Informal Learning and Institution-Wide Language Provision 2020
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-37876-9_6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Students Outside the System: Informal Learning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Huang and Oh (2016) found that informal learning environments could actively engage undergraduate students because they allowed students to develop their own learning strategies, monitor their learning progress, and expand their learning opportunities. Thus, it can be argued that both formal learning and DIL can enhance students' academic engagement (Peters & Romero, 2019; Petrovic, 2018; Sackey et al, 2015; Toffoli, 2020).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Huang and Oh (2016) found that informal learning environments could actively engage undergraduate students because they allowed students to develop their own learning strategies, monitor their learning progress, and expand their learning opportunities. Thus, it can be argued that both formal learning and DIL can enhance students' academic engagement (Peters & Romero, 2019; Petrovic, 2018; Sackey et al, 2015; Toffoli, 2020).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In other words, DIL can be described as a kind of self‐controlled, self‐directed, and flexible learning, which is not typically classroom‐based, is relatively unstructured (Meyers et al, 2013), and embraces the potential of digital technologies in enabling students to acquire new knowledge (Ungerer, 2016). DIL is different from traditional learning in that it is not done through formal educational institutions (Hubbard, 2019; Toffoli, 2020). He and Li (2019) noted that DIL was characterized by cognitive learning (CL), meta‐cognitive learning (MCL), and social and motivation learning (SML).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%