Whilst a number of methodological and philosophical difficulties surround its definition, ‘informal learning’ is now acknowledged to be a vital element of education for learners of all ages (Colley et al. 2003). Despite the ‘slippery’ nature of the concept (Girod 1990), there is an emerging consensus that the nature of informal learning is more specific than simply being any learning outside of formal education. At one level informal learning is “undertake[n] individually or collectively, on our own without externally imposed criteria or the presence of an institutionally authorised instructor” (Livingstone 2000, p.493). Thus, whereas formal learning is typically institutionally sponsored, classroom based and structured, informal learning “is not typically classroom based or highly structured, and control of learning rests primarily in the hands of the learner” (Marsick & Watkins 1990, p.12). Yet we should not overlook the fact that informal learning also includes a range of learning stimulated by general interests which is ‘caught not taught’ (Davies 1998).

There is growing evidence that many people are engaged in a wide range of technology-based informal learning at home and the community (Cranmer 2006, Impact2 2003, Facer et al. 2003). As Sefton-Green (2005, p.3) concluded from an extensive review of literature in the area: “computers and other aspects of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) allow children and young people a wide variety of activities and experiences that can support learning, yet many of these transactions do not take place in traditional educational settings. In fact many of these may not be considered ‘educational’ according to our conventional understanding of that term.”

The trend for the informal consumption, creation, communication and sharing of knowledge via ICTs looks set to increase with the emergence of so-called ‘Web 2.0’ applications and learners’ growing use of such ‘read/write’ web activities at home. In particular the notion of Web 2.0 highlights the growing popularity of so-called ‘social software’ where users are connected to and collaborate with each other in a variety of group interactions (Shirky 2003). Indeed Timothy O’Reilly (2005), generally accepted to be the originator of the notion of Web 2.0, has been keen to stress that it refers primarily to what can be termed ‘the network effect’ of current internet applications – i.e. the principle that the value and usefulness of web activity is now contingent on the number of participating users, with communities of users adding value to web applications in collaborative and creative ways which would not be possible on an individual basis. In this sense the worldwide web of Web 2.0 is what O’Reilly terms an active ‘architecture of participation’ rather than site of passive consumption. In theory at least, the web can be seen as a vast network of interconnected services that allows users to move their content across and between a variety of applications and contexts.

Download pdf Web 2.0 applications as alternative environments for informal learning - a critical review