Microlearning and Capacity Building
Proceedings of the 4th International Microlearning 2008 Conference

Editors: Peter A. Bruck, Martin Lindner

Series Editors: K. Habitzel, T. D. Märk, S. Prock, B. Stehno

iup • innsbruck university press

© 2008 1st edition All rights reserved.

Universität Innsbruck Technikerstraße 21 a A-6020 Innsbruck

Editors: Peter A. Bruck, Martin Lindner Publishing staff: Carmen Drolshagen, Gregor Sailer Organisation of Proceedings: Wolfgang Hagleitner Translation: Julia Bruck Organisation of Conference: Birgit Berger Produced: Fred Steiner, Rinn – Book on Demand

ISBN: 978-3-902571-60-1

Microlearning and Capacity Building
Proceedings of the 4 th International Microlearning 2008 Conference

Editors: Peter A. Bruck, Martin Lindner

Printed with support of Research Studios Austria Forschungsgesellschaft mbH

Table of Content

Forewords and Introductions
Peter A. Bruck Welcome and Introduction to “Micromedia and Capacity Building” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Martina A. Roth Welcome to Microlearning 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Martin Lindner The Shift Towards Microinformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Ulf-Daniel Ehlers Web 2.0 – E-learning 2.0 – Quality 2.0? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Foundations and Basics
Judy Breck Unbundling Online Educational Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Matthias Rohs “Informal e-learning” – What Does it Mean? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Martin Lindner Micromedia Flow Experience Design A Conceptual Framework for Designing Microcontent-driven Applications for Peripheral View and Partial Attention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table of Content

Applications and Practices
Lars Johnsen The Seven C’s of Educational Topic Maps: Towards Open Microwebs for (Language) Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Eva M. Unterrainer, Meinrad E. Welte Evaluation of Flashcard-based Learning Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Martin Ebner, Walther Nagler Has the End of the Chalkboard Come? A Survey About the Limits of Interactive Pen Displays in Higher Education . . . . . . . . 79 Stefan Walder, Wolfgang Hagleitner Mobile Hydraulic Engineering Simulations as Microcontent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Çetin Güler, Arif Altun, Petek As¸ ar k Teacher Trainees as Learning Object Designers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

“Informal E-learning” – What Does it Mean?
(Paper) Matthias Rohs
E-Learning Center, University of Zurich (Switzerland)

Abstract: Although informal learning is an old-fashioned term in the pedagogical domain, it has become increasingly popular in the past few years through increased discussion. As a result of this debate, the term has lost conciseness and threatens to become an empty buzzword for political and managerial speeches. Therefore, the discussion on informal learning in the field of e-learning is threatened with failure even before it has truly started. This paper will give a short overview of the roots of informal learning and present the results of an expert survey on “informal e-learning” as a contribution to further discussion in this field.

1. Introduction
Since the 1990s, public dialogue on informal learning in all fields of education has increased. The term has been picked up within the context of e-learning and the debate on Web 2.0, social software, mobile learning and personal learning environments (e.g. Attwell, 2007; Cross, 2007a). The discussion on informal learning in the field of elearning has until now been dominated by a mixed use of terminology and only a few attempts have been made to create a definition of the term (Hauske & Bendel 2007). Obviously, what is missing is a debate on what this term or phenomenon is and what it could be, respectively. There are three ways to come to a definition of a term (Zürcher 2007, pp 37-44): 1) Top-down definition by an authority: In the context of informal learning, the European Union’s Memorandum of lifelong learning (Commission of the European Communities 2000, p. 8) defined three categories of learning activities: informal-, non-formal- and formal learning. Although this definition has been circulated widely, it is not in common use. Etymological definition: The second way to define a term is by its etymological meaning. Formal denotes “concerning the form”. By contrast, the prefix “in” or “non” means “without any form”. Based on this understanding, non-formal and


“Informal e-learning” – What Does it Mean?


informal are the same. However, this approach generally does not lead to a differentiated definition of formal and informal learning. 3) Use in practice: According to Wittgensteins Theory of Use (Gebrauchstheorie), the meaning of a word arises from its use in a language.

Following the last definition, it is necessary to explore in which way informal learning is used, as well as its context and the meaning associated with the term. This does not mean finding one precise definition of “informal e-learning”. However, the discussion requires reflection on what it means when the term informal learning is used in the context of e-learning, as well as highlighting of the different perspectives. This will help to gain a better understanding of the theoretical perspectives present in the discussion and will lead to more practical solutions in the future. To this end, a small survey was conducted with experts on informal learning & e-learning in order to get a better idea of their understanding of “informal e-learning”. The survey focused on experts in higher education. The results of this survey must be viewed within the context of the broader discussion on informal learning. For this reason, this paper begins with three short chapters concerning the background of the discussion, the reason for the increasing importance of informal learning, and some characteristics of informal learning.

2. What is the background of the discussion?
I would first like to review the roots of informal learning. Retrospectively, it is easier to understand which criteria were used to describe informal learning and why they were used. I will begin with a general perspective and later proceed to examine e-learning in a more focused manner. The term informal learning first appeared within the context of schooling. John Dewey (1997/1916), an American philosopher and educator, used the term at the beginning of the 20th Century to describe a “natural” learning process outside of school. In his eyes, informal learning constitutes the basic mode of learning which can be facilitated by formal education. It can be characterised as an implicit accommodation of experiences and knowledge through playing with or watching somebody without any learning purpose. Collaboration and communication are thus essential prerequisites for this type of learning. The term informal learning thus has its roots in the differences between school education and out-of-school education. This context characterised the discussion on informal learning for a long time. Since the 1960s, informal learning has been discussed more


Foundations and Basics: Matthias Rohs

widely; not only within the context of schooling, but also in the field of adult education (Tough 1967) and education in developing countries. The debate gained additional attention through the OECD’s Faure-Report (Faure 1973), which pointed out the importance of informal education. The first research projects dealing with informal learning were initiated within this context. Prominent American and Canadian studies on informal learning (e.g. Watkins & Marsik 1990, Livingstone 2000) are cited particularly often. Furthermore, discussion on informal learning has taken place all over the world, especially in the field of further- and school education, and increasingly in all fields of learning. The topic was also picked up in the field of e-learning. However, the debate focuses on two perspectives: on the one hand, it is tied to Web 2.0, social software and mobile learning (e. g. Naismith et al., 2004; Jones et al. 2006) and on the other hand, it is viewed within the broader perspective of a technologically enriched learning environment (e.g. Conole et al. 2006, Creanor et al. 2006).

3. Why is informal learning important?
The attractiveness of informal learning is not based on a new trend. Naturally, it is surrounded by a growing hype, but there are also valid reasons why informal learning is receiving so much attention. On the one hand, the past decade has shown that formal learning cannot solve the learning demands of the future. There is a rising need for justin-time information and practical knowledge. However, formal training requires time to plan and organise courses, which often renders it too slow to be useful. On the other hand, informal learning exhibits characteristics that are very important for today’s economies. In contrast to formal learning, informal learning is not only faster and more deeply rooted in all areas of life; it is also linked to experience and implicit knowledge. This knowledge is essential for the effectuation of complex social and technical tasks, which are becoming more and more typical for our economy. This does not mean that we no longer need formal education. It means that formal and informal education are complementary types of learning. Formal learning forms the basis for understanding complex coherences, while informal learning provides the basis for understanding and critically reflecting on theory. Thus, formal learning is necessary to gain competences for effective informal learning and informal learning helps to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Only the combination of formal and informal learning ultimately leads to operational competence (Rohs, 2007). There are many other reasons for the importance of informal learning from an economical, political, technical and pedagogical viewpoint (Zürcher 2007), but it is needless to list them all at this point.

“Informal e-learning” – What Does it Mean?


4. What does informal learning mean?
The first characteristic of informal learning is that it takes place outside of school and educational institutions, respectively. This definition has its roots in the differentiation between in-classroom and non-school-related education. The following paragraphs specify several other criteria; however, all of them represent but one perspective on the term and are by themselves insufficient to determine whether a learning process is formal or informal. These criteria include: • Institutional context: Many definitions of informal learning focus on the context of learning. The learning environment thus determines the nature of the learning process (Straka 2000). It is known that informal learning may also take place in formal learning environments such as schools. A popular example is the “hidden curriculum”, which contains learning objectives not intended by the institution. Certification: Informal learning is often characterised as “non-certified learning”. However, considerable efforts are underway (particularly in Europe) to establish structures for the recognition and validation of informal learning (e.g. Colardyn & Bjornavold 2005) Intention: Informal learning is also characterised by the learning intent. The aim of informal learning isn’t to acquire knowledge but to solve a problem or to answer a question (for oneself or others) (Dohmen 2001). Awareness: As a consequence of being problem-oriented, the process of informal learning is often subconscious (Watkins & Marsick 1990). Learning outcomes: While the learning outcome of formal learning focuses on theoretical knowledge, the learning objective of informal learning focuses on know-how and is partly tacit (Dehnbostel 2001).

• •

These are only some of the criteria used to define informal learning. Depending on the point of view or area of research, additional criteria are important to define the term. However, the differences between formal and informal learning must always be understood as a continuum of formal and informal learning aspects (Stern & Sommerlad 1999, Cross 2007b, Rohs 2007). To identify situations as “informal e-learning”, it is necessary to define criteria which are useful to describe such situations. To initate steps in this direction, I have carried out an expert survey. The method and results are summarised as follows.


Foundations and Basics: Matthias Rohs

5. Methodology
Past debates have shown that the definition of informal learning depends on the field in which the term is used. The concept of what informal learning could be depends largely on the context within which it is used. It is therefore necessary to get an idea of what the e-learning community associates with the term (see Introduction). To explore the community’s understanding of the term, I designed an online questionnaire with seven open-ended questions. The survey focused on the field of higher education. For this reason, the questionnaire was sent to experts known for their focus on e-learning, informal learning and higher education. Twenty-two of 48 questionnaire recipients1 responded (three of them received the questionnaire in English). They describe themselves as experts in the field of elearning (20), informal learning (10) and higher education (7), partly specialising in knowledge management, podcasting, social software or mobile learning. The QDA software ATLASti was used to analyse the qualitative data. This software helps to analyse data by creating codes and bundling them into categories. It supports data analysis by following the process of theory-building via grounded theory as well as question-oriented analysis. The quality of the data renders it impossible to make general statements, but it does provide a starting point for the discussion on the concept of “informal e-learning” as perceived by experts in this field.

6. Findings
The results of the questions in the questionnaire are summarised as follows. 6.1 What is “informal e-learning”, in your point of view? The first question addresses the individual understanding of informal learning (without any restrictions). The answers focus on the following aspects of the learning environment and related personal criteria: a) Criteria of the learning environment Applications/Services/Technologies: As mentioned in Chapter 4, the learning environment constitutes an essential criterion for the definition. The use of applications, services and technologies for learning purposes is a particular trait of “informal e1

The experts hail from Germany, USA, Great Britain, Austria and Switzerland.

“Informal e-learning” – What Does it Mean?


learning” and is central to the definition. Thus, many answers focus on technical aspects, e.g. technologies (“new learning technologies”, “Web 2.0”, “social software”), services (“Google”), and applications (“Internet tools”). There is evidence that these technologies, services, and applications are used for more than just learning but this does not exclude e-learning software, which also supports informal learning. No pedagogical environment: Furthermore, the informal learning environment is compared to common definitions characterised by a lack of pedagogical structure. Answers included phrases such as “informal contexts”, “no curriculum”, “not part of formal educational programmes” and so on. Situated: Last but not least, the learning process is described as situated. In this context, what is probably meant is that the learning process is anchored in a certain situation. Time: Such aspects are often added using time-related attributes, e.g.: everywhere, every time, meaning that learning is embedded in all life activities and not associated with special learning periods. This attribute is rarely used to define informal learning, but in my estimation it is often included as an aspect of non-pedagogical environments. Grades: A further criterion previously mentioned under certification was referred to using the terms “not rated/no grades”, “no certification”. b) Personal criteria: Self-directed and motivated by personal need: Two core aspects of this category include the autonomy of the learning process, i.e. being independent from all pedagogical influences, and motivation based on a personal need or network featuring the same interests. Cooperative, dialog-oriented: One criterion mentioned often, without being part of the standard definition of informal learning, is the cooperative learning process. This aspect is important for all informal learning processes, but is seldom as emphasised as in the field of informal learning. In sum, most of the criteria are well-known in the traditional debate on informal learning. Only two aspects are extraordinary. Firstly, the connection to technology and secondly, the aspect of collaboration. Although John Dewey emphasises the collaborative aspect of informal learning and it is also listed in Colley et al. (2003), this aspect had no importance for most definitions of informal learning. Moreover, some aspects which are distinctive of many definitions of informal learning, e.g. learning outcome, awareness, role of the teacher, are missing.


Foundations and Basics: Matthias Rohs

6.2 Which applications, technologies and services are used for “informal elearning”? The second question focused on the technological aspects of “informal e-learning”. As previously mentioned, the differences may be classified into three categories, which I would like to elaborate on at this point. Applications: browser Services: search engines (Google), social bookmarking (delicious), social networks (facebook, XING,, RSS Content: Wikipedia, Youtube, micropublishing Technologies: e-portfolios, wikis, podcasts, weblogs Furthermore, respondents listed hardware that can be used in the manner of mobile phones or PDAs. Obviously, some respondents found it difficult to name the technologies, applications and services which characteristise “informal e-learning” because they were bound to a specific interest or need, e.g.: • “From the broad range of ways the internet is used to support information seeking, handling and management of information, communication, collaboration, the development of social networks.” “Everything supporting personal knowledge management and enquiry” “In particular, everything supporting communication and collaboration” “All technologies supporting communication in learning contexts” “All technologies supporting attainment of knowledge” The third category does not connect informal learning with special applications, services and technologies: o o o o “not connected to special technologies” “not concrete” “the Internet” “it makes no sense to name any”

• • • • •

The comment that “traditional” e-learning environments also support “informal e-learning” activities is worth noting.

“Informal e-learning” – What Does it Mean?


Altogether, it can be summarised that there are no explicit “informal” technologies, applications or services for “informal e-learning”. However, some of them, in particular those supporting collaboration, seem more closely connected to informal learning activities. 6.3 How would you describe the differences between formal and “informal elearning”? The third question addresses the differences between formal and “informal e-learning”. The differences concentrate on the following categories: Technology: • Personal Learning Environments (informal) vs. Learning Management Systems (formal)2

Learning environment: • • • Curricular structure vs. flexible organisation with optional learning resources (informal) vs. curriculum with defined time scope Flexible structures regarding time and location (informal) vs. fixed structures (formal) No assessment and certification (informal) vs. assessment and certification (formal)

Individual attitudes: • • Autonomous (informal) vs. passive (formal) Learner initiative (informal) vs. teacher initiative (formal)

Aside from these contrasts, many answers underline the issue of juxtaposing informal and formal learning at all, as informal learning may also take place in formal learning environments. In a similar vein, Colley et al. (2003) argue: “Our analysis strongly suggests that such attributes of formality and informality co-exist in all learning situations, but the nature of that co-existence or, to put in in another way, the interrelationships between informal and formal attributes vary from situation to situation.” (p. 65). Some models show this grey area using both formal and informal aspects, e.g. the aforementioned Stern & Sommmerlad 1999 (“Continuous Learning Continuum”) or Cross 2007b (“Informal Learning Mixer).


As previously argued, there is no special technology for informal e-learning.


Foundations and Basics: Matthias Rohs

6.4 What is the relevance of “informal e-learning” for teaching and learning in higher education? This is a central question, but difficult to answer, as there are only a few surveys which provide an orientation. Thus, respondents’ personal “feelings” and experiences constituted the primary backdrop for the answers. Nevertheless, the answers provide clues as to why informal learning could be important. Some responses were very rigid, such as: “informal learning is more important than formal, so if higher ed(ucation) does not embrace it, higher ed will cease being relevant in society”. Other experts were more cautious in their opinions and referred to the methodological problems of measuring the importance of informal learning. However, the overall tenor stressed the major importance of informal learning. The main issue lies in the fact that informal learning is mostly ignored within the context of higher education. In consequence, this leads to a lack of competencies that are developed by informal learning (especially key competencies), on the one hand. On the other hand, informal learning continues to exist alongside university education as an open digital learning network – much like a “shadow university”. It can be summarised that the importance of informal learning is increasing, but is being ignored by institutions of higher education. This appraisal of the situation must be interpreted against the background that this view was expressed by people engaged in the field of informal learning. 6.5 Is it possible to support “informal e-learning” in higher education (technical, didactical)? If yes, how? In line with the argument that informal learning is important for higher education, it is necessary to ask whether “informal e-learning” can be promoted. The answer to this question was a clear “yes”, but with some restrictions regarding the cultural aspects of teaching and learning in higher education. These restrictions pertain to a “culture” or “environment” of informal learning, supported by fostering openness and autonomy. The responses also included several concrete methodological proposals, e.g.: • • • • • “One-to-one mentoring models” “Introduction of e-portfolios” “Offering courses on how to learn and how to use informal learning” Credit points for informal learning Recognition of informal learning

“Informal e-learning” – What Does it Mean?


• • •

Offering project- and dialog-oriented methods Continued reflection Individual platforms for students (PLEs)

Furthermore, one respondent noted: “The most important thing is to better understand what students are doing”. This statement can be interpreted as a call for increased “bottom-up” development of methods supporting informal learning. 6.6 Which connections between “informal e-learning” and formal e-learning in higher education exist, according to your point of view (e.g. independent preparation for lectures via the Internet)? Depending on the understanding of the nature of “informal e-learning”, there are different estimations of the connection between formal and “informal e-learning” within the context of higher education. On the one hand, the connections obviously exist. Students learn informally via the Internet and are also using this knowledge for their studies. In a similar manner, their studies build on the students’ previous experiences in using technologies. This is also seen as a normal part of studying. Furthermore, some institutions of higher education have gained experience in the use of weblogs and wikis, which enable the connection of formal and “informal e-learning”. Even so, in most cases, the degree of conscious intent in supporting such connections remains uncertain. In fact, it may be posited that this often takes place unconsciously, as expressed in the following statement regarding the abovementioned connection of formal and informal e-learning: “None really, tech-savvy students do this on their own, but many do not think of doing this, or if they happen to they don't know they are doing it.” In the same vein, one respondent answered the question by stating that there are “a thousand” connections, but they have to be explored. However, this does not mean that there are no conscious arrangements aiming to facilitate the connection of formal and informal learning, e.g. the preparation and wrap-up of virtual and physical courses through wikis and blogs. Nevertheless, I believe that this situation is uncommon in higher education.

7. Summary and outlook
In answer to the question “Informal e-learning – what does it mean?”, it is impossible for me to make a definite concluding statement. Nevertheless, the survey offers an impression of the understanding of the term “informal e-learning” within the learning community:


Foundations and Basics: Matthias Rohs

a) b) c)

There is a more or less distinct comprehension of “informal e-learning” that can be linked to practice. There is no common understanding of or clear framework for “informal elearning”. Although the individual interpretations accentuate different aspects, it is possible to discern a broad consensus on the criteria discussed in the field of informal learning. Technical aspects and collaboration play a major role in “informal e-learning”.


Furthermore, it can be summarised that there is an informal, student-driven connection of formal and informal learning in the field of higher education. The deliberate arrangement of formal and informal learning by teachers/lecturers is not very sophisticated, but there are a lot of ideas for the facilitation of informal learning within the context of higher education. In addition to these findings, the question remains, do we need the term “informal elearning”, or are there other terms covering this type of learning? Should there be further discussions on different “learning environments” and different “learning resources”? On a metalevel, it is my impression that “informal e-learning” could be a container including aspects of several important movements within the context of e-learning and opening up a new perspective on them. At the content level, open movements (e.g. open educational resources, open software) and microcontent form a basis for “informal elearning”. At the technological level, on the one hand one can find more personalised perspectives (e.g. PLEs) which are typical of “informal e-learning” and, on the other hand, collaborative learning processes containing references to Web 2.0 and social software.

Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning? eLearning Papers, Vol. 2, Nr. 1. Colardyn, D. & Bjornavold, J. (2005). The learning continuity: European inventory on validation non-formal and informal learning. Cedefop Panorama series 117. Luxembourg. Colley, H., Hodkinson, P. & Malcolm J. (2003). Informality and formality in learning: a report for the Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2003 (93 S.), URL: (accessed March, 2008).

“Informal e-learning” – What Does it Mean?


Commission of the European Union (2000). A Memorandum of Lifelong Learining. Brussels. URL: (accessed March, 2008). Conole, G. et al. (2006). JISC LXP - Student experiences of technologies. URL: nalreportdec06.pdf (accessed March, 2008). Creanor, L. (2006). L E X - The Learner Experience of e-Learning. Internet: (accessed March, 2008). Cross, J. (2007a). Informal Learning. Rediscovering the natural pathway that inspire innovation and performance. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Cross, J. (2007b). All or nothing, Informal learning blog. (accessed March, 2008). Dehnbostel, P. (2001), „Perspektiven für das Lernen in der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Qualifikations-Entwicklungs-Management Kompetenzentwicklung 2001, pp. 53-93, Münster: Waxmann. URL:

Arbeit“, in: (Hrsg.),

Dewey, J. (1997). Democracy and Education (EA 1916). New York. Free Press. Dohmen, G. (2001). Das informelle Lernen - Die internationale Erschließung einer bisher vernachlässigten Grundform menschlichen Lernens für das lebenslange Lernen. Bonn: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. URL: (accessed March 2008) Faure, E. et al. (1972): Learning to Be: The World of Education Today and Tomorrow. Paris: UNESCO. Hauske, S. & Bendel. O. (2007). Informelles E-Learning. URL: e_Bendel_2007.pdf (accessed March, 2008). Jones, A. et al. (2006). Using mobile devices for learning in informal Settings: Is it Motivating? Paper presented at IADIS International conference Mobile Learning. July 14-16, Dublin. Livingstone, D. W. (2000). Exploring the Icebergs of Adult Learning: Findings of the First Canadian Survey of Informal Learning Practices. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Marsick, V. J. & Watkins, K. E. (1990), Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace, London und New York: Routledge.


Foundations and Basics: Matthias Rohs

Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G. & sharples, M. (2004). Literature Review in Mobile Techologies in Learning, Futurelab Series, Report 11. Rohs, M. (2008). Connected Learning – Zur Verbindung formellen und informellen Lernens in der IT-Weiterbildung. URL: (accessed March, 2008). Stern, E. & Sommerlad, E. (1999), Workplace Learning. Culture and Performance, London: Institute of Personnel and Development. Straka, G. A. (2000). Lernen unter informellen Bedingungen. Begriffsbestimmung, Diskussion in Deutschland, Evaluation der Desiderate. in: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Qualifikations-Entwicklungs-Management (Ed.), Kompetenzentwicklung 2000, pp. 15-70, Münster: Waxmann. Tough, A. (1967), Learning without a Teacher. A Study of Tasks and Assistance during Adult Selfteaching Projects, Education Research Series 3, Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Watkins, K. & Marsick, V. (1990). Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace. London: Routledge. Zürcher, R. (2007). Informelles Lernen und der Erwerb von Kompetenzen: Theoretische, didaktische und politische Aspekte. Materialien zur Erwachsenenbildung, Nr. 2. Bundesministerium für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur. Wien. URL: nr2_2007_informelles_lernen.pdf (accessed March, 2008).

A new digital micromedia ecology, and with it new learning strategies, are emerging. The shift to fragmented digital communication and information flows affects all aspects of daily work and daily lifelong learning. This calls for innovative experiences, processes and technologies: ubiquitous, personal and dynamic, casual and volatile, but still complex and effective. What is the impact on educational issues in formal and informal learning environments, in vocational training, higher education, and professional training? To discuss the new challenges and opportunities for individual and organizational capacity building, Microlearning 2008 brought together media technologists and academics, visionaries and practitioners, entrepreneurs and corporate professionals from many countries, disciplines, and fields of expertise. The participants brought new visions and analyses, innovative concepts, projects, and best practice results. The Proceedings of the 4th International Microlearning 2008 Conference contribute to answering the questions of new media users in seven main subject fields: New Media in Organisations, Classroom Without Walls, Corporate Learning, Mobile Training, Web 2.0 & Education, Micromedia Environments, Quality and Evaluation.

ISBN 978-3-902571-60-1

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful