Positionings, agencies and roles in an academic, virtual learning environment: A topology of learning

This paper presents a small-scale, Action Research study with a group of undergraduate students and two tutors on a dissertation module in a British university. The aim was to explore the ways students’ collaborative engagement can be facilitated in a virtual learning environment. Drawing on positioning theory, the authors explored the ways participants constructed the self and others in this virtual space: their perceptions of the rights, duties, roles and expectations of each other; their evolving identities as learners and the impact of these positionings upon their sense of personal, collective and relational agencies. They used questionnaires and interviews to examine the participants’ discourses and positionings. The virtual learning space was experienced as a predominantly relational space, where participants assumed certain dynamic positions, always in relation to each other. The findings suggest the existence of a topology of learning.

Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Zuber ‐Skerritt. O. (2002). The concept of action research. The Learning Organization, 9(3): 125- 31. http://doi.org10.1108/09696470210428840

Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Psychological Science, 1: 164–180. http://doi.org10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x

Barradell, S., Barrie, S. & Peseta, T. (2018). Ways of thinking and practicing: Highlighting the complexities of higher education curriculum. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(3): 266-275. http://doi.org10.1080/14703297.2017.1372299

Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., Buntins, K., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology in higher education: A systematic review in the field of arts and humanities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4): 126-150. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5477

Bond, M., Bundis, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1): 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8

British Educational Research Association (BERA, 2018). Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educationa... (accessed: 10 July 2024).

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.

Chaaban, Y., Qadhi, S., & Du, X. (2021). Student teachers’ agency in the transition to emergency online learning. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 26(2): 231-255.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2021.1909926

Chengchiang Chen, J., Dobinson, T. & Kent, S. (2020). Lecturers’ perceptions and experiences of Blackboard Collaborate as a distance learning and teaching tool via Open Universities Australia (OUA). Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 35(3): 222-235. http://doi.org10.1080/02680513.2019.1688654

Code, J. (2020). Agency for learning: Intention, motivation, self-efficacy and self-regulation. Frontiers in Education, 5: 1-15. http://doi.org10.3389/feduc.2020.00019

Dunn, T. J., & Kennedy, M. (2019). Technology enhanced learning in higher education;
Motivations, engagement and academic achievement. Computers and Education, 137:
104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.004

Gillespie, A. (2012). Position exchange: The social development of agency. New Ideas in Psychology, 30: 32-46. http://doi.org10.1016/j.newideapsych.2010.03.004

Griffin, C. P. & Howard, S. (2017). Restructuring the college classroom: a critical reflection on the use of collaborative strategies to target student engagement in higher education. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 16(3): 375-392. http://doi.org10.1177/1475725717692681

Harré, R. and Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning theory: moral contexts of intentional action. Blackwell.

Heflin, H., Shewmaker, J., & Nguyen, J. (2017). Impact of mobile technology on student
attitudes, engagement, and learning. Computers and Education, 107: 91–99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01/006

Herrara-Pavo, M. Á (2021). Collaborative learning for virtual higher education. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 28: 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100437

Hvid Stenalt, M. & Lassesen, B. (2022). Does student agency benefit student learning? A systematic review of higher education research. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(5): 653-669. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1967874

Hung, M. L., Chou, C., Chen, C. H., & Own, Z. Y. (2010). Learner readiness for online
learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers and Education, 55:
1080–1090. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.004

Kemmis, S. (2009). Action Research as a Practice-Based Practice. Educational Action Research, 17(3): 463–474. http://doi.org10.1080/09650790903093284

Kinsler, K. (2010). The utility of Educational Action Research for emancipatory change. Action Research, 8(2): 171–189. http://doi.org//10.1177/1476750309351357

Lacka, E. & Wonk, E.C. (2021). Examining the impact of digital technologies on students’ higher education outcomes: the case of the virtual learning environment and social media. Studies in Higher Education, 46(8): 1621-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1698533

Ligorio, M. B., Impedovo, M. A. & Arcidiacono, F. (2017). Agency online: trends in a university learning course. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(5): 529-543. http://doi.org10.1080/1475939X.2017.1350599

Luo, H., Yang, T., Xue, J., & Zuo, M. (2019). Impact of student agency on learning performance and learning experience in a flipped classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2): 819-831. http://doi:10.1111/bjet.12604

McNiff, J. (2017). Action Research. All you need to know. Sage.

McVee, M. B. (2011). Positioning theory and sociocultural perspectives. Affordances for educational researchers. In M. B. McVee, C. H. Brock & J. A. Glazier (Eds.), Sociocultural positioning in literacy: Exploring culture, discourse, narrative and power in diverse educational contexts (pp. 13-33). Hampton Press, Inc.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications.

OECD (2018). The Future of Education and Skills: Education 2030. Paris, France: Directorate for Education and Skills, OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact/E2030%20Position...(05.04.2018).pdf

Papadopoulou, M. (2020). Supporting the development of early years students’ professional identities through an Action Research programme. Educational Action Research, 28(4): 686-699. http://doi.org10.1080/09650792.2019.1652196

Papadopoulou, M. (2021). A student, a practitioner or a researcher? An attempt to reconcile the three roles through an undergraduate action research module. Educational Action Research, 29(2): 206-225. http://doi.org10.1080/09650792.2021.1886959

Ragusa, A. T., & Crampton, A. (2024). Facilitated learning or technical distraction? Sociologically exploring online university learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 33(2), 219-234. http://doi.org10.1080/1475939X.2023.2294117

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. MIT Press.
https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-000

Wenger, É. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, É. (2010). Conceptual Tools for CoPs as Social Learning Systems: Boundaries, identity, trajectories and participation. In C. Blackmore (Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice (125–144). Springer.

Zienkowski, J. & Lambotte, F. (2023). Agency as an emerging phenomenon in the construction of massive open online courses: a discursive-material approach to the techno-pedagogical edX platform and its forums. Learning, Media and Technology, 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2023.2238601