Bridging Formal and Informal Learning through Technology in the Twenty-First Century: Issues and Challenges
This chapter presents a comprehensive review of the current debates surrounding bridging informal and formal learning, from the perspective of improving the learner’s experience in formal educational provision. Firstly, the chapter reviews the literature defining informal and formal learning, noting the complexity and the lack of consensus. Secondly, it discusses how technology can be used to bridge learning through harnessing the digital practices that young people engage with informally such as social networking, game-based learning, and digital making. The authors then outline some pedagogical issues which need to be considered to maximize the potential of bridging formal and informal learning. Next, the pedagogical strategies needed to enhance learners’ opportunities for autonomy, collaboration, and authentic learning are discussed. The chapter also explores the divides, cultural tensions, and ethical concerns that shape practices such as the constraints of a performativity culture and the invasion of young people’s private space. A vignette of a project in India is presented as an illustration of good practice. Here, despite limited access to technology, young people have been supported to engage in authentic learning projects involving the creation of digital artifacts, both in- and out-of-school. The chapter concludes by arguing that there must be a shift from transmissive to collaborative pedagogical strategies; school cultures need to change. In order to do so, teachers need professional development and support to take risks and experiment. More research is needed so that the interrelationship between technology-enabled formal and informal learning can be better understood but also because good models of practice need to be identified and shared.
KeywordsInformal learning Formal learning School Everyday knowledge Bridging Pedagogical support
- Adams Becker, S., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Cummins, M., & Yuhnke, B. (2016). NMC/CoSN horizon report: 2016 K-12 edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
- Adhikari, S. (2014, August 10). M-learning, the way to go. The Hindu. Retrieved from http://www.thehindu.com/features/education/mlearning-the-way-to-go/article6298965.ece.
- Banks, J. A., Au, K. H., Ball, A. F., Bell, P., Gordon, E. W., Gutiérrez, K. D., & Zhou, M. (2007). Learning in and out of school in diverse environments: Life-long, life-wide, life-deep. Seattle: LIFE Center and Center for Multicultural Education (University of Washington).Google Scholar
- Beland, L.-P., & Murphy, R. (2015). Ill Communication: Technology, Distraction & Student Performance. CEP Discussion Paper No 1350, May 2015. London: Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
- Birdwell, J., Scott, R., & Koninckx, D. (2015). Non-formal learning could help to build character and close attainment gap: Learning by doing. London: DEMOS.Google Scholar
- Brevik, L. M. (2016). The gaming outliers: Does out-of-school gaming improve boys’ reading skills in English as a second language? In E. Elstad (Ed.), Educational technology and polycontextual bridging (pp. 389–361). Dordrecht: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
- Chan, T.-W., Roschelle, J., Hsi, S., Kinshuk, M. S., Brown, T., Patton, C., Cherniavsky, J., Pea, R., Norris, C., Soloway, S., Balacheff, N., Scardamalia, M., Dillenbourg, P., Looi, C. K., Milrad, M., & Hoppe, U. (2006). One-to-one technology-enhanced learning: An opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793206806000032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Charania, A. (2015). India: Integrated ICT school supplements in community centres. In P. Twining, N. E. Davis, & A. Charania (Eds.), Developing new indicators to describe digital technology infrastructure in primary and secondary education (pp. 64–67). Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.Google Scholar
- Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm, J. (2003). Informality and formality in learning: A report for the learning and skills research Centre. London: LSRC.Google Scholar
- Davies, C., & Eynon, R. (2013). Studies of the internet in learning and education: Broadening the disciplinary landscape of research. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of internet studies (pp. 328–349). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Erstad, O., & Sefton-Green, J. (2013). Digital disconnect? The ‘digital learner’ and the school. In O. Erstad & J. Sefton-Green (Eds.), Identity, community, and learning lives in the digital age (pp. 87–104). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Freina, L., & Ott, M. (2015). A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: State of the art and perspectives. Proceedings of eLearning and Software for Education (eLSE), Bucharest, April 23–24, 2015.Google Scholar
- Hoppers, W. (2006). Non-formal education and basic education reform: A conceptual review. Paris: IIEP, UNESCO.Google Scholar
- Illeris, K. (2009). Transfer of learning in the learning society: How can the barriers between different learning spaces be surmounted, and how can the gap between learning inside and outside schools be bridged? International Journal of Lifelong Education, 28(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370902756986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ito, M., Gutierrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., Schor, J., Sefton-Green, J., & Watkins, S. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Irvine: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.Google Scholar
- Khaddage, F., Müller, W., & Flintoff, K. (2016). Advancing mobile learning in formal and informal settings via mobile app technology: Where to from here, and how? Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 16–26.Google Scholar
- Kluge, A. (2016). I am connected, therefore I am: Polycontextual bridging in education. In E. Elstad (Ed.), Educational technology and Polycontextual bridging (pp. 129–148). Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
- Kumar, A., Tewari, A., Shroff, G., Chittamuru, D., Kam, M., and Canny, J. (2010). An exploratory study of unsupervised mobile learning in rural India. In CHI 2010, April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta.Google Scholar
- Kumpalainen, K., Mikkola, A., & Rajala, A. (2018). Dissolving the digital divide: Creating coherence in young people’s social ecologies of learning and identity building. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, & K.-W. Lai (Eds.), Second international handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Laru, J., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Seamless learning despite context. In L.-H. Wong, M. Specht, & M. Milrad (Eds.), Seamless learning in the age of mobile connectivity (pp. 471–484). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
- Lemke, J. L., Lecusay, R., Cole, M., & Michalchik, V. (2015). Documenting and assessing learning in informal and media-rich environments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Lopez, M. E., & Caspe, M. (2014). Family engagement in anywhere, anytime learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.Google Scholar
- McKay, C. & Peppler, K. (2013). MakerCart: A mobile fab lab for the classroom. Position Paper at the Interaction Design for Children Conference (IDC), New York. Retrieved from http://kpeppler.com/Docs/2013_Peppler_Maker_Cart.pdf.
- National Research Council (NRC). (2015). Identifying and supporting productive STEM programs in out-of-school settings. Committee on successful out-of-school STEM learning. Board on science education. In Division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Quinlan, O. (2015). Young digital makers. London: Nesta.Google Scholar
- Rajala, A., Kumpulainen, K., Hilppö, J., Paananen, A., & Lipponen, L. (2016). Connecting learning across school and out-of-school contexts: A review of pedagogical approaches. In O. Erstad, K. Kumpulainen, Å. Mäkitalo, K. C. Schrøder, P. Pruulmann-Vegerfeldt, & T. Jóhannsdóttir (Eds.), Learning across contexts in the knowledge society (pp. 15–38). Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Raman, A. (2014, June 5). Mobile learning: Smart education system for India. Forbes India. Retrieved from http://www.forbesindia.com/blog/business-strategy/mobile-learning-smart-education-system-for-india/.
- Sefton-Green, J. (2004). Report 7: Literature review in informal learning with technology outside school. Bristol: Futurelab.Google Scholar
- Sefton-Green, J. (2013). Learning at not-school: A review of study, theory, and advocacy for education in non-formal settings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Sharples, M. (2015). Seamless learning despite context. In L.-H. Wong, M. Milrad, & M. Specht (Eds.), Seamless learning in the age of mobile connectivity (pp. 41–55). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
- Srivastava, M. (2015, August 20). 80% of Indian employees find mobile learning useful, says study. Livemint. Retrieved from http://www.livemint.com/Consumer/Jx5FFXAsYA6nB4hob1f0gJ/80-Indian-employees-find-mobile-learning-useful-says-study.html.
- The World Bank. (2003). Lifelong learning in the global knowledge economy: Challenges for developing countries. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLL/Resources/Lifelong-Learning-inthe-GlobalKnowledge-Economy/lifelonglearning_GKE.pdf.
- UNESCO. (2012). UNESCO guidelines for the recognition, validation and accreditation of the outcomes of non-formal and informal learning. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002163/216360e.pdf.
- Werquin, P. (2010). Recognising non-formal and informal learning: Outcomes, policies and practices. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
- Yang, J. (2015). Recognition, validation and accreditation of non-formal and non-formal learning in UNESCO member states. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.Google Scholar