A sociomaterial analysis of a learning space

by Kerry Boakes

A sociomaterial perspective views a ‘learning space’ as consisting of a range of actors that shape educational practices which are material and social. ‘Space’ is a social construction, according to French philosopher and sociologist Henri Lefebvre (1991); it is a product and a process defined by the power distribution of its social context. Therefore, rather than a static container to be filled, a ‘learning space’ can be considered a ‘sociomaterial’ process that exists through the interconnectivity of human and non-human actors. It allows us to see these different actors not in isolation but in the way they interact with one another. Digital platforms are often seen as tools that we utilise for a particular outcome, but learning space theorists claim that what is happening is more complex (Lamb et al. 2021).

What does a ‘learning space’ consist of?

In this blog I will analyse one of my learning spaces (room 4.27, Figure 1) in order to better understand how a learning space works as a process and how we as educators can exploit it to improve educational practices. In particular, I will focus on how human and non-human actors interact to produce learning, and I will evaluate the positive and negative effects of this, specifically focusing on Turnitin as an actor in Higher Education. In a social constructivist approach, learning is considered as a product of social interactions. Learners interpret and construct knowledge as a process through their own social and cultural experiences.  A sociomaterial perspective also includes the material actors in this process where the human and non-human actors are considered as interconnected rather than separate entities. Figure 1 above depicts a photo of room 4.27 with the material actors of the projection screen, desktop computer, chairs, desks, a world map, a half-closed blind, laptops and iPads. In the classroom, the material world interacts with human actors to create learning, and this can be extended to include social processes as well as the technology that impacts the process, re-positioning the learner as no longer central to their own learning (Fenwick et al., 2011). If we consider the human and non-human actors as interconnected rather than as separate entities, it allows us to explore the relationships between them with more transparency.

The accessibility and equality of a learning space is dependent on the affordances of the actors working within it. The term ‘affordance’ was originally coined by Gibson (1977), a perceptual psychologist who referred to it as the actionable properties between the material world and a human actor. Norman (2013) explains that we think of objects as having properties: the weight of a chair, for example. Whether a person can lift a chair depends on the weight of the chair and the strength of the person lifting it. The learning process depends on the actors ‘affordances’: their own capabilities, beliefs and feelings and attitudes towards the material and human actors within it. Examining the material, cultural and social actors that shape a space is key to understanding who or what has the power to influence it.

Who are the human and what are the non-human actors?

The photo above (Figure 1) was taken during breaktime of an Academic Writing workshop in Week 4. We had been discussing Academic Integrity and how to avoid plagiarism, collusion and contract cheating when producing written assignments. The screen which projects the PC monitor is displaying the marking criteria used for assessments. The students were surprised that plagiarism is taken so seriously by UK universities.

The non-human actors at play include the electricity enabling the Wi-Fi connection, powering the devices used for recording and sharing information, such as the PC which is connected to the screen that projects the marking criteria; and the laptops; iPads and phones that give access to Blackboard; the plagiarism detection tool, Turnitin; the learning outcomes of the lesson; the worksheet tasks. The blind that was pulled down to prevent the sun reflecting on the screen. Even the bags that held the devices to bring them to the classroom; and the empty coffee cup that has provided refreshment and focus to its consumer have influence.

The human actors – not depicted in the photo but who were present moments before it was taken – include the students, teacher and the interaction patterns between them. Those who were not physically present but played a role in the learning process, include the academic staff who created the materials, the administration and IT staff who designed and supported the systems in use; the developers of Turnitin and Blackboard; the wider academic community in which the students belong; the creators of the Centre’s vision and principles of transparency and transferability that permeate the content of the course, as well as the teacher’s acceptance of these principles and willingness and ability to communicate them to the learners.

What influence do the actors have?

Education can draw on discussions of critical geography in terms of ‘space’, ‘place’ and ‘identity’, where ‘place’ is the location that is fixed and ‘space’ is a broader and more fluid concept within which ‘identity’ is formed.

Gershon (2017) argues that actors within these contexts have varying degrees of power. Arguably, teachers and course designers have more power than students to negotiate the learning context; however, they are also constrained by materials, syllabus, institutional principles and values, resources, time and experience and the capabilities of the digital platforms used. For example, one actor present in the session on Academic Integrity during the session was Turnitin. When asked in the session how they felt about the use of the tool to detect plagiarism, one student said “frightened”. The course materials are designed to inform them about Academic Integrity, not instil fear; however, the introduction of an alien concept that threatens their future academic success could have negative affective factors.

What do we know about Turnitin and what influence does it have on the learning process?

In a talk given at the Digitally Engaged Learning Conference (2022), Sian Bayne, professor of Digital Education at Edinburgh University, refers to ‘the emerging platform university’. Platform capitalism is influenced by a Neo-Liberalist economic theory which was once more associated with the gaming and entertainment industries and now features heavily in academic institutions. Bayne (2022) discusses how the public role of the university is losing sight of its ‘social mission’ as this model promotes profit for private gain.

Figure 4 above shows a timeline of Turnitin which began as a ‘home grown’ service at the University of Northumbria in 1998 and was sold for the vast sum of $1.75 billion in 2019. After buying out all major competitors in 2021, it now monopolizes the market which has raised concerns over pricing, accuracy and privacy.

The interaction between the human and non-human actors in this example shows that material actors can have influence on the learning process. The algorithmic actor, in this case, arguably has substantial power over universities in the UK without necessarily sharing their principles of criticality, inclusivity and privacy (Bayne, 2022). The principles of our academic community around intellectual property are potentially being flouted by a company who makes profit from our students’ data as students upload their work without any real informed consent or choice.

In a special online conversation on Postdigital learning spaces of higher education, Goodyear (2022) highlights that by viewing a learning space from a sociomaterial perspective we can conceptualize it more clearly as, firstly, a space that is designed or managed in a professional capacity. And secondly, it is something that is experienced by learners. Connecting the two is key to developing better educational practices.

In week 12 my IFP classes were asked for feedback on their experiences of using Turnitin during TB1. Figure 5 below shows the responses given.

While the most common answer was ‘useful’, and in the class discussion that preceded the Mentimeter activity, many students understood its value and use as a way to avoid plagiarism, there was also an alarming mistrust of it, for example, ‘mysterious’ and ‘detective’. There was a clear resistance to it, for example ‘don’t want to’ and ‘I don’t like’. Many of the responses were also contradictory, for example, ‘clear’ and ‘confusing’, ‘fast’ and ‘slow’, ‘convenient’ and ‘inconvenient’, ‘helpful’ and ‘annoying’, which highlights how differently the students have interacted with it.

According to Bayne & Drysdale (2022), Turnitin, which is used in 98% of UK universities, is biased towards native speakers. Research has shown that international students are more likely to be accused of plagiarism than UK students due to the difficulties of fully comprehending an academic text in a second language and therefore not paraphrasing thoroughly. Hayes & Introna, (2005) as cited in Hayes & Itrona (2011) have shown that changing just one word between the 7^th and 14^th word in a sentence is enough to avoid being detected. Therefore, as international students are more likely to include longer sections of the original text than UK students, they are more likely to be detected. Therefore, even though UK students do not paraphrase sources adequately either, international learners are less likely to have the affordances required to pass the Turnitin ‘test’.

How can this inform our learning and teaching practices?

Transformer AI systems such as GPT-3 OpenAI API can now generate original essays that cannot be detected by plagiarism detection tools because they are not copied. They can produce fake references that appear genuine using prominent names in the subject area that refer to fictitious research studies. Sharples (2022) suggests that educators should re-think how they assess students. He questions whether, “…as educators, if we are setting students assignments that can be answered by AI Transformers, are we really helping students learn?’’.

By considering alternative innovative assessment modes such as video, audio, image, websites, digital exhibitions, blogs and visualisations we can provide new ways to represent academic knowledge. The use of reflective writing and presentation assessments is already a key component of many of our courses but these could be implemented further. The Digital Education department at the University of Edinburgh where I am studying an MSc in Digital Education have chosen not to use Turnitin due to its ethical implications. Bayne & Dysdale (2022) demonstrate the possibilities of exploring multimodal and multimedia technologies to assess students’ understanding and knowledge of subject matter. You can view some examples of assessments produced here Showcase | MSc in Digital Education. This is a way of ‘designing out’ plagiarism using approaches that encourage creativity and innovation that AI cannot yet match. As a student I have found these forms of assessments more engaging than the traditional essay writing tasks because they require an in depth understanding of the subject matter and demand more higher order thinking skills.

Conclusion

Room 4.27 is a fixed place on the the 4^th floor in the Richmond building, but it can also be viewed as a learning space, a fluid and changing process, a social construction made up of a host of different actors. One that is enacted by material and social influences that combine to create positive and negative learning and teaching experiences. I have focused on just one actor which arguably has power over the learning process, producing a range of different learning experiences, and impacts the academic integrity of the wider academic community in which we work. The increasing digitization of higher education offers great opportunities to collaborate with technology in creative ways. It is my hope that through a deeper critical analysis of the technology used, we can ensure it aligns with our values as educators rather than with the financial incentives of corporations.

 

References

Bayne, S. and Drysdale  T, (2022) Assessment, feedback and their digital futures. Teaching Matters.Available at: Assessment, feedback and their digital futures – Teaching Matters blog [Accessed 19th December 2022].

Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research : Tracing the socio-material. Taylor & Francis Group. Created from ed on 2022-10-09 13:03:21. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203817582 [Accessed 6th October 2022].

Gershon, W. S. (2017). Sonic Cartography: Mapping Space, Place, Race, and Identity in an Urban Middle School. Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education, 13 (1). Available through: https://doi.org/10.31390/taboo.13.1.04 [Accessed 1st October 2022].

Introna, L. & Hayes, N., (2011) On sociomaterial imbrications: What plagiarism detection systems reveal and why it matters. Information and Organization, Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages 107-122, Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2011.03.001. [Accessed 19th December 2022].

Lamb, J., Carvalho, L., Gallagher, M. & Knox, J. (2021) The Postdigital Learning Spaces of Higher Education. Postdigital Science and Education. 4 (1), 1–12. Available at: The Postdigital Learning Spaces of Higher Education | SpringerLink [Accessed 6th October 2022].

Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space. Nicholson-Smith, D. (trans.). Malden: Blackwell Publishing [original work published in 1974].

Norman, D. A. (2013) Chapter 2: The Psychology of Everyday Actions The Design of Everyday Things : Revised and Expanded Edition, Basic Books, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ed/detail.action?docID=1167019. [Accessed 5th December 2022].

Open AI (2022) Build next-gen apps with Open AI’s powerful models. Available at: OpenAI API [Accessed 7th January 2023].

Sharples, M. (2022) New AI tools that can write student essays require educators to rethink teaching and assessment. Available at: New AI tools that can write student essays require educators to rethink teaching and assessment | Impact of Social Sciences (lse.ac.uk). [Accessed 19th December 2022].

The Digitally Engaged Learning Conference (2022) Available at: DEL | Frictions and Futures for Digital Higher Education (digitallyengagedlearning.net) [Accessed 22nd September 2022].

The University of Edinburgh(2022) Postdigital learning spaces of higher education – a special online conversation. Available at: Digital Education Seminar Series 2021-22 – Media Hopper Create. [Accessed 7th March 2022].

The University of Edinburgh (2022) Showcase. Available at: Showcase | MSc in Digital Education [Accessed 7th January 2023].