A SOCIO-TECHNICAL HIGHER EDUCATION PERSPECTIVE (STHEP): THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSONAL LEARNING NETWORKSBY NIC FAIR – PHD RESEARCHER, WEB SCIENTIST AND DIGITAL EDUCATOR WWW.NICFAIR.CO.UK WWW.EFOLIO.SOTON.AC.UK/BLOG/INNOVATIONINHE/ @NIC_FAIR NSRF1G12@SOTON.AC.UK

SOCIO-TECHNICAL SYSTEMS THEORY

Society

Technology

Socio-technical systems focus “on the interdependencies between and among people, technology and the environment” (Cummings, 1978)

Technology is “socially embedded – i.e. seamlessly intertwined with the expectations and skills of technology users, with institutional structures and with broader infrastructures” (Borri & Grassini, 2014)

SOCIO-TECHNICAL TRANSFORMATIONS

Landscape

RegimeNiche

- Physical and external context = slow transformations

- Semi-coherent ‘rules’ within a community = moderately slow transformations

- Space for individual innovation = rapid, dynamic transformations

(Geels, 2002)

TENSION

STHEP 1The learner can not be separated from the

technology used for learning

HE learnER + technology = fully integrated

HE learnING + technology = partially integrated (at best)

TENSION

STHEP 2HE students sit at the centre of their own Personal Learning Network (PLN)

Autonomously created

Online AND offlinePreferred devices and services

Range of people and institutionsWide range of distributed information sources

STHEP 3Learning Theory may benefit from

reformulation through a socio-technical lens

Meaningful interactions

and connections

through your

Personal Learning Network

Socio-technical

Constructivism

Humans

Technology

ActionActivity

Social Relations

hips

STHEP 4Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) can provide an outlet for High Impact HE

PedagogiesPLNs are autonomously created

PLNs are a space for identity and social capital creation

PLNs are networks of people, institutions and services

PLNs are self-maintained

PLNs are activated at times, places and ways of choosing

Learner autonomy

Creativity

Peer learning & Collaboration

Learner self-regulation

Learner self-direction

STHEP 5HEIs must embed the development of Digital

Literacies and Networking Skills in all teaching & learning activities

(Both images from JISC 2015)

Digital Literacies

CONCLUSION – THE 5 STHEPS

The centrality of Personal Learning Networks

Socio-technical Constructivism

Personal Learning Networks provide pedagogical benefits

The learner can not be separated from learning technologies

Development of Digital Literacies and Networking Skills

STHEP 1STHEP 2

STHEP 3

STHEP 4STHEP 5

REFERENCES• Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P. and Pinch, T. J., eds. 1987. The social construction of technological systems: New

directions in the sociology and history of technology

• Borri, D. and Grassini, L., 2014. Dilemmas in the Analysis of Technological Change. A Cognitive Approach to Understand Innovation and Change in the Water Sector. Tema. Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment.

• Cummings, T.G., 1978. Self-regulating work groups: A socio-technical synthesis. Academy of management Review, 3(3), pp.625-634.

• Downes, S (2007). What Connectivism is. Available on : http://halfanhour.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html

• Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2015). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the socio-material. Routledge.

• Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research policy, 31(8), pp.1257-1274.

• Law, J. (2009). Actor network theory and material semiotics. The new Blackwell companion to social theory, p. 141-158.

• Siemens, G. (2014). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Available on http://er.dut.ac.za/bitstream/handle/123456789/69/Siemens_2005_Connectivism_A_learning_theory_for_the_digital_age.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

• van Plon Verhagen, B. (2006). Connectivism: a new learning theory?

• White, D.S. and Le Cornu, A., 2011. Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday, 16(9).