Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
What is the impact on educational issues in formal and informal learning environments, in
vocational training, higher education, and professional training?
To discuss the new challenges and opportunities for individual and organizational capacity buil-
ding, Microlearning 2008 brought together media technologists and academics, visionaries and
practitioners, entrepreneurs and corporate professionals from many countries, disciplines, and
fields of 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 of new media users in seven main subject fields:
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
CONFERENCE SERIES
Series Editors: K. Habitzel, T. D. Märk, S. Prock, B. Stehno
www.uibk.ac.at/iup
© 2008
1st edition
All rights reserved.
Universität Innsbruck
Technikerstraße 21 a
A-6020 Innsbruck
www.uibk.ac.at/iup
ISBN: 978-3-902571-60-1
Microlearning and Capacity Building
Proceedings of the
4 th International Microlearning 2008 Conference
Editors:
Peter A. Bruck, Martin Lindner
Peter A. Bruck
Welcome and Introduction to “Micromedia and Capacity Building” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Martina A. Roth
Welcome 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
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
Table of Content
Lars Johnsen
The Seven C’s of Educational Topic Maps:
Towards Open Microwebs for (Language) Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
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 (Zürcher 2007, pp 37-44):
informal are the same. However, this approach generally does not lead to a
differentiated definition of formal and informal learning.
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.
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 experiences
and 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
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 OECD’s Faure-Report (Faure 1973), which pointed out the
importance of informal education. The first research projects dealing with informal
learning 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).
There are many other reasons for the importance of informal learning from an
economical, political, technical and pedagogical viewpoint (Zürcher 2007), but it is
needless to list them all at this point.
“Informal e-learning” – What Does it Mean? 27
The first characteristic of informal learning is that it takes place outside of school and
educational institutions, respectively. This definition has its roots in the differentiation
between in-classroom and non-school-related education. The following paragraphs
specify several other criteria; however, all of them represent but one perspective on the
term and are by themselves insufficient to determine whether a learning process is
formal or informal. These criteria include:
• Intention: Informal learning is also characterised by the learning intent. The aim
of informal learning isn’t to acquire knowledge but to solve a problem or to
answer a question (for oneself or others) (Dohmen 2001).
These are only some of the criteria used to define informal learning. Depending on the
point of view or area of research, additional criteria are important to define the term.
However, the differences between formal and informal learning must always be
understood as a continuum of formal and informal learning aspects (Stern & Sommerlad
1999, Cross 2007b, Rohs 2007).
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 largely
on 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
community’s 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
1
The experts hail from Germany, USA, Great Britain, Austria and Switzerland.
“Informal e-learning” – What Does it Mean? 29
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 exclude
e-learning software, which also supports informal learning.
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 same
interests.
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 no
importance 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.
30 Foundations and Basics: Matthias Rohs
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
Furthermore, respondents listed hardware that can be used in the manner of mobile
phones 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.”
• The third category does not connect informal learning with special applications,
services and technologies:
o “not concrete”
o “the Internet”
The comment that “traditional” e-learning environments also support “informal e-learning”
activities is worth noting.
“Informal e-learning” – What Does it Mean? 31
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:
Learning environment:
Individual attitudes:
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.
32 Foundations and Basics: Matthias Rohs
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.
• “Introduction of e-portfolios”
• “Offering courses on how to learn and how to use informal learning”
• Continued reflection
• Individual platforms for students (PLEs)
Furthermore, one respondent noted: “The most important thing is to better understand
what students are doing”. This statement can be interpreted as a call for increased
“bottom-up” development of methods supporting informal learning.
However, this does not mean that there are no conscious arrangements aiming to
facilitate the connection of formal and informal learning, e.g. the preparation and wrap-up
of virtual and physical courses through wikis and blogs. Nevertheless, I believe that this
situation is uncommon in higher education.
In answer to the question “Informal e-learning – what does it mean?”, it is impossible for
me to make a definite concluding statement. Nevertheless, the survey offers an
impression of the understanding of the term “informal e-learning” within the learning
community:
34 Foundations and Basics: Matthias Rohs
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 other
hand, collaborative learning processes containing references to Web 2.0 and social
software.
References
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).
“Informal e-learning” – What Does it Mean? 35
Cross, J. (2007a). Informal Learning. Rediscovering the natural pathway that inspire
innovation and performance. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Dewey, J. (1997). Democracy and Education (EA 1916). New York. Free Press.
Dohmen, G. (2001). Das informelle Lernen - Die internationale Erschließung einer bisher
vernachlässigten Grundform menschlichen Lernens für das lebenslange Lernen.
Bonn: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. URL:
http://www.bmbf.de/pub/das_informelle_lernen.pdf (accessed March 2008)
Faure, E. et al. (1972): Learning to Be: The World of Education Today and Tomorrow.
Paris: UNESCO.
Jones, A. et al. (2006). Using mobile devices for learning in informal Settings: Is it
Motivating? Paper presented at IADIS International conference Mobile Learning.
July 14-16, Dublin.
Livingstone, D. W. (2000). Exploring the Icebergs of Adult Learning: Findings of the First
Canadian Survey of Informal Learning Practices. Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education, University of Toronto.
Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G. & sharples, M. (2004). Literature Review in
Mobile Techologies in Learning, Futurelab Series, Report 11.
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.
Zürcher, R. (2007). Informelles Lernen und der Erwerb von Kompetenzen: Theoretische,
didaktische und politische Aspekte. Materialien zur Erwachsenenbildung, Nr. 2.
Bundesministerium für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur. Wien.
URL: http://www.erwachsenenbildung.at/services/publikationen/materialien_zur_eb/
nr2_2007_informelles_lernen.pdf (accessed March, 2008).
CONFERENCE SERIES
What is the impact on educational issues in formal and informal learning environments, in
vocational training, higher education, and professional training?
To discuss the new challenges and opportunities for individual and organizational capacity buil-
ding, Microlearning 2008 brought together media technologists and academics, visionaries and
practitioners, entrepreneurs and corporate professionals from many countries, disciplines, and
fields of 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 of new media users in seven main subject fields:
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