Sociotechnical+Systems+Theory+Resources

This page will contain information pertaining to Sociotechnical Systems Theory, and may eventually contain the discussion of our proposed model.

Rudestam, K. E., & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (Eds.). (2010). //Handbook of online learning// (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [|Online_Handbook_2010_CH5.pdf]

Thompson, M. (2004, Sept). The Use of Systems Theory in Distance Education: An Annotated Bibliography. //DEOSNEWS, 13//(7). [|Annotated bib systems theory DE.pdf]

Volha, B., Giorgini, P. & Mylopoulos, J. (2009). Designing socio-technical systems: from stakeholder goals to social networks. //Requirements Eng, 14//, 47–70 DOI 10.1007/s00766-008-0073-5. [|Designing socio-technical systems.pdf]

Wang, J., Solan, D. & Ghods, A. (2010) Distance learning success - a perspective from socio-technical systems theory. //Behaviour & Information Technology, 29//(3), 321 — 329,DOI: 10.1080/01449290903544645. [|Jianfeng_Distance_Learning Success_STS_Theory_perspective.pdf]

Walker, S., & Creanor, L. (2009). The STIN in the tale: A socio-technical interaction perspective on networked learning. //Educational Technology & Society//, //12// (4), 305–316. [|SocioTechnical Interaction Perspective on Networked Learning.pdf]

**THIS MIGHT BE THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK THAT WE CAN DRAW ON!!!** This article connects the ideas of STS and networked learning, in a “unifying concept allowing us to bring together apparently disparate elements of the field” (p. 305). They assert that networked learning occurs when designers “orchestrate groups of people using technology, tailored learning activities and learning resources to enable learning” (p. 305). They also note the common need for this orchestration within blended learning environments. In their study they “draw on the social informatics and sociotechnical traditions of research into information and communications technologies (ICT) to highlight the complexity of interactions between people and technology in networked learning situations, and the consequent potential sensitivity to apparently trivial difficulties.” They do this in order to think about and make sense of complex social interaction in the learning environment. They note the utility of STS in micro as well as macro level analysis. They do point out the weakness of using STS in that the analyses provide quite a mechanistic account of the learning environment, which gives us our “in” with the question, what role does culture play in an STS?

In their sociotechnical interaction network model (STIN), the technological is seen as co-constitutive with the social, i.e. technological elements cannot be discussed independently of the social aspects. “Behaviour is thus not simply dictated by the affordances of a particular technology or artefact, but through participants interacting with both people and artefacts which may themselves also be part of other networks” (p. 307). They also suggest deliberately looking beyond the affordances of the technology or the narrow relationships between participants, which also plays well into our idea of culture within an STS. In fact, they go on to say that in using STIN to look at heterogeneous networks, made up of the social and technical practices associated with each learning, they are able to identify support to learners as well as barriers to participation within the sociotechnical network, as they call it (p. 307). “Bringing together people and technologies organized through pedagogic practices and artefacts” Due to the heterogeneous nature of the STS, discontinuities between individuals can be thought of as boundaries (different software, physical distance, varying levels of support, different communication structures, different social settings, different cultures, different languages, etc.). Boundary encounters may be opportunities for or obstacles to learning. Some of these boundary issues can be addressed through interventions and improved design. “The technologies do not, alone, dictate who uses a site, how they relate to it, or, we may surmise, the meanings people attaché to the use… The variability of people’s use and understanding of technology make it harder for designers of networked learning to make assumptions about learners’ attitudes towards and skills in the use of technologies and their potential value for learning” (p. 314).