Talk:Networked learning

Informal/formal

I don't think there is a real need to distinguish informal and formal networked learning. Networked learning goes on in both and in much the same way. The only thing that formal learning brings is an assessment and recognition process. I'm thinking to delete the references but point to other articles about formal and informal learning, and perhaps mention that NL is useful to enhance learning outcomes in both formal and informal settings...--Leighblackall (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that having the distinction between informal and formal networked learning would be beneficial. It would emphasize the impact networked learning has in both modalities. Perhaps explaining how networked learning goes on in both might clarify the two concepts, especially for those who didn’t know the amount of similarity. Furthermore, I think having examples of informal and formal networked learning would be helpful. 300user (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think I agree now. Thanks for discussing this 300User. The new layout of the page is looking good, and the addition of a History section now opens it up for information about NL prior to its ICTs focus these days... I am having difficulty finding references prior to ICTs.. I might have to revert to the local library! ;) --Leighblackall (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

CSALT's definition a little faulty?

What does "..learning in which C&IT.." mean? Specificly, what does C&IT stand for? Is it different to ICTs? Why not use the full words or link to an explination?--Leighblackall 22:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition is in current use and it is one of the most widely referenced over the past 9 years. Opinions on the definition may vary but it should be represented as it is in circulation and supported by severla books and the conference series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris R. Jones (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Chris, I think a disclosure is in order from us both. If this Chris Jones is you, then you have some interest in asserting this definition be used. More so however, my own work is focusing on networked learning, where I do not limit the definition to the use of technology. Disclosures aside, I cannot verify (outside the UK) whether or not "The definition is in current use and it is one of the most widely referenced over the past 9 years". Since 2004 I have referenced predominately Illich (1971), Wenger (1991), Siemens (2005) and Downes (2004), who I don't think would agree that NL is necessarily mediated through ICTs. You may see this wider perspective on NL as an opinion deviating from the established norm however, so I'll have to dig further to try and show otherwise, or begin working towards establishing it otherwise - perhaps by engaging with the NL conference. Certainly, the work in the UK should be included, its valuable, thanks for adding more information about it. Leighblackall (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Definition is problematic

The definition is problematic in that it begs for the definition of "the use of ICT". So if communication happens by talking to your colleagues it's not networked learning, but if you add a video-conference in between, then it is?

Nevertheless, ICT is expanding the ways in which learning can happen, although even before computers people have used non-digital ICT to enhance their learning (granted the ICT may have consisted of paper, a quill, writing letters, but it's still 'information and communication technology').

Is it the Networked Learning definition that needs to more clearly articulate ICTs as being ALL technology that assists with conveying information and communication, or is it the linked ICTs entry itself? A quick look at the ICT entry reveals a mess, so perhaps NetLearning does need to be clearer and extend the definition into what is meant by ICTs. I added the ".. but not limited to.." in for now.

Also, I think networked learning is about technology enabled communication and information. A conversation between people may well be a learning network, but I think there is a subtle but clear enough difference with the term networked learning. Or perhaps the very idea of a network has changed enough...

Thanks for your comments, I hope you don't mind me pasting them here - their conversational tone suggests that they are better placed in the discussion area - which I think is a very important part of any entry, but sadly under used in most articles.--Leighblackall 09:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good article [HISTORICAL EVOLUTION of ICT] --Leighblackall 00:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

History

• In my opinion, the first general thought about the term “networked learning” assumes digital ICTs. I think that if the definition of “networked learning” is to include non-digital ICTs, then the history section needs to encompass the periods before the emergence of the internet (eg. talking, paper, etc). 300user (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Good idea! --Leighblackall (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I added reference to Ivan Illich's vision of "Learning Webs" in chapter 6 of his 1971 book, Deschooling Society. Dunno why I hadn't thought of it sooner! Leighblackall (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• The reference to Illich is good and I use it in the 2009 book I edited with Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld. Illich was talking about an environment in which computers were already assumed, although this was prior to the PC, so even in his hands networked assumed digital ICTs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris R. Jones (talk • contribs) 16:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that Illich was envisioning "Learning Webs" as necessarily being computer mediated. If our shared reference is to his 1971 book Deschooling Society, then it is in chapter 6 where he introduces his ideas of how "Learning Webs" would work, and it comes across to me to more a principle for learning, than one linked to computers and computer based networks. In the interests of helping others into this question, I've picked a few quotes to try and support my reading of it:

"The same people, paradoxically, when pressed to specify how they acquired what they know and value, will readily admit that they learned it more often outside than inside school. Their knowledge of facts, their understanding of life and work came to them from friendship or love, while viewing TV, or while reading, from examples of peers or the challenge of a street encounter. Or they may have learned what they know through the apprenticeship ritual for admission to a street gang or the initiation to a hospital, newspaper city room, plumber's shop, or insurance office. The alternative to dependence on schools is not the use of public resources for some new device which "makes" people learn; rather it is the creation of a new style of educational relationship between man and his environment. "

• The last sentence should be enough to argue that Illich is not suggesting the use of computers per say, he's talking about a new perspective on learning, where it is networked through webs. Admittedly, the Internet gives us this most easily, but it is entirely possible for people to adopt his perspective on learning where computers and the Internet are not available. For example, Illich uses the Bolivian experience to give context to his idea:

"To give an example: The same level of technology is used in TV and in tape recorders. All Latin-American countries now have introduced TV: in Bolivia the government has financed a TV station, which was built six years ago, and there are no more than seven thousand TV sets for four million citizens. The money now tied up in TV installations throughout Latin America could have provided every fifth adult with a tape recorder. In addition, the money would have sufficed to provide an almost unlimited library of prerecorded tapes, with outlets even in remote villages, as well as an ample supply of empty tapes.

This network of tape recorders, of course, would be radically different from the present network of TV. It would provide opportunity for free expression: literate and illiterate alike could record, preserve, disseminate, and repeat their opinions. The present investment in TV, instead, provides bureaucrats, whether politicians or educators, with the power to sprinkle the continent with institutionally produced programs which they-or their sponsors--decide are good for or in demand by the people."

• I've certainly been quick to see the link between Illich's example and the Internet too, but I wouldn't go as far as to say his imaginings are informed by the computing and computer network theories of the time. His is a principled approach to learning (and technology) more broadly "[Learning webs are] the creation of a new style of educational relationship between man and his environment."

Leighblackall (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

New Section - Concerns

I'm new to Wikipedia and I entered the Concerns section as an anonymous user (142.150.221.38) by accident. Sorry. I added this section because I felt that there needed to be a contrary opinion to the uses of networked learning. The study by Sammons et all (2007) pointed out there are very few studies to verify the claim of enhancing student learning with networked learning systems. If there are any other studies to be found, I think it would be beneficial to add it on this article.300user (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree 300user, and adding this section will be very helpful to this an emerging field. My concern with the Concerns ;) is that it may tend to focus on NL's effectiveness in formal and traditional methods of education... but as you suggest, if we can gather more research - including stuff that looks at its effectiveness in informal learning, then we may help resolve my concerns with the Concerns. Thanks for joining in on this effort. --Leighblackall (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just reread this page after some time away and the Concerns section stands out to me as more info than is required. I tend to think that the information there at the moment is about as relavent as the other helpful information in the See Also and External Links sections.. I reckon it should be removed, with links to the research added in the External Links section... what do you think? --Leighblackall (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

See Also-- Collaborative Networked Learning

Thank you for including the link to Collaborative Networked Learning about the early work in ghe 1980's. Unfortunately, the deletionist at Wikipedia has decided to remove this entry. Please feel free to include the concept and the content as it relates to the general issue of Networked Learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Chuck (talk • contribs) 14:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)