Page 218 - Štemberger Tina, Čotar Konrad Sonja, Rutar Sonja, Žakelj Amalija. Ur. 2022. Oblikovanje inovativnih učnih okolij. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem
P. 218
n Tabak and Damir Kukić
dents to write ‘more honest’ opinions of other students’ papers as they were
ensured that nobody except the lecturer would ever read it.
During the whole process, the students show enthusiasm to learn aca-
demic procedures from the real life. They were very keen to blend their learn-
ing with an authentic academic experience, and they enthusiastically ac-
cepted this method of learning. An interesting part of the assessment was
improving their papers after feedback. This was their first experience of get-
ting a chance to improve their mark on essay after getting back marked pa-
pers. They found this practice very useful as they learned form their own mis-
takes. A student said that the experience of getting significantly better marks
after improving citations and references taught him the significance of refer-
ences. She said she always knew that, but the reward of getting better marks
made her more explicitly aware of that significance. While the students were
enthusiastic in all activities at the conference, we suspected that the online
discussions could be influenced by the fact that students knew each other
very well as they have a strong ties, being in the same group for four years.
We thought that could be difficult for them to be more critical about their
friends’ papers, and more importantly they could not learn as much of new
information as it would be possible in a social network with weak ties. How-
ever, there was a lively discussion going on conference as it would be in a
social network with weak ties.
Comparison on Different Context
In both cases, the sequential processes of formal and informal learning could
be noticed. Informal learning enabled creativity but this creativity could not
be possible without formal learning. The formal learning provided a stage for
the processes of informal learning. The moments of informal learning were
more unpredictable and unconstrained, but also provided more creative mo-
ments as they enabled the most opportunities for what Sawyer and DeZutter
(2009) call ‘collaborative emergence’ – contingent situations in which activi-
ties have unpredictable outcomes, and in which an action depends on a pre-
vious action. The informal features of the conference in both cases provided
students with a space to try their knowledge, revise it, and then learn from
mistakes. As a student from Australia described it: ‘The conference was for us
what a laboratory is for science students.’ While formal learning used features
of web media that are more aligned to the Web 1.0, implemented through a
static page of the course textbook, the informal learning was implemented
through the interactive Web 2.0 media. Web 2.0 applications provided an
‘affinity space’ (Gee 2004) for students’ contextualisation of new knowledge.
As such it enabled serendipity, which was a main source for creative learning.
218
dents to write ‘more honest’ opinions of other students’ papers as they were
ensured that nobody except the lecturer would ever read it.
During the whole process, the students show enthusiasm to learn aca-
demic procedures from the real life. They were very keen to blend their learn-
ing with an authentic academic experience, and they enthusiastically ac-
cepted this method of learning. An interesting part of the assessment was
improving their papers after feedback. This was their first experience of get-
ting a chance to improve their mark on essay after getting back marked pa-
pers. They found this practice very useful as they learned form their own mis-
takes. A student said that the experience of getting significantly better marks
after improving citations and references taught him the significance of refer-
ences. She said she always knew that, but the reward of getting better marks
made her more explicitly aware of that significance. While the students were
enthusiastic in all activities at the conference, we suspected that the online
discussions could be influenced by the fact that students knew each other
very well as they have a strong ties, being in the same group for four years.
We thought that could be difficult for them to be more critical about their
friends’ papers, and more importantly they could not learn as much of new
information as it would be possible in a social network with weak ties. How-
ever, there was a lively discussion going on conference as it would be in a
social network with weak ties.
Comparison on Different Context
In both cases, the sequential processes of formal and informal learning could
be noticed. Informal learning enabled creativity but this creativity could not
be possible without formal learning. The formal learning provided a stage for
the processes of informal learning. The moments of informal learning were
more unpredictable and unconstrained, but also provided more creative mo-
ments as they enabled the most opportunities for what Sawyer and DeZutter
(2009) call ‘collaborative emergence’ – contingent situations in which activi-
ties have unpredictable outcomes, and in which an action depends on a pre-
vious action. The informal features of the conference in both cases provided
students with a space to try their knowledge, revise it, and then learn from
mistakes. As a student from Australia described it: ‘The conference was for us
what a laboratory is for science students.’ While formal learning used features
of web media that are more aligned to the Web 1.0, implemented through a
static page of the course textbook, the informal learning was implemented
through the interactive Web 2.0 media. Web 2.0 applications provided an
‘affinity space’ (Gee 2004) for students’ contextualisation of new knowledge.
As such it enabled serendipity, which was a main source for creative learning.
218
