Towards a Fusion of Formal and Informal Learning Environments: The Impact of the Read/Write Web.

The read/write web, or Web 2.0, offers ways for users to personalise their online existence, and to develop their own critical identities though their control of a range of tools. Exerting control enables those users to forge new contexts, profiles and content through which to represent themselves, based upon the user-centred, participative, social networking affordances of specific technologies. In turn these technologies enable learners to integrate their own contexts, profiles and content, in order to develop informal associations or communities of inquiry. Within educational contexts these tools enable spaces for learners to extend their own formal learning into more informal places though the fusion of web-based tools into a task-oriented personal learning environment. Where students are empowered to make decisions about the tools that support their personal approaches to learning, they are able develop further control over their learning experiences and move towards their own subject-based mastery. Critically, they are able to define with whom to share their personal approaches, and how they can best connect the informal learning that occurs across their life to their formal, academic work. The personal definition or fusion of tools and tasks is afforded through individual control over the learning environment. The flowering of personal learning aims, mediated by technologies and rules of engagement, occurs within task-specific loops where learners can interpret and process epistemological signals. In turn, where those loops are located within broader, personalised environments students can make contextual sense of their learning and extend their own educational opportunities. Moreover, they can extend their own academic decision-making through application in other contexts, and as a result manage their own academic uncertainties. This is evidenced through a thematic study of the voices of both learners and tutors, which highlights how the read/write web can be used proactively by educators, using specific tasks to enable learners to fuse their informal and formal learning spaces, and thereby enhance their decision-making confidence. The structuring of learning spaces that enable users and social networks to manage their educational processes is enhanced by read/write web approaches and tools, and in this paper is defined through a Fused Learner Integration model.

[1]  Rolf R. Hainich The End of Hardware: A Novel Approach to Augmented Reality , 2006 .

[2]  Deem Rosemary,et al.  Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education , 2005 .

[3]  M. Eraut Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. , 2000, The British journal of educational psychology.

[4]  R. Barnett A Will to Learn: Being a Student in an Age of Uncertainty , 2007 .

[5]  John Elliott,et al.  Educational Research as a Form of Democratic Rationality , 2006 .

[6]  Richard E. Boyatzis,et al.  Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development , 1998 .

[7]  R. Mason,et al.  Using Web 2.0 for learning in the community , 2007, Internet High. Educ..

[8]  V. Mcgivney Informal Learning in the Community: A Trigger for Change and Development , 1999 .

[9]  Charles Leadbeater,et al.  Living on thin air : the new economy , 2000 .

[10]  D. Nicol,et al.  Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice , 2006 .

[11]  M.K. Ibrahim A Generic Architectural Framework for Proactive Systems Inspired by Molecular Biology , 2008, 2008 2nd Annual IEEE Systems Conference.

[12]  Vivien Hodgson,et al.  Consensus, difference and ‘multiple communities’ in networked learning , 2005 .

[13]  Tim O'Reilly,et al.  What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software , 2007 .

[14]  L. Vygotsky Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes: Harvard University Press , 1978 .

[15]  Robin Goodfellow,et al.  Challenging E Learning in the University: Society for Research Into Higher Education , 2007 .

[16]  P. Anderson What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education , 2007 .

[17]  Tom Franklin,et al.  Web 2.0 for Content for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education , 2007 .

[18]  T. Mayes,et al.  Jisc E-learning Models Desk Study ______________________________________ Stage 2: Learner-centred Pedagogy: Individual Differences between Learners , 2004 .

[19]  P. Pintrich,et al.  Handbook of self-regulation , 2000 .

[20]  A. Bandura Social learning theory , 1977 .

[21]  Lucy Yardley,et al.  Content and thematic analysis , 2003 .

[22]  Magy Seif El-Nasr,et al.  Learning through game modding , 2006, Comput. Entertain..

[23]  P. Reason Pragmatist Philosophy and Action Research , 2003 .

[24]  Martin Ebner,et al.  Web 2.0 Technology: Future Interfaces for Technology Enhanced Learning? , 2007, HCI.

[25]  H. Bradbury,et al.  Handbook of action research : participative inquiry and practice , 2001 .

[26]  Charles Leadbeater,et al.  Living on Thin Air , 1999 .

[27]  Steve Benford,et al.  Mixed Reality Lab , 2011 .

[28]  Leonel Rocha Recensão crítica de “New structures and spaces of learning: the systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning”, de Siemens (2008) , 2010 .

[29]  Experiences of poverty and educational disadvantage (summary) , 2007 .

[30]  Richard Hall,et al.  The Impact of the Read/Write Web on Learner Agency , 2008 .