Boundary Crossing between Formal and Informal Learning Opportunities: A Pathway for Advancing e-Learning Sustainability
In this article, third generation cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) (Engeström, 2011) will be the means for analyzing tensions and contradictions between formal and informal learning within a MOOC design. This article builds on previous work (Bradshaw, Parchoma & Lock, 2017) wherein cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) was used to establish formal and informal learning as activity systems. Formal and informal learning are considered in relation to designing learning for a MOOC environment. Findings from an in situ study specifically examining CHAT elements in the process of design are considered in a movement towards making visible what those tasked with designing courses normally do not see in relation to informal learning. Implications for practice are presented in a CHAT-Informed MOOC design model intended to augment typical approaches to instructional design. The outcome is an argument for CHAT-Informed MOOC design model can intentionally address both formal and informal opportunities for learning.
Anders, A. (2015). Theories and applications of massive open online courses (MOOCs): The case for hybrid design. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 16(6), 39-61. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i6.2185
Arizona State University (2014). The Frankenstein bicentennial project. Center for Science and the Imagination. http://csi.asu.edu/category/projects/frankenstein-bicentennial/
Billet, S. (2013). Learning through practice: Beyond informal and towards a framework for learning through practice. In Revisiting Global Trends in TVET: Reflections on theory and practice (pp. 123-163). UNESCO.
Bonderup Dohn, N. (2009). Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 343-363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9066-8
Bradshaw, K., Parchoma, G., & Lock, J., (2017). Conceptualizing formal and informal learning in MOOCS as activity systems. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 18(3), 33–50.
Bransford, J. D., Barron, B., Pea, R. D., Meltzoff, A., Kuhl, P., Bell, P., Stevens, R., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N., Reeves, B., Roschelle, J., & Sabelli, N. H. (2006). Foundations and opportunities for an interdisciplinary science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 19–34). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511816833.003
Confrey, J. (2006). The evolution of design studies as methodology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 461-472). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511816833.010
Conole, G. (2014). A new classification schema for MOOCs. The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3), 65-77.
Coursera. (2017). Partnerships. https://www.coursera.org/about/partners
Crowley, K., Pierroux, P., & Knutson, K. (2014). Informal learning in museums. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The learning sciences, 2nd Ed. (pp. 19-34). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139519526.028
Downes, S. (2008). Places to go: Connectivism & connective knowledge. Innovate, 5(1). Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=668
Downes, S. (2018). Visions and pathways: Online learning and MOOCs. Proceedings Article. May 02, 2018. China International Distance Education Conference, Beijing, China. https://www.downes.ca/files/Visions%20and%20Pathways.pdf
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education at Work, 14(1), 133-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747
Engeström, Y. (2009a). Expansive learning: Towards an activity-theoretical reconceptualization. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 53-73). Routledge.
Engeström, Y. (2009b). The Future of Activity Theory: A Rough Draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory (pp. 303-328). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511809989.020
Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology 21(5), 598–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311419252
Garrison, R. D. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century. Routledge.
Haber, J. (2014). MOOCs. MIT Press.
Hall, R. (2009). Towards a fusion of formal and informal learning environments: The impact of the read/write web. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7(1), 29–40.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC Horizon Report: 2013 Higher Education Edition. The New Media Consortium.
Jonassen, D. H., & Roher-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Education Technology Research & Development, 47(1), 61-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02299477
Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(1), 133-159. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1651
Lewin, T. (2013, July 10). Coursera, an online education company, raises another $43 million. The New York Times.
Livingstone, D. W. (2007). Re-exploring the icebergs of adult learning: Comparative findings of the 1998 and 2004 Canadian surveys of formal and informal learning practices. The Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 1(24).
Malcolm, J., Hodkinson, P., & Colley, H. (2003). The interrelationships between informal and formal learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(7/8), 313-318. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620310504783
McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice (Report). University of Prince Edward Island, Social Sciences and Humanities Research. https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/MOOC_Final_0.pdf
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Milligan, A., Littlejohn, C., & Margaryan, A. (2013). Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs. JOLT, 9(24). http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/milligan_0613.htm
Mwanza, D., & Engeström, Y. (2005). Managing content in e-learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 453-463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00479.x
O'Toole, R. (2013) Pedagogical strategies and technologies for peer assessment in Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs). [Unpublished manuscript]. University of Warwick. http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/54602/
Robertson, I. (2008). Sustainable e-learning, activity theory and professional development. Ascilite, (pp. 819–826). http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/robertson.pdf
Rückriem, G. (2009). Digital technology and mediation: A challenge to activity theory. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory, (pp. 88–111). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511809989.007
Ryberg T., Buus L., & Georgsen M. (2012). Differences in Understandings of Networked Learning Theory: Connectivity or Collaboration? In: Dirckinck-Holmfeld L., Hodgson V., McConnell D. (Eds) Exploring the Theory, Pedagogy and Practice of Networked Learning. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0496-5_3
Schwier, R. A., & Seaton, J. X. (2013). A comparison of participation patterns in selected formal, non-formal, and informal learning environments. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.21432/t2g01q
Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1973). Cognitive Consequences of Formal and Informal Education: New accommodations are needed between school-based learning and learning experiences of everyday life. Science, 182(4112), 553-559. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.182.4112.553
Schuh, K.L., & Barab, S. A. (2007). Philosophical perspectives. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer and M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook for research in educational technology (pp.67-82). Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.
Selwyn, N., & Simons, H. (2009). Evolution and concept of case study research. In H. Simons (Ed.), Case study research in practice (pp. 12-28). SAGE Publications.
Siemens, G. (2005, April 5). Connectivism: A learning theory for a digital age [Web log page]. http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE.
Tusting, K. (2003). A review of theories of informal learning (Literacy Research Centre Working Paper No. 2). Lancaster University.
Vernon, J. (2013, April 29). Open online courses – an avalanche that just might get stopped. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/apr/29/massive-open-online-courses
Wright, S., Short, B., & Parchoma, G. (2013). Supporting creativity in craft brewing: A case study in iPhone use in the transition from novice towards mastery. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(3), 52-67. https://doi.org/10.4018/jmbl.2013070104
Yamagata-Lynch L.C. (2010) Understanding Cultural Historical Activity Theory. Activity Systems Analysis Methods, (pp. 13-26). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6321-5_2
Copyright (c) 2021 Kathlyn Bradshaw, Jennifer Lock
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under an International Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (CC-BY-NC 4.0) that allows others to share the work for non-commercial purposes, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.