# data[].attributes.body
Navigating the boundary between formal and informal learning in higher education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Navigating the boundary between formal & informal learning #OER15

# data[].attributes.body
@catherinecronin:

Q: “why and how do students and staff interact in open online spaces in higher education, and how do they negotiate their digital identities in these spaces?”

1st thoughts:
L-A Perryman and I have analysed many interactions in student-led Facebook groups. A small number of FB groups overtly include staff, more do so unconsciously.

https://oer15.oerconf.org/sessions/are-student-led-facebook-groups-open-educational-practices-720/

Hope there’s an opportunity to discuss further :)

Tony Coughlan

>> many thanks, Tony. I will follow up work by yourself & Leigh Anne re: Facebook groups.

# data[].attributes.body
A really critical point Catherine, students have little awareness of OERs unless Staff enable them, so we need to start with them.

>> yes, thanks -- this will be the 1st phase of research project.

# data[].attributes.body
I think there is something in the tension between play and games that is replicated in the difference between formal and informal learning. I'd recommend the Graeber book too!

>> thanks, Dave!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Taking (as I am wont to do) a book recommendation from Mark Johnson's ever-wonderful "Daily Improvisation" I have been reading David Graeber's "The Utopia of Rules: On technology, stupidity, and the secret joys of bureaucracy". It's (as you would expect) a wonderful read with a lot to take away.

For me, the book revolved around the differences between two interlinked concepts - that even share the same word in many languages - the idea of "play" and the idea of a "game". He develops this theme following on from a riff on the bureaucratic aspects of fantasy fiction - noting that it really is only the "baddies" that appear to have a bureaucracy.

But "play", to Graeber, is the free expression of creativity, and "games" are the structures and rules that we put in place to constrain and focus this free expression.

"What this suggests is that people, everywhere, are prone to two completely contradictory tendencies: on the one hand, a tendency to be playfully creative just for the sake of it; on the other, a tendency to agree with anyone who tells them that they really shouldn't act that way. This latter is what makes the game-ification of institutional life possible" (chapter 3)

Yes, there's *that* word.

Educational game-ification is inherent in the rules by which the game of education is played. There is a direct read-across to institutional game-ification, which has another set of rules that (in some cases) underpin the rules of education. And in such a nested and complex ruleset, it is fair to bewail the lack of creativity - as rules expand to fill the spaces where innovation used to reign.

But on the other hand, what is something like, say, the DS106 Daily Create but a set of rules to constrain innovation? Imposing constraints can also be a way to foster creativity - the OULIPO movement collects and documents constraints that can support creativity (many of which do look a lot like daily creates).

In bureaucracy, a similar constrained creativity is used to circumvent and use institutional systems to achieve personal goals, be they in a positive " lead user " sense of solving necessary problems, or in the negative sense of creating interesting new ones and thus highlighting the absurdity of the rules.

A ruled space is can be seen as (literally!) a striated space in a Deleuzian sense, with all of the benefits and drawbacks that this implies. But to be fully striated, an un-ruled contingent space would also be required - a space without this contrast would be smooth: "a space of affects, more than one of properties".

Rules are - of course - inherently arbitrary in the sense that they have an arbitrator, which in most of the games we play (in education and in institutions) is not us. The affect can be seen in the irrational - rather than the rational - decisions made by, for example, a vice-chancellor.

So for me, the negative experiences of game-ification come when the creativity of the arbitrator is not up to the task of responding and adapting to the creativity of the game player in ways that foster rather than restrict. Those who have played invented games managed by small children will recognise the feeling of a system that adapts only to preserve existing status rather than to open new creative status - you try persuading a seven-year-old that "octopus" is a valid move in scissor/paper/stone 🙂

It is this feeling the permeates many of the systems that define the way we live, work, play and learn. The feeling that a system will adapt to constrain your creativity rather than foster it, even if the latter is of more benefit to the overall health of the system.

In open education (yes, I got there in the end) we are at something of a crossroads: where we are agreeing on constraints (what *is* open? where is open? how can we find open?). Those arguing for space to play are often seen as "unrealistic", those arguing for rule structures to direct creativity are seen as "dictatorial".

The simple truth is that we need both, and we need to recognise that. We need rules and requirements, but we need to be flexible enough to change as the world changes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Taking (as I am wont to do) a book recommendation from Mark Johnson's ever-wonderful "Daily Improvisation" I have been reading David Graeber's "The Utopia of Rules: On technology, stupidity, and the secret joys of bureaucracy". It's (as you would expect) a wonderful read with a lot to take away.

# data[].attributes.body
I'll be using this as a way to gather feedback during and after my presentation at #OER15 on Tuesday, April 14th. All thoughts & feedback welcome!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This lightning talk will report on ongoing research in the area of open networked learning in higher education. The core question of the research project is: How can academic staff in higher education support students in bridging the divide between informal and formal learning? For our students, to be in higher education is to learn in two worlds: the open world of informal learning and the predominantly closed learning spaces of the institution. As networked individuals, students navigate multiple online spaces and identities. Open, networked practices enable them to form social connections, but also to engage in community, civic, and political activity, and to connect, create, and share in interest-driven networks - i.e. to engage in connected learning (Ito, et al, 2013). Yet discussions between students and staff about students' informal learning practices, networks, and tools (e.g. use of Google, Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook, and more) rarely take place (White, et al, 2014). In general, students experience a dissonance between their experiences of formal, institutional learning and their broader experiences of open online culture and networked learning. This short talk will report on preliminary findings of this project as well as plans for the next stage of research.

References:

Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., Schor, J., Sefton-Green, J. & Watkins, S.C. (2013). Connected learning: an agenda for research and design . Digital Media and Learning Research Hub, Irvine, CA, USA.

White, D., Connaway, L.S., Lanclos, D., Hood, E.M., & Vass, C. (2014). Evaluating digital services: A digital visitors and residents approach . JISC InfoNet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Navigating the boundary between formal and informal learning in higher education [752]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This lightning talk will report on ongoing research in the area of open networked learning in higher education. The core question of the research project is: How can academic staff in higher education support students in bridging the divide between informal and formal learning?