Blending student technology experiences informal and informal learningK.-W. Lai,* F. Khaddage† & Gerald Knezek‡*University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand†Deakin University, Burwood, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia‡University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

Abstract In this article, we discuss the importance of recognizing students’ technology-enhancedinformal learning experiences and develop pedagogies to connect students’ formal and infor-mal learning experiences, in order to meet the demands of the knowledge society. TheMobile-Blended Collaborative Learning model is proposed as a framework to bridge the gapbetween formal and informal learning and blend them together to form a portable, flexible,collaborative and creative learning environment. Using this model, three categories of mobileapplication tools, namely tools for collaboration, tools for coordination and tools for com-munication, have been identified as pertinent in blending formal and informal learning, andthey can be connected seamlessly to provide an effective learning mechanism to support thelearning process.

Keywords ICT and pedagogy, informal learning, learning ecology, mobile technologies.

Introduction

With the huge increase in accessibility of digital andmobile technologies in the last decade or so in theeconomically advanced countries and also to someextent in some less economically advanced nations(e.g., with the uptake of mobile phones), there has beena drastic change in the way young people play, social-ize and communicate (Ito et al., 2008; Sefton-Green,2004). This high level of accessibility also providesopportunities to gain ‘powerfully motivating andintense learning experiences’ (Osborne & Dillon, 2007,p. 1444). Young people develop their experience andknowledge of digital and mobile technologies prima-rily in out-of-school settings, and the way they usethem is clearly different from how they use technolo-gies in school (Sefton-Green, Nixon, & Erstad, 2009).

For example, a recent report published by the KaiserFamily Foundation (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010)shows that in the USA, children and young people(8–18 years old) spent on average 90 min/day in 2009text messaging, in addition to 82 min being spent invoice communicating, listening to music, playinggames and watching other media on their mobilephones. They also spent on average an hour and a halfdaily using the computer, with the three most popularactivities being visiting social networking sites (e.g.,MySpace and Facebook), playing computer games andwatching videos on websites (e.g., YouTube). So intotal, children and young people in the USA spentalmost four and a half hours daily using digital tech-nologies out of school. A survey conducted byMediappro (2006) in nine European countries andQuebec reports similar findings, showing that 12- to18-year-olds spent much more time using the Internetat home than in school, with on average 67% ofthe respondents using the Internet either daily orseveral times a week, compared with only 26% of the

Accepted: 28 June 2013Correspondence: Kwok-Wing Lai, University of Otago, Dunedin9054, New Zealand. Email: wing.lai@otago.ac.nz

bs_bs_banner

doi: 10.1111/jcal.12030

Special issue

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2013), 29, 414–425414

respondents using the Internet in school. The preferreduses of Internet at home were instant messaging, visit-ing websites, listening to music, playing games anddownloading materials. Bransford and his colleagues(2006) have estimated that children and young people(aged 5–16) only spend 18% of their waking hours inschool, and in a person’s lifetime about 80% of thelearning occurs in informal environments.

Research in informal learning is not new. Scribnerand Cole’s (1973) work was one of the first to starttheorizing the relationship between formal and infor-mal learning in the early 70s, and in 1987 Resnick(1987) in her American Educational Research Associa-tion presidential address raised issues with learning inand out of school. However, it is primarily due to theadvent of the Web 2.0 technologies that the educationalcommunity has been challenged to pay greater atten-tion to the relationship between technology and infor-mal learning, and to rethink the nature of learning ininformal settings, and how informal learning caninform formal learning (Motiwalla, 2007). The purposeof this article is to discuss how everyday learningacquired from informal mobile technological practicescan be transferred or mapped onto educational prac-tices that are formal, and vice versa (Merchant, 2012).The article is based on ideas generated from the EDU-SummIT 2011 discussion (Knezek, Lai, Khaddage, &Baker, 2011), as well as from the literature.

Conceptualizing formal and informal learning

Formal learning, sometimes also called school learn-ing (Resnick, 1987), refers to learning that takes placein formal settings such as schools or tertiary institu-tions and is highly structured in its curriculum, learn-ing activities and assessment (Eshach, 2007). The endproduct of formal learning is usually a qualification(Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment [OECD], n.d.) It is more difficult todefine informal learning, as there are complex concep-tual and methodological challenges (Hofstein &Rosenfeld, 1996; Osborne & Dillon, 2007). Informallearning is often conceptualized in terms of the loca-tion of the learning settings, and in this perspectiveinformal learning refers exclusively to learning thatoccurs outside the school (Callanan, Cervantes, &Loomis, 2011; Sefton-Green, 2004). Other researchers(e.g., Eshach, 2007; Laurillard, 2009) view informal

learning primarily in terms of the structure and processof learning, as well as the relationship between theteacher and the student. This perspective views infor-mal learning as a self-directed, intentional interest(rather than curriculum-based), non-assessment-drivenand non-qualification-oriented endeavour. Yet anotherperspective focuses on the purpose of learning,viewing informal learning as learning that happensaccidentally, spontaneously, and it is unpredictable andseen primarily as a spin-off from leisure activities(Kerka, 2000; Marsich & Watkins, 2001; Sefton-Green, 2004). We view learning as a continuum, withthe degree of formality or informality determined bythe extent that the learner can frame, classify andevaluate knowledge (Bernstein, 1971). As described byFurlong and Davies (2012), it is a matter of ‘the degreeof control teachers and learners have over the selec-tion, organization and pacing of knowledge transmit-ted and received’ (p. 52). If the learner has morecontrol on the opportunities to learn, as well as havingthe freedom to choose what to learn, and how learningis evaluated, then learning is more informal. We willfollow Laurillard’s (2009) definition of informal learn-ing, which focuses on the learner as the centre of thelocus of control. Laurillard maintains that in informallearning:

there is no teacher, no defined curriculum topic orconcept, and no external assessment. The informallearner selects their own ‘teacher’, who may be a peer,or may not be a person; they define their own ‘curricu-lum’, as what they are interested in learning about; andthey choose whether to submit to ‘assessment’ by others.(p. 12)

If learning experiences acquired in informal contextsare valuable experiences, how best can these experi-ences be transferred from one context to the next, tomake ‘seamless learning’ (Rushby, 2012) also possiblein formal learning settings?

A new learning ecology

There is a growing recognition that a semiotic relation-ship exists between formal and informal learning. Thislearning ecology perspective (Barron, 2006) suggeststhat while students learn differently in school and out-of-school settings, learning can take place acrossboundaries, and what has been learned out of schoolcan help shape what is learned in school. Conversely,

Blending student technology experiences 415

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

what is learned in school can motivate students to learnoutside the school (Greenhow & Robelia, 2009). InGreenhow and Robelia’s (2009) case studies, it hasbeen shown that students’ informal learning could betriggered by their work done in school. They also foundthat high school students from low-income families inthe USA who interacted through social networkingsites outside of school allowed students to formulateand explore various dimensions of their identity anddemonstrate 21st century skills (see also Voogt, Erstad,Dede, & Mishra, 2013, in this issue), but they did notperceive a connection between their online activitiesand learning in classrooms. In informal learning situa-tions, while learners will use the forms of learning thatthey have already learned from formal settings, theyalso use strategies that are not normally used inschools. Furlong and Davies (2012) call these ‘infor-mal learning practices’. Referring to the use of infor-mation and communication technology (ICT) at home,Furlong and Davies’ research has shown that studentshad access to a wider range of learning resources, strat-egies and skills. Adopting the learning ecologyapproach requires a cultural shift, as suggested bySefton-Green (2004) in his review of out-of-school useof technology:

that in their leisure, at play and in the home with theirfriends, young people can find in ICTs powerful, chal-lenging and different ways of learning. The emphasis ison sharing, working together, and using a wide range ofcultural references and knowledge . . . unless educationpolicy makers can find ways to synthesis learning acrossformal and informal domains, our education system willbecome the loser in the long run. (p. 33)

There is a disconnect between how young people usetechnology in formal and informal learning activities.In school, technologies are used in a structured, super-vised, directed and mostly individual way to performcurricular work in public spaces. In contrast, at homeand in other informal settings, technologies are used byyoung people in messy, non-supervised ways, sociallyand collaboratively, to pursue personal interests inprivate spaces. In informal settings, young people havedeveloped habits and expectations of how technologiesshould be used, and because schools do not endorse theways these technologies are used, it has created whatsome commentators called ‘digital dissonance’ (Clark,Logan, Luckin, Mee, & Oliver, 2009). As pointed outby Clark et al. (2009):

teachers and institutions, fearful of the disruptive(social) potentials of the contested technologies, do notimmediately recognize or understand the increased rep-ertoire of practices available to learners in their engage-ment with them. At the same time, learners remainmostly unaware of the wider educational potentials ofthese resources. (p. 66)

One digital dissonance, for example, is how mobiletechnologies are used in school. Recent advances inmobile technologies have provided invaluable opportu-nities for informal learning due to the personal natureof the technologies (more on this in the next section).However, most schools do not allow the use of mobiletechnologies (e.g., cell phones) in school and teachersdo not recognize that with the use of mobile technolo-gies, learning can move out from the classroom into thelearner’s own space, for example, by blogging or twit-tering, virtual communities can be formed and studentscan easily work with other students in other locationsusing their mobile devices. The use of interactive tech-nologies can also facilitate learners to interact withideas, with other students, and allow them to engage indeep learning (Lai, 2008, 2011). The challenge is ‘todiscover how to use mobile technologies to transformlearning into a seamless part of daily life to the pointwhere it is not recognized as learning at all’ (Naismith,Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004, p. 5).

Blending formal and informal learning usingmobile technologies

The current rapid digital evolution is changing the wayyoung people perform tasks in ways that create largegaps between how and what they are taught in schoolsand what they need to learn to meet the challenges ofthe knowledge society (Khaddage, Lanham, & Zhou,2009). Hamilton (2011) argues that a change in thestructure of education is needed, and emphasizes theurgent need for a change due to changing technology,changing learner expectations and changing teachers’roles. Mobile technologies have the potential to supporta redesign of the current learning environment by pro-viding a link between formal and informal learning,aiming to enrich and enhance students’ learning expe-riences both inside and outside the classroom (Faux,McFarlane, Roche, & Facer, 2006; Ooms, Linsey,Webb, & Panayiotidis, 2008). Mobile technologies aretools and devices that offer mobility and portability inthe way we perform tasks and these two features are

K-W. Lai et al.416

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

what distinguish mobile technologies from otheremerging technologies. We define mobile technologyas wireless technology that is not restricted or limitedto a specific location; it combines devices and inter-faces applications and wireless communication to forman integrated and ubiquitous solution in any learningenvironment. These unique technological features ofmobile technologies could provide positive pedagogi-cal affordances in education, thus enabling learning informal and informal settings by illuminating the inde-pendence on fixed locations for study, and conse-quently changing the way we learn (Gay, Rieger, &Bennington, 2002; Khaddage & Knezek, 2011a;Peters, 2007; Traxler, 2007). Meaningful engagementwithin a range of formal and informal learning prac-tices via mobile applications that can occur at differentlocations should be considered a major focus foreducational institutions. There are emerging toolsand technologies that are already stepping up to effec-tively deliver informal learning in interest-basede-communities, through forums and synchronous envi-ronments as well as through numerous social network-ing platforms (Khaddage, Baker, & Knezek, 2012;Khaddage & Knezek, 2011a).

We begin to see evidence from the literature thatdigital and mobile technologies can facilitate the flowof learning from formal to informal contexts. Forexample, the use of micro-blogging can be used as away of merging formal and informal learning, asreported in Gao, Luo, and Zhang’s (2012) review ofresearch on micro-blogging in education, from 2008 to2011. Similarly, in a year 2 class in Sweden (Waller,2010), students were free to tweet to share their learn-ing with others. The researcher observes that in hisclass, ‘most of the children choose to write about learn-ing activities they have been completing in the class-room, while others sometimes choose to write aboutinterests from their own popular cultures . . . it offers[them] a window to the world’ (p. 14). By blendingformal and informal learning:

it has allowed the children to understand that literacydoes not happen within the bubble of a classroom andthat it permeates into all areas of life and can be con-structed with other people, not just of their own age butof a different generation. (p. 16)

In a report reviewing recent European initiatives onthe use of mobile technologies across contexts,

Kukulska-Hulme, Sharpes, Milrad, Arnedillo-Sanchez,and Vavoula (2009) reported that mobile technologiescan ‘form bridges between formal and informal learn-ing’ (p. 34). In this review, Kukulska-Hulme et al.have reported a number of school projects (e.g.,Learning2Go, the ENLACE) where in- and out-of-school learning activities were developed involving theteachers, students, parents and people of the widercommunity to support formal and informal learning.Project work with the support of digital and mobiletechnologies is considered a good way to connectformal and informal learning, for example, using the‘learning lives’ approach, Erstad, Gilje, Sefton-Green,and Vasbø (2009) reported a project undertaken by twolower secondary schools in Norway. Students in thisstudy used a variety of digital tools and mobile tech-nologies to collaborate and produce an online newspa-per for each school. The authors concluded that‘students involved in this project were engaged on apersonal level, drawing on experiences from outsidethe school, yet reworking such experiences within aschool context’ (p. 102). A study by Clough, Jones,McAndrew, and Scanlone (2008) on informal learningwith mobile devices and smartphones also showed thatthe use of mobile devices can support opportunisticinformal learning as well as collaborative informallearning among learners. They found that informallearning activities that are triggered by the use ofmobile devices provided the basis for the design of aflexible mobile learning framework that could supportthis method of learning delivery mechanism (Cloughet al., 2008).

Examples of using mobile technologies in informallearning to support formal learning can also be found inless economically advanced countries. For example, ina study in Nepal it was found that medical studentsused mobile phones to access Facebook as a learningtool outside school (Pimmer, Linxen, & Gröhbiel,2012). Students in this study accessed websites toengage in discussion related to their formal learning.They took quizzes and discussed clinical issues in apublic website, across institutional boundaries (i.e.,outside the formal setting), as the use of ICT wasusually not integrated in the curriculum or teachingpractice in formal learning settings. According to theauthors, ‘medical students and professionals havequickly appropriated SNSs (social networking sites) asrelatively formal (e-)learning platforms in informal

Blending student technology experiences 417

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

learning contexts in ways beyond those for which suchtechnologies were originally designed’ (p. 734). This isan example of how learning can flow seamlessly frominformal to formal learning.

The Mobile-Blended Collaborative Learning(MBCL) model

In this section, we propose a MBCL model as an initialstep towards conceptualizing the use of mobile tech-nologies and applications to connect formal and infor-mal learning (see Figure 1). Based on a blendedlearning model developed by Khaddage et al. (2009),this model highlights the affordances of mobile tech-nologies in supporting a blended and collaborativelearning environment by using the strengths of onelearning environment (informal) to mitigate the weak-nesses of another learning environment (formal), andvice versa, thus achieving a more balanced and flexiblelearning environment (Khaddage et al., 2009). Forexample, by using mobile devices, learners can col-laborate with their peers and with the teachers face-to-face in the classroom, yet access and share resourcesand course content remotely using Wi-Fi connectivityto capture images and text, or even record presenta-tions, and communicate online with students in otherclasses or people in other communities. This linkagebetween different learning environments offers port-ability and flexibly of learning, and enrich the learningexperiences. This model highlights the use of mobileapplications (apps), a recent mobile technologicalinnovation that is rapidly changing how mobile devicesare being used. Mobile applications (or mobile apps)

are software applications designed and developed torun on a small mobile screen and render on mobilesmartphones or mobile tablets (Pauca & Guy, 2012).Mobile apps are pushing themselves into our dailyactivities, and they are widely available and globallyspread to all areas, business, health and education(Khaddage & Knezek, 2012; Khaddage & Lattemann,2013a; Pauca & Guy, 2012). We believe society cantake advantage of this new versatile and fusion tech-nology to blend formal and informal learning. Asshown in Figure 1, by using mobile technologies andapplications as a bridge, the MBCL model combinesformal and informal learning seamlessly to form a port-able, flexible, collaborative and creative learning envi-ronment to provide learning opportunities to improvethe quality of the learning experiences (Khaddage &Knezek, 2011b; Khaddage et al., 2012). This has thepotential to make learning more exciting, fun and chal-lenging, particularly in the economically advancedcountries (Goh & Kinshuk, 2006; Khaddage &Knezek, 2012; Khaddage & Lattemann, 2013a).Studies by Green and Hannon (2007), Khaddage andKnezek (2012), and Khaddage and Lattemann (2013a)also show that if mobile technologies and applicationsare integrated effectively, they can bring engagement,involvement, interaction and collaboration to the learn-ers and to the learning environment. This has also beenpointed out by Bonk (2009), that mobile applicationscan open up new ways for people to learn and helpbring together both formal and informal learning for acreative collaborative and sharing environment.

How would mobile learning via applications (apps)look in practice and how could it bring together formal

Figure 1 Mobile-Blended CollaborativeLearning Model

K-W. Lai et al.418

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

and informal learning? There are a host of mobileapplications that can be used to support the MBCLmodel. These mobile applications can be used to set upscenarios of situated learning and responsive contextthat can enrich the learning process and constructconversational/collaborative activities (Corbell &Valdes-Corbell, 2007; Friedrich, Risch, & Bachmair,2011; Naismith et al., 2004). Three categories of appli-cations are considered important in the MBCL modeland they have been identified as pertinent in blendingformal and informal learning (Khaddage, Lattemann,& Bray, 2011). These are tools for collaboration, toolsfor coordination and tools for communication. Previ-ous studies have shown that applications in these threecategories can contribute effectively to a successfullearning environment and they are considered crucialelements within informal learning environments(Attewell, 2005; Bonk, 2009; Khaddage et al., 2011;Motiwalla, 2007). A brief description of common usesfor each category follows:

• Tools for collaboration (such as Google Apps) can beused for sharing documents and files among studentsand teachers outside school hours as well as in class;they are device independent and cross platform andcapable of prompting collaboration among learner.

• Tools for coordination (such as Twitter) can be usedto inform students about assignment due dates, classorganizational structure and changes.

• Tools for communication (such as Skype, Facebook)can be used for synchronous and asynchronous com-munications, as well as discussions and sharingamong students outside a classroom setting.

These three categories of mobile application toolscan work synergistically to blend formal and informallearning. By using these tools and applications forlearning activities based on well-formulated pedago-gies, researchers and educators can jointly develop amore dynamic formal learning environment to guideand support informal and open community-basedlearning activities (Khaddage & Reed, 2013; Khaddageet al., 2011). By doing so, the educational communitywould be building an effective learning environmentthat is capable of combining and blending informal andformal learning for a stronger educational ecology(Knezek et al., 2011). These mobile applications canalso facilitate student access to educational content,

both in formal and informal settings, hence providingthree features (speed, security and simplicity) to theprocess that can increase the effectiveness and effi-ciency of this facilitation (Khaddage & Lattemann,2013b; Ogata & Hui, 2008). Ogata and Hui (2008)discussed the importance of these features in a wirelesseducational environment while Khaddage andLattemann (2013b) describe the effective role theseelements play when mobile applications are used foreducation (Khaddage & Lattemann, 2013b; Ogata &Hui, 2008). According to Khaddage and Lattemann,apps are designed to be fast and efficient; that is, whenspeed comes into play, they are very quick to load andstart up remotely from any mobile device regardless ofthe complexity of the query; this will offer learners fastand on demand informal learning experiences. Learn-ers can download any educational app to their mobiledevice and use it from anywhere at any time regardlessof their location. Apps are also designed to be secureand to keep users safe when using their mobile devices;they are being developed with built-in malware andphishing protection, and auto-update features to makesure that the app’s functions are up to date and secure.This will ensure a secure and more controlled learningenvironment. Simplicity, on the other hand, is animportant feature in this process, as it can make appsstreamlined, clean and simple, efficient, and easy touse. Users can access and perform a search and navi-gate via the same box and the same interface veryeasily (Khaddage & Lattemann, 2013b; Ogata & Hui,2008).

As an example, Figure 2 illustrates how mobileapplications can be connected seamlessly to provide aneffective learning mechanism that can support informallearning. In this example, learners can use the widevariety of freely available educational apps to completea mixture of learning tasks and activities. For example,in a formal classroom setting, the teacher/instructorcould ask students to research a topic or discuss aspecific area and find and access information fromout-of-school settings as described by Hsi (2008),Khaddage and Knezek (2011b), Khaddage andLattemann (2013b), and Ogata and Hui (2008). Thismethod would encourage students to use their informallearning skills to generate ideas from their surround-ings and it would offer collaboration, flexibility andportability in their learning. By using mobile applica-tions and technologies, as illustrated in Figure 2,

Blending student technology experiences 419

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

learning tasks could be performed anywhere regardlessof the student’s location and time of day, and thencould be brought along with the students to the class-room to share his/her informal learning experiences ina formal classroom setting facilitated by a teacher. Thiscan serve as a means of taking notes for topics andtasks anywhere, without being attached to a wired com-puter and even without being in a formal classroomenvironment (Bonk, 2009; Hsi, 2008; Khaddage &Knezek, 2011b; Khaddage & Lattemann, 2013b;Khaddage et al., 2009; Ogata & Hui, 2008).

It is important that schools ensure that mobile appli-cations for informal learning initiatives are alignedwith their educational objectives. Schools shoulddesign and integrate tools and devices that can be usedacross subjects in the classroom and this could beachieved via the MBCL integration. This should bedecided by the schools’ administrators, in collaborationwith all stakeholders, and teachers should be offeredprofessional development in order for this new modelto take place.

Many mobile applications can fit into the schoolcurriculum to complement the wide range of interac-tive multimedia resources that can be freely accessed.Examples of currently available multimedia resourcesinclude YouTube, iTunes and MySpace. Thesemethods, tools and applications can promote inten-tional technology-based learning activities during out-of-school time that are coordinated from in-school time

(Khaddage & Lattemann, 2013b; Ogata & Hui, 2008).These can be accomplished, for example, throughschools that:

• Modify their daily activities to maximize studenttime with the teacher in an interactive setting, viavideos and podcasting completed during out-of-school time.

• Provide in class tasks to prompt the use of technolo-gies such as Facebook or Twitter (that are alreadybeing used by students), by asking students toresearch a topic or discuss a specific area and findinformation, and bring it back to class to share withothers.

• Teach students how to use their surroundings andtheir environments outside of school to generateideas. Allocated tasks can be completed in locallibraries, cafeterias, online via virtual spaces, orthrough other mobile applications and platforms.Students can learn via applications within an infor-mal learning environment.

• Take a student-centred approach and encourageinquiry and problem-based learning. This approachwill help students to develop the ability to understandthe context as well as to search for information, vali-date that information, use it effectively to solve prob-lems and generate new knowledge – knowledge bydiscovery and creation (Holzinger, Nischelwitzer, &Meisenberger, 2005).

Figure 2 Informal Learning with MobileApplications

K-W. Lai et al.420

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

The integration of mobile applications and tools toempower formal and informal learning could alsoshape pedagogical design by bringing to the forefrontthe social, spatial, temporal and contextual issuesrelated to a student’s active engagement with the‘HERE’ and ‘NOW’ of learning experiences. Thisaligns well with the widely accepted concept thatteaching today is about how to empower students to beinventors, creators and leaders, and how to direct themto a path where they are able to change the world forthe better (Khaddage & Knezek, 2011b).

Discussion and conclusion

In this article, we have discussed the importance ofrecognizing students’ technology-enhanced informallearning experiences in order to meet the demands ofthe knowledge society. With the support of digital toolssuch as blogs, Twitter, Skype, social networking plat-forms, educational mobile apps and virtual space, stu-dents are able to create their own private world, whichis separate from, but overlaps with, their home andschool worlds (Lyman, 2004). Following Barron(2006), we have argued that the informal learning thatyoung people are engaged in can complement theirformal learning, and technology can be used to blendthese two forms of learning. We have developed a con-ceptual framework (the MBCL model) to illustrate howsuch blending can be effectively supported by usingmobile technologies to motivate students to engage inlearning across boundaries.

To facilitate informal learning, teachers need to diver-sify their pedagogical approaches to provide the learn-ing experiences (e.g., in problem-based and knowledge-building projects, see Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006;Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006) that can better connectstudents to the real world and the informal learningspace that they are engaged in out of school. This shouldbegin with a recognition that they need to develop anunderstanding of the different forms of learning associ-ated with the emerging technologies in their teaching inorder to facilitate collaborative learning and communi-cation, and to encourage individual and group informallearning, using mobile technologies to provide a partici-patory structure/architecture to support communities oflearners (Brown & Adler, 2008; Knezek et al., 2011).Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs have consistently beencited as a key factor in affecting how technology would

be used in the classroom (Ertmer, 2005), and theirbeliefs in how learning should occur along the formaland informal continuum would certainly affect how theyblend formal and informal learning using digital tech-nologies. To encourage and facilitate these teachingpractices, school-wide policies highlighting the rela-tionship between formal and informal learning in rela-tion to technologies have to be developed, involving allthe stakeholders in diverse educational contexts. Thiswould involve developing a shared vision through con-structive dialogues with the stakeholders, creating aplan for professional development of teachers andadministrators, and developing school leadership thathas a deep understanding of informal learning and tech-nology use (Knezek et al., 2011). This is challenging asat present most teachers do not have a deep understand-ing of how informal learning can complement formallearning, and technologies are not being widely used inteaching (Lai, 2008). Also, while it is tempting to repli-cate informal use of mobile tools in formal learning, weare cautioned that simply importing digital and mobiletechnologies into the classroom may not have an effecton formal learning (Selwyn, 2007). We need to under-stand better the pedagogical designs that can effectivelyintegrate mobile technologies into the school curricu-lum. Indeed, as pointed out by Crook and Lewthwaite(2010), it is tempting to appropriate digital technologiesfrom informal learning into formal learning. We need tohave a better understanding of the learner’s informalexperience, and ‘the “formalities” into which this appro-priation is to take place’ (p. 457).

Other than these curriculum and pedagogical issuesthat we needed to consider, to facilitate a seamlessconnection between formal and informal learning,there are infrastructural issues that schools also need toconsider. To blend formal and informal learning effec-tively, it is essential that students have ubiquitousaccess to mobile technologies both at home and inschool, and they are encouraged to use their personaldevices to undertake informal learning in the schoolsettings. This can be achieved either by instigating aone-to-one computing initiative in school (Penuel,2006), with every student being supplied a personalmobile device, or by adopting a Bring Your OwnDevice (BYOD) model, with students bringing theirown devices, which may include laptops, tablets,smartphones, e-readers, etc. to school for the purposeof supporting learning (Alberta Education, 2012). In

Blending student technology experiences 421

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

recent years, the BYOD model has been gaining popu-larity as a way of increasing access and connectingacademic and personal learning. However, it should benoted that the BYOD policy may not be cost saving asthere are costs involved in increasing the bandwidth ofcommunication, and providing software and technicalsupport to students. Privacy and copyright are chal-lenging issues to be considered. The design of learningcontexts for using mobile technologies and applica-tions, as has already been alluded to in the precedingdiscussion, also has to be thought through (Wellington,2001).

Despite the fact that children and young peoplespend much of their time daily on mobile technolo-gies, and there is no doubt that some of the timewould be used for informal learning, either intention-ally or incidentally, we know very little about how itcan best be supported by mobile technologies andapplications (Hsi, 2007). While we know that youngpeople are anxious to participate in friendship-drivenand interest-driven online activities and they learnfrom their peers rather than from adults (Ito et al.,2008), further research needs to be conducted todevelop strategies for creating stimulating and inter-esting learning contexts in schools, supported bymobile technologies, similar to what young people areexperiencing daily in their private worlds. Unfortu-nately, teachers do not yet acknowledge the contribu-tions that mobile technologies have already made toinformal learning and they have not been proactive indeveloping strategies to integrate these technologies informal and informal learning to empower the learners.Despite what informal learning can offer, still morethan 80% of educational institutions’ budget and effortare being spent on formal learning preparation andmaterials, and educational institutions still focus onformal learning methods and programs, losing valu-able opportunities and outcomes that can be offeredby informal learning applications (Mashable, 2010).We believe that it is time to acknowledge and integratethese technologies and applications into formal learn-ing, and use them to promote intentional informallearning.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions ofthe members of the Thematic Working Group 2 in

helping to develop the ideas in this article. Thesemembers are Rowland Baker, Richard Millwood, HajarMohd Nor, Christine Bescherer, Paul Nleya, HallDavidson, Sylvia Peters, Jean-Luc Rinaudo and CarlOwens, during EDUSummIT, 2011, held at theUNESCO headquarters, Paris, June 2011. The authorsare also grateful for the comments provided by Dr. JokeVoogt and the two anonymous reviewers on the earlierdrafts of this article.

References

Alberta Education. (2012). Bring your own device: A guidefor schools. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/admin/technology/research.aspx

Attewell, J. (2005). From research and development tomobile learning: Tools for education and training provid-ers and their learners. Retrieved from http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Attewell.pdf

Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning ascatalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective.Human Development, 49, 193–224.

Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control: Theoreticalstudies towards a sociology of language. London, UK:Routledge & Keegan Paul.

Bonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open: How web tech-nology is revolutionizing education. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Bransford, J., Vye, N., Stevens, R., Kuhl, P., Schwartz, D.,Bell, M., . . . Sabelli, N. (2006). Learning theories andeducation toward a decade of synergy. In P. Alexander & P.H. Winnie (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology(pp. 209–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-ates Inc.

Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. (2008). Mind on fire: Open educa-tion, the long tail, and learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review,43(1), 16–32.

Callanan, M., Cervantes, C., & Loomis, M. (2011). Informallearning. WIREs Cognitive Science, 2, 646–655.

Clark, W., Logan, K., Luckin, R., Mee, A., & Oliver, M.(2009). Beyond web 2.0: Mapping the technology land-scapes of young learners. Journal of Computer AssistedLearning, 25, 56–69. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00305

Clough, G., Jones, A. C., McAndrew, P., & Scanlone, E.(2008). Informal learning with PDAs and smartphones.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 359–371.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00268.x

Corbell, J. R., & Valdes-Corbell, M. E. (2007). Are you readyfor mobile learning? EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 42(2),51–58.

K-W. Lai et al.422

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Crook, C., & Lewthwaite, S. (2010). Technologies for formaland informal learning. In K. Littleton, C. Wood, & J.Staarman (Eds.), International handbook of psychology ineducation (pp. 435–461). Bingley, U.K.: Emerald GroupPublishing.

Erstad, O., Gilje, Ø., Sefton-Green, J., & Vasbø, K. (2009).Exploring ‘learning lives’: Community, identity, literacy,and meaning. Literacy, 43, 100–106.

Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The finalfrontier in our quest for technology integration? EducationTechnology Research and Development, 53, 1042–1629.

Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-schoollearning: Formal non-formal, and informal education.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 171–190.

Faux, F., McFarlane, A., Roche, N., & Facer, K. (2006).Handhelds: Learning with handheld technologies.Retrieved from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/handbooks/05_01.htm

Friedrich, K., Risch, M., & Bachmair, B. (2011). Mobilelearning with a mobile phone. Challenges and opportuni-ties for teaching. Basel, Switzerland: Beltz Verlag.

Furlong, J., & Davies, C. (2012). Young people, new tech-nologies and learning at home: Taking context seriously.Oxford Review of Education, 38, 45–62.

Gao, F., Luo, T., & Zhang, K. (2012). Tweeting for learning:A critical analysis of research on microblogging in educa-tion published in 2008–2011. British Journal of Educa-tional Technology, 43, 783–801.

Gay, G., Rieger, R., & Bennington, T. (2002). Using mobilecomputing to enhance field study. In T. Koschmann, R.Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2: Carrying forward theconversation (pp. 507–528). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Goh, T., & Kinshuk, D. (2006). Getting ready for mobilelearning: Adaptation perspective. Journal of EducationalMultimedia and Hypermedia, 15, 175–198.

Green, H., & Hannon, C. (2007 January 11). Their spaceeducation for a digital generation. Retrieved from http://www.citeulike.org/home

Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Informal learning andidentity formation in online social networks. Learning,Media and Technology, 34, 119–140.

Hamilton, S. (2011). Re-designing education. Paper pre-sented at the Education Leadership Summit, Singapore.

Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gapbetween formal and informal science learning. Studies inSciences Education, 28, 87–112.

Holzinger, A., Nischelwitzer, A., & Meisenberger, M.(2005). Mobile phones as a challenge for m-learning:Examples for mobile interactive learning objects (MILOs).

Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1392855

Hsi, S. (2007). Conceptualizing learning from the everydayactivities of digital kids. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 29, 1509–1529.

Hsi, S. (2008). Information technologies for informal learn-ing in museums and out-of-school settings. In J. Voogt &G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of informationtechnology in primary and secondary education (pp. 891–900). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson,B., Lange, P., . . . Robinson, L. (2008). Living and learningwith new media: Summary of findings from the DigitalYouth Project. Retrieved from http://www.macfound.org

Kukulska-Hulme, A., Sharples, M., Milrad, M., Arnedillo-Sanchez, I., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Innovation in mobilelearning. A European perspective. International Journal ofMobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 13–35.

Kerka, S. (2000). Incidental learning. Trends and Issues AlertNo. 18. Retrieved from http://www.ericacve.org/fulltext.asp

Khaddage, F., Baker, R., & Knezek, G. (2012). If not now!When? A mobile badge reward system for K-12 teachers.In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for InformationTechnology & Teacher Education International Confer-ence 2012 (pp. 2900–2905). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Khaddage, F., & Knezek, G. (2011a). Device independentmobile applications for teaching and learning: Challenges,barriers and limitations. Proceedings of Global Learn AsiaPacific (pp. 1–7). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Khaddage, F., & Knezek, G. (2011b). Opportunities formobile applications to empower informal learning in uni-versity environments. Proceedings of World Conferenceon E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare,and Higher Education (pp. 236–243). Chesapeake, VA:AACE.

Khaddage, F., & Knezek, G. (2012). Convert your thinking!Creativity and imagination using mobile applications.E-learn in action ‘Opening up Learning’. Retrievedfrom http://shct.hct.ac.ae/events/edtechpd2012/articles/index.asp

Khaddage, F., Lanham, E., & Zhou, W. (2009). A mobilelearning model for universities: Re-blending the currentlearning environment. International Journal of InteractiveMobile Technologies, 3(1), 18–23.

Khaddage, F., & Lattemann, C. (2013a). iTeach we learn viamobile apps ‘a Case Study in a Business Course’. In R.McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of Society forInformation Technology & Teacher Education Interna-tional Conference 2013 (pp. 3225–3233). Chesapeake,VA: AACE.

Blending student technology experiences 423

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Khaddage, F., & Lattemann, C. (2013b). The future of mobileapps for teaching and learning. In Z. Berge & L. Muilen-burg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning: Definitions(pp. 119–128). London, UK: Routledge.

Khaddage, F., Lattemann, C., & Bray, E. (2011). Mobile appsintegration for teaching and learning, (are teachers ready tore-blend?). Proceedings of Society for Information Tech-nology & Teacher Education International Conference(pp. 2545–2552). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Khaddage, F., & Reed, A. (2013). Community-based learning(CBL) via Facebook mobile ‘It is Time to BYOD (BringYour Own Device)’. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology &Teacher Education International Conference 2013(pp. 3220–3224). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Knezek, G., Lai, K.-W., Khaddage, F., & Baker, R.(2011). TWG 2: Student technology experiences in formaland informal learning. Retrieved from http://archief.vakcommunity.nl/edusummit/attachments/session%3dcloud_mmbase%2b2375683/2_EDUsummIT2011_student_technology_experiences_expanded_brief_paper.pdf

Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning.In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learn-ing sciences (pp. 317–334). New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Lai, K. W. (2008). ICT supporting the learning process: Thepremise, reality, and promise. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek(Eds.), International handbook of information technologyin primary and secondary education (pp. 215–230).Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Lai, K. W. (2011). Digital technology and the culture ofteaching and learning in higher education. AustralasianJournal of Educational Technology, 27, 1263–1275.

Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collabo-rative technologies. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5–20.

Lyman, P. (2004). Literature review: Digital-mediated expe-riences and kids’ informal learning. Retrieved from http://www.macfound.org

Marsich, V., & Watkins, K. (2001). Informal and incidentallearning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Educa-tion, 89, 25–34.

Mashable. (2010). Online articles: Apps for teachingand learning. Retrieved from http://mashable.com/?s=teaching+and+learning+apps

Mediappro. (2006). Mediappro: The appropriation of newmedia by youth. End of project report. Brussels, Belgium:European Commission.

Merchant, G. (2012). Mobile practices in everyday life:Popular digital technologies and schooling revisited.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 770–782.

Motiwalla, L. (2007). A mobile learning framework andevaluation. Computers and Education, 49, 581–596.

Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M.(2004). Literature review in mobile technologies andlearning (Futurelab Series Report 11). Birmingham, U.K.:University of Birmingham.

Ogata, H., & Hui, G. E. (2008). Design and case studies onmobile and wireless technologies. In H. Adelsberger,Kinshuk, & M. Pawlowski (Eds.), Education handbook oninformation technologies for education and training(pp. 67–77). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Ooms, A., Linsey, T., Webb, M., & Panayiotidis, A. (2008).The in-classroom use of mobile technologies to supportdiagnostic and formative assessment and feedback. Paperpresented at the 7th London International Scholarship ofTeaching and Learning Conference, London, U.K.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD). (n.d.). Recognition of non-formal and informallearning. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/25/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_37136921_1_1_1_1,00.html

Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2007). Research on learning ininformal contexts: Advancing the field? InternationalJournal of Science Education, 29, 1441–1445.

Pauca, V. P., & Guy, R. T. (2012). Mobile apps for the greatergood: A socially relevant approach to software engineer-ing. Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposiumon Computer Science Education (pp. 535–540). ACM.

Penuel, W. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-onecomputing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal ofResearch on Technology in Education, 28, 329–348.

Peters, K. (2007). m-Learning: Positioning educators for amobile, connected future. International Journal ofResearch in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2), 1–17.

Pimmer, C., Linxen, S., & Gröhbiel, U. (2012). Facebook asa learning tool? A case study on the appropriation of socialnetwork sites from mobile phone in developing countries.British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 726–738.

Resnick, L. (1987). Learning in school and out. EducationalResearcher, 16(9), 13–20, 54.

Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Gen-eration M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. KenloPark, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Rushby, N. (2012). Editorial: An agenda for mobile learning.British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 355–356.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building:Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.),The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences(pp. 97–118). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

K-W. Lai et al.424

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1973). Cognitive consequences offormal and informal education. Science, 182(4112), 553–559.

Sefton-Green, J. (2004). Literature review in informal learn-ing with technology outside school. Retrieved from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/lit_reviews.htm

Sefton-Green, J., Nixon, H., & Erstad, O. (2009). Reviewingapproaches and perspectives on ‘digital literacy’. Pedago-gies: An International Journal, 4, 107–125.

Selwyn, N. (2007). Web 2.0 applications as alternative envi-ronments for informal learning: A critical review. Paperpresented at the OECD-KERIS Expert Meeting, ChejuIsland, South Korea.

Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing, and evaluatingmobile learning: The moving finger writes and having writ

. . . International Review of Research in Open and Dis-tance Learning, 8(2), 1–12.

Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Chal-lenges to learning and schooling in the digital networkedworld of the 21st century. Journal of Computer AssistedLearning, 29(5), 403–413.

Waller, M. (2010). ‘It’s very very fun and ecsiting’: UsingTwitter in the primary classroom. English Four to Eleven,39, 14–16.

Wellington, J. (2001). Has ICT come of age? Recurringdebates on the role of ICT in education. Research inScience and Technological Education, 23(1), 25–39.

Blending student technology experiences 425

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd