informal e-learning: what does it mean?

8/14/2019 Informal E-Learning: What does it mean?

1/20

CONFERENCE SERIES

Microlearning and Capacity BuildingProceedings of the 4

th

International Microlearning 2008 Conference

Editors: Peter A. Bruck, Martin Lindner


2/20

CONFERENCE SERIES

www.uibk.ac.at/iup

iup innsbruckuniversity press

Series Editors: K. Habitzel, T. D. Mrk, S. Prock, B. Stehno


3/20

2008

1st editionAll rights reserved.

Universitt Innsbruck

Technikerstrae 21 a

A-6020 Innsbruck

www.uibk.ac.at/iup

Editors: Peter A. Bruck, Martin Lindner

Publishing staff: Carmen Drolshagen, Gregor Sailer

Organisation of Proceedings: Wolfgang Hagleitner

Translation: Julia Bruck

Organisation of Conference: Birgit Berger

Produced: Fred Steiner, Rinn Book on Demand

ISBN: 978-3-902571-60-1


4/20

Microlearning and Capacity Building

Proceedings of the4th International Microlearning 2008 Conference

Editors:

Peter A. Bruck, Martin Lindner

Printed with support of

Research Studios Austria

Forschungsgesellschaft mbH


5/20

Table of Content

Forewords and Introductions

Peter A. Bruck

Welcome and Introduction to Micromedia and Capacity Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Martina A. RothWelcome to Microlearning 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Martin Lindner

The Shift Towards Microinformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Ulf-Daniel Ehlers

Web 2.0 E-learning 2.0 Quality 2.0? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Foundations and Basics

Judy Breck

Unbundling Online Educational Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Matthias Rohs

Informal e-learning What Does it Mean?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Martin Lindner

Micromedia Flow Experience Design

A Conceptual Framework for Designing Microcontent-driven Applications

for Peripheral View and Partial Attention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37


6/20

Applications and Practices

Lars Johnsen

The Seven Cs of Educational Topic Maps:

Towards Open Microwebs for (Language) Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Eva M. Unterrainer, Meinrad E. Welte

Evaluation of Flashcard-based Learning Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Martin Ebner, Walther NaglerHas the End of the Chalkboard Come?

A Survey About the Limits of Interactive Pen Displays in Higher Education . . . . . . . . 79

Stefan Walder, Wolfgang Hagleitner

Mobile Hydraulic Engineering Simulations as Microcontent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

etin Gler, Arif Altun, Petek Askar

Teacher Trainees as Learning Object Designers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Table of Content


7/20

Informal E-learning What Does it Mean?

(Paper)

Matthias Rohs

E-Learning Center, University of Zurich (Switzerland)

Abstract: Although informal learning is an old-fashioned term in the pedagogical domain, it has

become increasingly popular in the past few years through increased discussion. As a result of this

debate, the term has lost conciseness and threatens to become an empty buzzword for political and

managerial speeches. Therefore, the discussion on informal learning in the field of e-learning is

threatened with failure even before it has truly started. This paper will give a short overview of the

roots of informal learning and present the results of an expert survey on informal e-learning as a

contribution to further discussion in this field.

1. Introduction

Since the 1990s, public dialogue on informal learning in all fields of education has

increased. The term has been picked up within the context of e-learning and the debate

on Web 2.0, social software, mobile learning and personal learning environments (e.g.Attwell, 2007; Cross, 2007a). The discussion on informal learning in the field of e-

learning has until now been dominated by a mixed use of terminology and only a few

attempts have been made to create a definition of the term (Hauske & Bendel 2007).

Obviously, what is missing is a debate on what this term or phenomenon is and what it

could be, respectively.

There are three ways to come to a definition of a term (Zrcher 2007, pp 37-44):

1) Top-down definition by an authority: In the context of informal learning, the

European Unions Memorandum of lifelong learning (Commission of the

European Communities 2000, p. 8) defined three categories of learningactivities: informal-, non-formal- and formal learning. Although this definition

has been circulated widely, it is not in common use.

2) Etymological definition: The second way to define a term is by its etymological

meaning. Formal denotes concerning the form. By contrast, the prefix in or

non means without any form. Based on this understanding, non-formal and


8/20

Informal e-learning What Does it Mean? 25

informal are the same. However, this approach generally does not lead to a

differentiated definition of formal and informal learning.

3) Use in practice: According to Wittgensteins Theory of Use

(Gebrauchstheorie), the meaning of a word arises from its use in a language.

Following the last definition, it is necessary to explore in which way informal learning is

used, as well as its context and the meaning associated with the term. This does not

mean finding one precise definition of informal e-learning. However, the discussion

requires reflection on what it means when the term informal learning is used in the

context of e-learning, as well as highlighting of the different perspectives. This will help to

gain a better understanding of the theoretical perspectives present in the discussion and

will lead to more practical solutions in the future.

To this end, a small survey was conducted with experts on informal learning & e-learning

in order to get a better idea of their understanding of informal e-learning. The survey

focused on experts in higher education.

The results of this survey must be viewed within the context of the broader discussion on

informal learning. For this reason, this paper begins with three short chapters concerning

the background of the discussion, the reason for the increasing importance of informal

learning, and some characteristics of informal learning.

2. What is the background of the discussion?

I would first like to review the roots of informal learning. Retrospectively, it is easier to

understand which criteria were used to describe informal learning and why they were

used. I will begin with a general perspective and later proceed to examine e-learning in a

more focused manner.

The term informal learning first appeared within the context of schooling. John Dewey

(1997/1916), an American philosopher and educator, used the term at the beginning of

the 20th

Century to describe a natural learning process outside of school. In his eyes,

informal learning constitutes the basic mode of learning which can be facilitated by

formal education. It can be characterised as an implicit accommodation of experiencesand knowledge through playing with or watching somebody without any learning

purpose. Collaboration and communication are thus essential prerequisites for this type

of learning.

The term informal learning thus has its roots in the differences between school education

and out-of-school education. This context characterised the discussion on informal

learning for a long time. Since the 1960s, informal learning has been discussed more


9/20

26 Foundations and Basics: Matthias Rohs

widely; not only within the context of schooling, but also in the field of adult education

(Tough 1967) and education in developing countries. The debate gained additional

attention through the OECDs Faure-Report (Faure 1973), which pointed out the

importance of informal education. The first research projects dealing with informallearning were initiated within this context. Prominent American and Canadian studies on

informal learning (e.g. Watkins & Marsik 1990, Livingstone 2000) are cited particularly

often.

Furthermore, discussion on informal learning has taken place all over the world,

especially in the field of further- and school education, and increasingly in all fields of

learning. The topic was also picked up in the field of e-learning. However, the debate

focuses on two perspectives: on the one hand, it is tied to Web 2.0, social software and

mobile learning (e. g. Naismith et al., 2004; Jones et al. 2006) and on the other hand, it is

viewed within the broader perspective of a technologically enriched learning environment

(e.g. Conole et al. 2006, Creanor et al. 2006).

3. Why is informal learning important?

The attractiveness of informal learning is not based on a new trend. Naturally, it is

surrounded by a growing hype, but there are also valid reasons why informal learning is

receiving so much attention. On the one hand, the past decade has shown that formal

learning cannot solve the learning demands of the future. There is a rising need for just-

in-time information and practical knowledge. However, formal training requires time toplan and organise courses, which often renders it too slow to be useful. On the other

hand, informal learning exhibits characteristics that are very important for todays

economies. In contrast to formal learning, informal learning is not only faster and more

deeply rooted in all areas of life; it is also linked to experience and implicit knowledge.

This knowledge is essential for the effectuation of complex social and technical tasks,

which are becoming more and more typical for our economy. This does not mean that

we no longer need formal education. It means that formal and informal education are

complementary types of learning. Formal learning forms the basis for understanding

complex coherences, while informal learning provides the basis for understanding and

critically reflecting on theory. Thus, formal learning is necessary to gain competences foreffective informal learning and informal learning helps to bridge the gap between theory

and practice. Only the combination of formal and informal learning ultimately leads to

operational competence (Rohs, 2007).

There are many other reasons for the importance of informal learning from an

economical, political, technical and pedagogical viewpoint (Zrcher 2007), but it is

needless to list them all at this point.


10/20


11/20


5. Methodology

Past debates have shown that the definition of informal learning depends on the field in

which the term is used. The concept of what informal learning could be depends largelyon the context within which it is used. It is therefore necessary to get an idea of what the

e-learning community associates with the term (see Introduction). To explore the

communitys understanding of the term, I designed an online questionnaire with seven

open-ended questions.

The survey focused on the field of higher education. For this reason, the questionnaire

was sent to experts known for their focus on e-learning, informal learning and higher

education. Twenty-two of 48 questionnaire recipients1

responded (three of them received

the questionnaire in English). They describe themselves as experts in the field of e-

learning (20), informal learning (10) and higher education (7), partly specialising in

knowledge management, podcasting, social software or mobile learning.

The QDA software ATLASti was used to analyse the qualitative data. This software helps

to analyse data by creating codes and bundling them into categories. It supports data

analysis by following the process of theory-building via grounded theory as well as

question-oriented analysis.

The quality of the data renders it impossible to make general statements, but it does

provide a starting point for the discussion on the concept of informal e-learning as

perceived by experts in this field.

6. Findings

The results of the questions in the questionnaire are summarised as follows.

6.1 What is informal e-learning, in your point of view?

The first question addresses the individual understanding of informal learning (without

any restrictions). The answers focus on the following aspects of the learning environment

and related personal criteria:

a) Criteria of the learning environment

Applications/Services/Technologies: As mentioned in Chapter 4, the learning

environment constitutes an essential criterion for the definition. The use of applications,

services and technologies for learning purposes is a particular trait of informal e-

1 The experts hail from Germany, USA, Great Britain, Austria and Switzerland.


12/20


learning and is central to the definition. Thus, many answers focus on technical aspects,

e.g. technologies (new learning technologies, Web 2.0, social software), services

(Google), and applications (Internet tools). There is evidence that these technologies,

services, and applications are used for more than just learning but this does not excludee-learning software, which also supports informal learning.

No pedagogical environment: Furthermore, the informal learning environment is

compared to common definitions characterised by a lack of pedagogical structure.

Answers included phrases such as informal contexts, no curriculum, not part of

formal educational programmes and so on.

Situated: Last but not least, the learning process is described as situated. In this context,

what is probably meant is that the learning process is anchored in a certain situation.

Time: Such aspects are often added using time-related attributes, e.g.: everywhere,

every time, meaning that learning is embedded in all life activities and not associated

with special learning periods. This attribute is rarely used to define informal learning, but

in my estimation it is often included as an aspect of non-pedagogical environments.

Grades: A further criterion previously mentioned under certification was referred to using

the terms not rated/no grades, no certification.

b) Personal criteria:

Self-directed and motivated by personal need: Two core aspects of this category include

the autonomy of the learning process, i.e. being independent from all pedagogical

influences, and motivation based on a personal need or network featuring the sameinterests.

Cooperative, dialog-oriented: One criterion mentioned often, without being part of the

standard definition of informal learning, is the cooperative learning process. This aspect

is important for all informal learning processes, but is seldom as emphasised as in the

field of informal learning.

In sum, most of the criteria are well-known in the traditional debate on informal learning.

Only two aspects are extraordinary. Firstly, the connection to technology and secondly,

the aspect of collaboration. Although John Dewey emphasises the collaborative aspect

of informal learning and it is also listed in Colley et al. (2003), this aspect had noimportance for most definitions of informal learning. Moreover, some aspects which are

distinctive of many definitions of informal learning, e.g. learning outcome, awareness,

role of the teacher, are missing.


13/20


6.2 Which applications, technologies and services are used for informal e-

learning?

The second question focused on the technological aspects of informal e-learning. As

previously mentioned, the differences may be classified into three categories, which I

would like to elaborate on at this point.

Applications: browser

Services: search engines (Google), social bookmarking (delicious), social networks

(facebook, XING, eduspaces.net), RSS

Content: Wikipedia, Youtube, micropublishing

Technologies: e-portfolios, wikis, podcasts, weblogs

Furthermore, respondents listed hardware that can be used in the manner of mobilephones or PDAs.

Obviously, some respondents found it difficult to name the technologies, applications and

services which characteristise informal e-learning because they were bound to a

specific interest or need, e.g.:

From the broad range of ways the internet is used to support information

seeking, handling and management of information, communication,

collaboration, the development of social networks.

Everything supporting personal knowledge management and enquiry

In particular, everything supporting communication and collaboration

All technologies supporting communication in learning contexts

All technologies supporting attainment of knowledge

The third category does not connect informal learning with special applications,

services and technologies:

o not connected to special technologies

o not concrete

o the Internet

o it makes no sense to name any

The comment that traditional e-learning environments also support informal e-learning

activities is worth noting.


14/20


Altogether, it can be summarised that there are no explicit informal technologies,

applications or services for informal e-learning. However, some of them, in particular

those supporting collaboration, seem more closely connected to informal learning

activities.

6.3 How would you describe the differences between formal and informal e-

learning?

The third question addresses the differences between formal and informal e-learning.

The differences concentrate on the following categories:

Technology:

Personal Learning Environments (informal) vs. Learning Management Systems

(formal)2

Learning environment:

Curricular structure vs. flexible organisation with optional learning resources

(informal) vs. curriculum with defined time scope

Flexible structures regarding time and location (informal) vs. fixed structures

(formal)

No assessment and certification (informal) vs. assessment and certification

(formal)

Individual attitudes:

Autonomous (informal) vs. passive (formal)

Learner initiative (informal) vs. teacher initiative (formal)

Aside from these contrasts, many answers underline the issue of juxtaposing informal

and formal learning at all, as informal learning may also take place in formal learning

environments. In a similar vein, Colley et al. (2003) argue: Our analysis strongly

suggests that such attributes of formality and informality co-exist in all learning situations,

but the nature of that co-existence or, to put in in another way, the interrelationships

between informal and formal attributes vary from situation to situation. (p. 65).

Some models show this grey area using both formal and informal aspects, e.g. the

aforementioned Stern & Sommmerlad 1999 (Continuous Learning Continuum) or Cross

2007b (Informal Learning Mixer).

2 As previously argued, there is no special technology for informal e-learning.


15/20


6.4 What is the relevance of informal e-learning for teaching and learning in

higher education?

This is a central question, but difficult to answer, as there are only a few surveys which

provide an orientation. Thus, respondents personal feelings and experiences

constituted the primary backdrop for the answers. Nevertheless, the answers provide

clues as to why informal learning could be important.

Some responses were very rigid, such as: informal learning is more important than

formal, so if higher ed(ucation) does not embrace it, higher ed will cease being relevant

in society.

Other experts were more cautious in their opinions and referred to the methodological

problems of measuring the importance of informal learning. However, the overall tenor

stressed the major importance of informal learning.

The main issue lies in the fact that informal learning is mostly ignored within the context

of higher education. In consequence, this leads to a lack of competencies that are

developed by informal learning (especially key competencies), on the one hand. On the

other hand, informal learning continues to exist alongside university education as an

open digital learning network much like a shadow university.

It can be summarised that the importance of informal learning is increasing, but is being

ignored by institutions of higher education. This appraisal of the situation must be

interpreted against the background that this view was expressed by people engaged in

the field of informal learning.

6.5 Is it possible to support informal e-learning in higher education (technical,

didactical)? If yes, how?

In line with the argument that informal learning is important for higher education, it is

necessary to ask whether informal e-learning can be promoted. The answer to this

question was a clear yes, but with some restrictions regarding the cultural aspects of

teaching and learning in higher education. These restrictions pertain to a culture or

environment of informal learning, supported by fostering openness and autonomy.

The responses also included several concrete methodological proposals, e.g.:

One-to-one mentoring models

Introduction of e-portfolios

Offering courses on how to learn and how to use informal learning

Credit points for informal learning

Recognition of informal learning


16/20


17/20


a) There is a more or less distinct comprehension of informal e-learning that can

be linked to practice.

b) There is no common understanding of or clear framework for informal e-

learning.

c) Although the individual interpretations accentuate different aspects, it is

possible to discern a broad consensus on the criteria discussed in the field of

informal learning.

d) Technical aspects and collaboration play a major role in informal e-learning.

Furthermore, it can be summarised that there is an informal, student-driven connection

of formal and informal learning in the field of higher education. The deliberate

arrangement of formal and informal learning by teachers/lecturers is not very

sophisticated, but there are a lot of ideas for the facilitation of informal learning within the

context of higher education.

In addition to these findings, the question remains, do we need the term informal e-

learning, or are there other terms covering this type of learning? Should there be further

discussions on different learning environments and different learning resources? On a

metalevel, it is my impression that informal e-learning could be a container including

aspects of several important movements within the context of e-learning and opening up

a new perspective on them. At the content level, open movements (e.g. open

educational resources, open software) and microcontent form a basis for informal e-

learning. At the technological level, on the one hand one can find more personalised

perspectives (e.g. PLEs) which are typical of informal e-learning and, on the otherhand, collaborative learning processes containing references to Web 2.0 and social

software.

References

Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning? eLearning

Papers, Vol. 2, Nr. 1.

Colardyn, D. & Bjornavold, J. (2005). The learning continuity: European inventory onvalidation non-formal and informal learning. Cedefop Panorama series 117.

Luxembourg.

Colley, H., Hodkinson, P. & Malcolm J. (2003). Informality and formality in learning: a

report for the Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2003 (93 S.), URL:

http://www.hrm.strath.ac.uk/teaching/postgrad/classes/full-time-

41939/documents/formalandinformallearning.pdf. (accessed March, 2008).


18/20


19/20


Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G. & sharples, M. (2004). Literature Review in

Mobile Techologies in Learning, Futurelab Series, Report 11.

Rohs, M. (2008). Connected Learning Zur Verbindung formellen und informellen

Lernens in der IT-Weiterbildung. URL:

http://opus.unibw-hamburg.de/opus/frontdoor.php?source_opus=1230 (accessed

March, 2008).

Stern, E. & Sommerlad, E. (1999), Workplace Learning. Culture and Performance,

London: Institute of Personnel and Development.

Straka, G. A. (2000). Lernen unter informellen Bedingungen. Begriffsbestimmung,

Diskussion in Deutschland, Evaluation der Desiderate. in: Arbeitsgemeinschaft

Qualifikations-Entwicklungs-Management (Ed.), Kompetenzentwicklung 2000, pp.

15-70, Mnster: Waxmann.

Tough, A. (1967), Learning without a Teacher. A Study of Tasks and Assistance during

Adult Selfteaching Projects, Education Research Series 3, Toronto: Ontario Institute

for Studies in Education.

Watkins, K. & Marsick, V. (1990). Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace.

London: Routledge.

Zrcher, R. (2007). Informelles Lernen und der Erwerb von Kompetenzen: Theoretische,

didaktische und politische Aspekte. Materialien zur Erwachsenenbildung, Nr. 2.

Bundesministerium fr Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur. Wien.

URL: http://www.erwachsenenbildung.at/services/publikationen/materialien_zur_eb/nr2_2007_informelles_lernen.pdf (accessed March, 2008).


20/20

A new digital micromedia ecology, and with it new learning strategies, are emerging. The shitto ragmented digital communication and inormation ows aects all aspects o daily work

and daily lielong learning. This calls or innovative experiences, processes and technologies:

ubiquitous, personal and dynamic, casual and volatile, but still complex and eective.

What is the impact on educational issues in ormal and inormal learning environments, in

vocational training, higher education, and proessional training?

To discuss the new challenges and opportunities or individual and organizational capacity buil-

ding, Microlearning 2008 brought together media technologists and academics, visionaries and

practitioners, entrepreneurs and corporate proessionals rom many countries, disciplines, and

felds o expertise.

The participants brought new visions and analyses, innovative concepts, projects, and best

practice results. The Proceedings of the 4th International Microlearning 2008 Conference

contribute to answering the questions o new media users in seven main subject felds:

New Media in Organisations, Classroom Without Walls, Corporate Learning, Mobile Training,

Web 2.0 & Education, Micromedia Environments, Quality and Evaluation.

ISBN 978-3-902571-60-1

informal e-learning: what does it mean?

Documents