Talk:Networked learning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)