support the teaching process, there was one quote that I came across often:

“It’s nothing new what we are doing only because we use technology”.

For me it is, or to put it in better words, it should be and we should emphasize this. Please do something new with technology and please do not simply transfer your classroom lessons to digital environments. This is not what we need technology for.

To close with a quote from the Innovation Unit’s “10 ideas for 21 Century Education” report:¬†

“Education systems have been resistant to change because education is so important ‚Äď too important, some would argue, to experiment with. There is another way to look at this: in a rapidly changing world, education is too important to be left behind.” Source¬†

Starting online class activities: Our fist net-seminar

Today¬†was the day of our first “net-seminar”. It turned out that I had completely different expectations. When hearing the term “net-seminar” I thought of an online meeting via collaboration plattforms¬†(e.g. Hangouts, Blackboard Collaborate)¬†including a lecture and some relating synchronous task and/or additional tasks¬†to discuss in forums. (I admit that this expectation result from my former participation in online courses, so¬†I¬†questioned my schema of net-seminars today ūüėČ ).

In the end we used our Facebook group as a discussion group and the input for the discussions were two readings from 1996 Рone about theories of educational psychology the other about paradigms in instructional technology. Our task:

To do: Reflect and relate Koshmann to Greeno[‚Ķ] et als’ elaborations. Everyone put one reflection/elaborated question in the Facebook group – and everyone make at least two respon[d]s to fellow participants. Make sure everyone’s contribution receives feedback!

Literature: Greeno, Resnick & Collins (1996) and Koschmann (1996)


[Taken from the Learning Management System]


When discussing this task in class beforehand, there was a certain uncertainty among us as peers: When do we have to submit this task? When to we have to respond to our fellow students? Do we have to be online at a certain time? The answers to our questions implied a lot of freedom. Meaning that there was no certain time, just a day, during which the net-seminar took place. Though not everybody contributed until now (and I assume not everybode will), I am already able to draw my personal conclusion from this interesting day:

  1. The¬†open task¬†did not make it easy to post something – nor did the¬†environment¬†(Facebook), which was surely new to many of us when it comes to posting¬†in “academic manner”. As soon as¬†there was someone “breaking the ice” others followed very quickly and a quite constructive discussion¬†arose. I was particularly surprised by the various ways of dealing with the task and the progressive development of feedback. Due to the fact that we were not too many participants it was very easy to respond to one another and not lose track. [Nevertheless, up to now there is still one contribution without feedback and I cannot think of a good response to this post…] All in all I think there are better platforms to hold a net-seminar. A Facebook group can be very confusing and it mixes lecture content with organizational issues. But as a start I like the idea of linking familiar online tools with unfamiliar learning activities.
  2. It was not an attendance class and there was not specific schedule – meaning that you could work from¬†wherever you desired, whenever you desired. [Nevertheless I met two of my peers in the library – seems still to be a very productive place to work from ūüėČ ] This flexibility brings some threats with it: I myself caught myself glimpsing on my mobile phone display even though I considered my task to be done. In the end I contributed more than what was expected.¬†Flexibility means more¬†responsibility of one’s own to determine working time and working place. Not only in terms of motivating oneself but also in terms of stopping oneself in engaging too much.
  3. Fear and/or respect. For me there is still uncertainty about how to write what, being exposed to other’s critiques and making mistakes in public. Before posting my contribution I thought that it was the worst text I have ever written. I have to learn, that social learning activities are not about being perfect from the beginning. But taking advantage of skills and knowledge of my peers and accepting their feedback to improve my initial idea.
  4. I am asking myself why the task attracted not as many peers as I expected it to do. And I try to think of ways to improve this situation. From my experience there is nothing replacing the actual doing. To participate in the activity. This is how a net-seminar comes to life. Having this awesome texts and questions from my peers made me read the texts with different eyes and even understand them better as I was trying to grasp their line of reasoning. Finding arguments for my opinion also contributed a lot to my deeper understanding of the readings and their interconnections. Participation is also an issue in attendance classes but I think it is more salient in online classes, as it is directly “trackable”. Not only in a certrain situation but also afterwards as the seminar was based on written posts.

All in all it was an insightful day for me with a lot of take-home messages to work on. My overall take-home message is that no matter how different your expectations are, there is always something to learn and take home.

Making use of what we know

Reflecting on my first session of the International Master’s programme in Information Technology and Learning at Gothenburg University¬†( ) there is this giant beast of information overload and the question how to organise all the material without losing the focus.

On the one hand I am thinking about how to contribute with what I already know. How do I make accessible to others what¬†is already inside my head. We started today by doing some group activities about our educational background and interests – in “analog format” (board, sticky notes, etc.). Our lecturer asked us how we would have organized it in a digital environment. What struck me the most was the fact that no technology can replace the actual concept of what we want our contribution to look like. It is not technology that is solving the issue of knowledge quality. Technology mainly operates as a tool of providing access to it.

On the other hand I try to figure out how I should grasp all what I learned today and will learn during the programme. I want to try different types of technology but not losing track. How can I organize all the different tools I use, the content I create and above all – how much work do I have to invest in learning how to use these technologies?

  • My first goal for this programme is to become more courageous and adventurous when it comes to using technology. What is holding me back is that feeling of revealing something – a comment, a text, a paper – that is then outside of my control.
  • It is also the fear of criticism. Creating accessable content does mean that it is open to feedback. Especially when one did put a lot of effort into something, negative feedback is not always easy to accept. As a second goal I see taking advantage of constant feedback and learning how do benefit from it and further develop my created contents.