Call for papers

The collective dimension of online interactions, whatever their form (Dejean & Mangenot 2006), has been a central issue since the first edition of EPAL, in 2007. EPAL 2018 will be no exception to this rule, as it will focus on the issue of communities (Dillenbourg, Poirier & Carles 2003), how they emerge, and the form they take. It will also explore in greater detail what can be called the permeability of space-time, an aspect that was only alluded to in previous editions of the conference. In his plenary to EPAL 2007, Goodfellow noted that, under the influence of social media, academic practices tend to interact with professional practices and what he called “recreational and social practices”. EPAL 2011, whose central theme was the social web, offered an opportunity to examine the effects of this porosity on institutional educational environments and on how learners’ informal online practices can be taken into account when designing pedagogical content. However, to date there has been little research into extracurricular practices capable of resulting in learning (with the notable exception of Lamy (2011). What do people learn in the student communities that come together on Facebook, on the fringes of university courses? How do players deal with the different space-times in which they find themselves? How do personal learning environments form and to what ends? What new literacy practices can be seen in spaces designed for informal interaction and production? Should institutions appropriate these spaces and, if so, how? While continuing to examine collective dynamics, EPAL 2018 will focus on research into user pathways in themselves, through the following four themes: communities, informal learning, personal learning environments, and digital literacy.

Communities

The first edition of EPAL, in 2007, arose from the conviction that human interactions are an essential part of online and blended courses. The training landscape has changed considerably over the subsequent decade and it is now more or less the norm for online/blended courses to integrate communication scenarios. Today, the notion of group work, as one form of online interaction, has often been superseded by the notion of community, whether within a group-class, with other learners outside a group-class (via telecollaboration, a MOOC or a social network), or within other social practices (such as network games). The characterization of these communities, which may be learning, special interest or even speech communities, and the indicators used to investigate their formation (see, for example, Lave & Wenger 1991; Marcoccia 2001;^[1] Henri & Pudelko 2006, Garrison 2017) are recurring issues in online learning research. In conjunction with EPAL 2018’s main theme, we could ask what place, what importance, do these communities have in user pathways or, more generally, in users’ experiences with respect to the development of user autonomy or socio-affective scaffolding, for example.

Non-formal learning

EPAL 2011 included a symposium on “The social web and online communities in second-language learning: how much is formal and how much is non-formal?” The symposium began by recapping the Council of Europe’s definition of formal and non-formal, according to which the difference between them is mostly a question of intentionality. It then went on to address the topic of social networking sites for language learners, which now appear to be losing ground (e.g., closure of Livemocha). Since 2011, several researchers have examined the way in which teachers and learners combine the personal and academic spheres, whether within document-based activities (Cordier 2015, Aillerie 2011), language learning (Lamy 2011, Calonne 2017^[2]), or writing activities (Schneider 2013). What is changing and what is constant in the way these tools are used? How can we account for the variety of practices and, if applicable, their complementarity? What marks do digital productions bear of the places learners navigate in and the tools they use? What are the most appropriate theoretical frameworks for examining the dynamics and phenomena involved? In terms of methodology, can uses be sufficiently documented simply by compiling corpora of interactions, interviews, or dynamic screen shots? What other methods are available? Are there new methodological avenues that could be used to study in more detail the paths learners follow from one learning context to another?

Personal learning environments

Personal learning environments (PLE), which were the subject of a special issue of the STICEF (Information and Communication Sciences and Technologies in Education and Training) Journal in 2014, are a challenge to schooling  (Vincent 1994). Learning does not occur only in formal learning situations; it also occurs outside educational institutions, in a variety of times and places (Charlier 2013), via “resources” (materials, tools, content) put together by the learners themselves. Of course, this situation is not new. As Henri (2014) noted, PLEs already existed before the digital age, in the form of “documents produced by learners for their personal use but also for sharing with other learners: course notes, lecture summaries, tables, summaries, concept maps, etc.”. Even today, PLEs still include printed materials (Roland 2014), but they also include digital materials (diaries, shared documents, podcasts, videos, etc.) that can contribute to learning activities at any place or time. What place do interactions occupy in these environments and what are their functions? Viewed from a technology perspective, the question also covers the ways in which PLEs and the interactions that occur can be taken into account when designing pedagogical scenarios and environments.

Digital literacy

Information and communication technologies have transformed the way in which we read, write, interact, look for, and organize information. They have given rise to new modes of expression and new ways of representing knowledge. By 1996, the New London Group had already noted “the multiplication and increasing integration” of different semiotic modes (text, images, audio) in digital practices (Cazden et al. 1996). Over time and with the emergence of Web 2, the social dimension has increased in importance and forms of interaction have diversified (Warschauer 2010). Studies have looked at massive multiplayer games (Steinkuehler 2007), fan fiction (Black 2008), and, more recently, chronicles published on Facebook (Bigot, Maillard & Lambert 2016). As for PLEs, this raises the question of the place and functions of interactions in these new practices. Furthermore, what position should educational institutions adopt with respect to these new literacies, which some observers (Jenkins 2006) believe can be considered “hidden curricula”, that is, non-formal training courses. Should educational establishments appropriate them? If so, under what conditions and with what objectives?