Authors: Anna Rubio Carbó, NÚRIA SERRAT Various informal learning processes were developed during a course at the IL3-UB, when participants engaged in numerous out-of-class communication and exchange activities. This study aims to determine students’ perceptions of what they learned and investigate their transference of Web 2.0 learning to the workplace. Preliminary conclusions are presented.

1. From the field
Online students initiate informal learning practices
using social tools
Authors Various informal learning processes were developed during a course at the IL3-UB,
when participants engaged in numerous out-of-class communication and exchange ac-
Anna Rubio Carbó
tivities. This study aims to determine students’ perceptions of what they learned and
Information Head of
investigate their transference of Web 2.0 learning to the workplace. Preliminary conclu-
Innovation Department,
IL3-UB, Institute for Lifelong sions are presented.
Learning, University of
Barcelona, Spain
anna.rubio@ub.edu
1. Background to the research
Núria Serrat Antolí
In the current process of redefining the university1, learning strategies from outside the
Lecturer, Department of
classroom and beyond university studies have become an important cause to defend (Hin-
Didactics and Educational
Organization, University of ton, 2009; Serrat, Rubio & Cano, 2010). This has led to the integration of informal learning
Barcelona, Spain strategies into both university and further education courses (Livingston, 2000; Eraut, 2004).
nserrat@ub.edu Concurrently, higher education and postgraduate studies have been incorporating Web 2.0
tools for constructing and sharing knowledge (Wheeler, 2009; Buchem & Hamelmann, 2011).
Blending these two elements, we see that informal learning finds in Web 2.0 a broad and
Tags
fruitful field of action (Brown & Adler, 2008). Beyond the limits of formal curricula (Living-
Higher education; ston, 2000), while informal learning is generated in an implicit and unstructured way in un-
networking skills; foreseen and unplanned situations (Eraut, 2004), the frequent and varied exchanges involved
knowledge transference in Web 2.0 in turn become material for further informal learning (Jokisalo & Riu, 2009).
In this context, the University of Barcelona Institute for Lifelong Learning (IL3-UB) offers on-
line and face-to-face masters and courses with a professional orientation. It is firmly commit-
ted to the development of lifelong learning strategies. Thus, apart from using Moodle as an
LMS to support learning, other Web 2.0 elements are used to foster students’ personal and
professional development.
During the last academic year (2010-11), one particular group caught our attention. On the
Community Management and Social Media postgraduate course the participants carried
out, apart from teacher-set tasks, numerous out-of-class communication and information
exchange activities. These were Web 2.0 exchanges defined by the students themselves: no
one planned, guided or assessed them. Unprompted, and from the very beginning, students
shared a hash tag on Twitter, became highly active users of a Facebook group, joined LinkedIn
and created a blog and online newspaper to keep in touch and share news on Community
Management tasks.
If achieving objectives on the postgraduate course involved learning how to use these tools
as internet communication strategies, these students were learning the tools at the same
1 eLearning Papers, 24 http://elearningpapers.eu/en/node/72144
ing
earn
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
eL ers
26
u
ers.e
gpap
.elea
rnin n.º 26 • October 2011
Pap
www
1

2. From the field
time as using them for informal learning purposes. Which ones 3. Some preliminary results and
were students most actively using? And for what purpose? conclusions
Though this is only a single group, and thus not a significant Although we are currently, in September 2011, still analysing
sample of the IL3-UB student body, we were interested in find- the results in depth, we present here some preliminary conclu-
ing out what type of activities these students had autonomous- sions.
ly developed, to what point these activities had led them to de-
velop informal learning strategies, and what their opinions of Concerning the tools most frequently used, we can conclude
these strategies were. that the students did not access the Moodle classroom as fre-
quently as is normal on such courses, although they were aware
of what was happening there. Messages inside the LMS were
2. Aims of the study and methodology limited to course activities, adopting a more formal and aca-
utilized demic style. Social networks –mainly Facebook, LinkedIn and
With these reflections in mind we designed a study with three Twitter– were used as natural extensions of the classroom and
main aims: as natural sites of learning.
a) To find out what uses were made of which social tools Facebook was by far the most popular meeting point. Principally
(when related to the course contents). students –but also teachers– shared materials of general inter-
b) To determine students’ perceptions both of what they est (congresses, complementary training, work vacancies, etc)
gained from the group and of their partners’ contribu- or related to the course modules (documents, presentations,
tions. videos), and discussed and evaluated their own and other com-
munity members’ publications. Nearly two months after the
c) To determine whether they transferred to the workplace
course, it is still a much-used social space for both students and
what they had learnt from the social tools.
teachers.
Our sample focused on the 84 students on the above-mentioned
postgraduate course. The sample was interesting for the study Surprisingly, aside from informal exchanges, formal conversa-
not only because of its technophile pro-social tools profile, but tions also took place on Twitter. For example, there students ex-
also because the average age was around 35, which meant that changed links from course modules, asked questions to ensure
many students worked in areas closely related to the course correct understanding of wording in activity instructions, and
contents and showed an interest in keeping up-to-date and in organized social events and group attendance at lectures.
developing useful strategies for continuing post-course learn- Concerning the subjects students discussed in the networks,
ing. Moreover, the spirit of the group was participative, highly we can conclude that all subjects were treated. Technical, pro-
productive, and critical with regard to technology use. fessional, academic and even juridical questions were discussed
We used four different information-gathering instruments dur- on Facebook. Those conversations that would normally arise on
ing the study. A map of tools was drawn up to see which social Moodle –as they concerned specific subject matter and issues–
tools students used and for what purposes; a student ques- in this case began on the network.
tionnaire was designed to determine whether the role of the Outside the Moodle classroom, students engaged in three types
tools changed during the course and if students were aware of of exchange. Mainly they exchanged information resources, but
what they had learned through them; a content analysis of the they also solved academic, technological and course content
messages they produced was made in order to categorize the problems. Also they shared new ideas, for example projects
nuclei of meaning and compare the perceptions verbalized in such as creating a newspaper or starting up a company.
the questionnaire with those expressed in the messages; finally
an interview with selected students was devised to determine While we expected that they would exchange personal reflec-
whether they were aware of what they had learned from the so- tions, these were scarce. They exchanged very few solutions
cial networks, how they assessed this, and to what extent they from or reflections on their own professional experience, tricks
transferred it to their working places. and strategies.
ing
earn
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
eL ers
26
u
ers.e
gpap
.elea
rnin n.º 26 • October 2011
Pap
www
2

3. From the field
Concerning the usefulness of what they had learned, students Acknowledgements
stated that their social-network-based learning was positively
We would like to thank the students on the first program of the
useful for transference to present or future workplaces. Thus,
IL3-UB Community Management & Social Media Postgraduate
they felt that the learning generated through using social tools
Course, and Haridian de Aysa, Carlos Roa and Antonio Martinez,
was useful in complementing course contents: for example they
for their willing and proactive work.
broadened and complemented their conceptual knowledge,
they engaged in personal and professional networking, and
they familiarized themselves with technologies they had not
previously used. Many of their responses suggested that the
students saw social network interactions as useful for their con-
tinuing development, as sources of information, and as spaces
for problem solving.
However, other questions arise. Despite stating that their learn-
ing from social web tools was useful for the workplace, students
were mainly referring here to conceptual learning. They did not
perceive this learning in terms of work skills, professional reflec-
tions or direct applicability at work. Thus we wonder whether
they were simply not aware of these latter aspects or whether
they had not learned anything in this respect.
Although our main conclusions would encourage us to use so-
cial tools as sites of both formal and informal learning, blending
these learning processes naturally outside the Moodle class-
room, several further questions emerge. Should we promote
informal learning, providing new tools for students to share
knowledge? Would providing these tools be enough to enrich
their experience? Or should we take a further step, and ac-
company students’ informal learning processes with making
the skills acquired explicit? This would help students to make
the most of their informal learning processes, but would also
require us to define intentional processes of informal learning,
thereby establishing a closer bond between formal and informal
learning.
ing
earn
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
eL ers
26
u
ers.e
gpap
.elea
rnin n.º 26 • October 2011
Pap
www
3

4. From the field
References Hall, R. (2009). “Towards a fusion of formal and informal learning
environments: The impact of the read/write web”. Electronic Journal
Brown, J.S.; Adler, R.P. (2008), “Minds of Fire: Open education, of e-Learning. 7 (1), 29 - 40. Retrieved from www.ejel.org/issue/
the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0”. EDUCAUSE Review, 43, 1. download.html?idArticle=81
Buchem, I.; Hamelmann, H. (2011). “Developing 21st century Hinton, J. (2009). “Lifelong Learning: Effective Adult Learning
skills: Web 2.0 in Higher Education – A case study”. eLearning Strategies and Implementation for Working Professionals”. The
Papers, 24, 1-5. International Journal of Learning 16:1, 1-14.
Livingstone, D. W. (2007). Re-exploring the icebergs of adult Jokisalo, E.; Riu, A. (2009), “Informal learning in the era of Web
learning: comparative findings of the 1998 and 2004 Canadian 2.0”. eLearning Papers. Retrieved from: http://www.elearningeu-
surveys of formal and informal learning practices. The Canadian ropa.info/files/media/media19656.pdf
Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 20 (2), 1-24.
Serrat, N.; Cano, E.; Rubio, A. (2010), “Learning Self-reg-
Clough, G; Jones, A.C; McAndrew, P; Scanlon, E. (2009) ulation competences in Higher Education by using ICT”. The
Informal Learning Evidence in Online Communities of Mobile International Journal of Learning 17 (11), p. 1-20.
Device Enthusiasts. At Ally, M. Mobile Learning Transforming the
Delivery of Education and Training. Edmonton: AU Press, Atha- Wheeler, S. (2009). “Learning Space Mashups: Combining Web
basca University, p 99-112. 2.0 Tools to Create Collaborative and Reflective Learning Spaces”
Future Internet, 1, pp. 3-13, Retrieved April 22, 2011 from http://
Eraut, M. (2004). ‘Informal learning in the workplace’, Studies in www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/1/1/3/pdf
Continuing Education, 26:2, 247 – 273.
Edition and production
Name of the publication: eLearning Papers Copyrights
ISSN: 1887-1542
The texts published in this journal, unless otherwise indicated, are subject
Publisher: elearningeuropa.info
to a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks
Edited by: P.A.U. Education, S.L. 3.0 Unported licence. They may be copied, distributed and broadcast pro-
Postal address: c/Muntaner 262, 3r, 08021 Barcelona (Spain) vided that the author and the e-journal that publishes them, eLearning
Phone: +34 933 670 400 Papers, are cited. Commercial use and derivative works are not permitted.
Email: editorial@elearningeuropa.info The full licence can be consulted on http://creativecommons.org/licens-
Internet: www.elearningpapers.eu es/by-nc-nd/3.0/
ing
earn
eLearning Papers • ISSN: 1887-1542 • www.elearningpapers.eu
eL ers
26
u
ers.e
gpap
.elea
rnin n.º 26 • October 2011
Pap
www
4