E-learning Curve Blog at Edublogs » formal learning

Characteristics of Informal Learning

Michael Hanley — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:00:00 +0000

Changes in the world economy are forcing corporations to rethink how workers learn and to perform effectively. How do people learn? Why? What accounts for the upswing in interest in less formal learning? Does it work?

In the corporate context, learning is about mastering technical and social skills, and product knowledge. The focus is on attaining the skills. knowledge, and expertise required to meet the promise made to the customer.

In an interview in 2005, the estimable Jay Cross articulated a concept that many (including myself) felt was an emerging trend in corporate learning and development:

Well, I had to redefine all learning …because the world is changing so fast. The concepts we had when knowledge was fixed in place, like something you could put in a library, don’t work anymore. So I look at all learning as adaptation to the communities that matter to you, to your ecosystems, if you will. Informal Learning is simply that, which is not directed by an organization or somebody in a control position.

(Interview with Jay Cross: Informal Learning)

The year 2005 heralded the recovery from the Dot-Com Crash in 2001, a year Kevin Kruse has described as one that

…brought the harsh, steep slope of unfulfilled promises. Several high-profile [e-learning] providers shut their doors while many more announced large-scale layoffs in the face of missed revenue targets and crashing stock prices. E-learning advocates retreated to the more defensible ground of "blended learning. This year [went] down as the Trough of Despair.

As a result of this turn-of-the-century disillusionment, a key document on lifelong learning published by the European Commission in the same year went unnoticed by many training professionals. In their 2001 document Communication on Lifelong Learning, the authors Holford, Patulny & Sturgis defined the terms formal, non-formal and informal learning (p.9):

Table 1 Definition of learning types

Learning Type	Description
Formal Learning	Learning typically provided by an education or training institution, structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support) and leading to certification. Formal learning is intentional from the learner’s perspective [my italics].
Non-formal Learning	Learning that is not provided by an education or training institution and typically does not lead to formalized certification. It is, however, structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support). Non-formal learning is intentional from the learner’s perspective [my italics].
Informal Learning	Learning resulting from daily life activities related to work, family or leisure. It is not structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support) and typically does not lead to certification. Informal learning may be intentional but in most cases it is non-intentional (or “incidental”/ random) [my italics].

More next time…

___________

References:

Cross, J. (2004) An informal history of eLearning. On the Horizon [Internet] 12(3). pp.103-110. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/2740120301.pdf (Subscription required) Accessed 20th February, 2007

Holford, J. Patulny, R. & Sturgis, P. (2005) Indicators of Non-formal & Informal Educational Contributions to Active Citizenship. A Paper Prepared for the European Commission by the University of Surrey. [Internet]. Available from: http://farmweb.jrc.cec.eu.int/CRELL/active_citizenship.htm Accessed 25th October, 2006

Kruse, K. (2002) The State of e-Learning: Looking at History with the Technology Hype Cycle. [Internet] Available from: http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/hype1_1.htm [Accessed 12th February 2008]

–

LCB February’s Big Question – ISD on the precipice of a crossroads

Michael Hanley — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:07:00 +0000

This month’s Learning Circuits Blog Big Question is “For a given project, how do you determine if, when and how much an instructional designer and instructional design is needed?”

—

I wonder how many of you are familiar with this situation? A PowerPoint presentation and demonstration script for some end-user training on a certain process arrived in my inbox the other day. The content was created by one of our “star” Subject Matter Experts who has an unrivalled amount of domain expertise in the particular area under investigation, but has a rudimentary understanding of how to communicate his knowledge, not extending much beyond presenting at user conferences and assisting the Sales team in driving application demos, as well as a small amount of experience in using content authoring tools (mainly to support the above).

The demo script is a beautiful piece of work – a two-column table outlining the process being described on the left hand side, with a breakdown of the onscreen interactions and a voice-over narration script describing what’s happening onscreen on the right. In the VO script, the text also discusses why the process works the way it does, and includes references to the legislation underlying the process and links to where the user may find out more about the guidelines surrounding the process. The demo is about 25 minutes in duration.

The PowerPoint presentation is 93 slides in length, a mixture of bullet points, images and animations, with an average of three animated media elements per slide. The voice-over narration script provided with the PPT runs to about 200 words per slide – in all, nearly 150 minutes of content. Added to the 25-minute demo, it’s the best part of three hours of content, all to be delivered over the Web.

A request in the accompanying e-mail asks “By the way, can you make it so the user can jump into the appropriate part of the demo (if they wish) from the relevant slide in the PPT?”

—

From an instructional design perspective, this is the “precipice of the crossroads” as Little Carmine would say. Without access to instructional design expertise at some level, SMEs cannot transfer their knowledge effectively. Similarly, can we expect e-learning professionals to create high-quality courseware from the content and media assets that they are provided with if there is no instructional design to map the course?

By nature and practise, I am a strong advocate of Ted Cocheu’s Disintermediation in Learning principle. Like a lot of e-learning practitioners however, I am constrained by the realities of delivering courseware and all this entails, from delivery channel bandwidth considerations, through structuring the content according to certain pedagogical principles, to ensuring end-users / learners’ are tracked on an LMS.

I am suggesting that the formal role of “Instructional Designer” as we knew it a decade ago is becoming redundant. The ISD skillset is – except in certain cases – being subsumed into the skills possessed by most learning professionals. I would further assert we are moving towards a time where being an expert “in” ISD, or digital media, or EPSS development (or whatever), and working in a team to create courseware is being superseded by the learning professional acting more as a consultant, providing strategic and operational guidance to individuals who occasionally contribute to learning projects, but whose professional competence lies elsewhere.

The table below is an example of how this approach manifests itself, where the e-learning professional specifies all aspects of the course; I typically use this type of outline at the planning stage of courseware development. The key aspect of this model is that the learning practitioner needs to have a broad and deep understanding of all aspects of the courseware lifecycle.

Table 1 Typology of a course

Function	Approach
Theoretical Framework	Social-Constructivist Model
High level ISD Process	ADDIE & RIO/RLO Model
Strategy	Based on Blooms Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
Structure	Based on Gagné’s Conditions of Learning
Content	Uses a multimedia mix of text, slides, images, animation, Flash and video demonstrations
Delivery	The events are hosted as live Subject Matter Expert (SME)-led events, presented in the following format
Synchronous	Asynchronous
Live audience participate in mentoring event	On-demand after live event
Synchronously streamed on the web	DVD-ROMs available to Knowledge Workers. Each DVD-ROM contains one series of 10±2 lessons

Having made such a statement (and before instructional designers sputter, outraged, into their hot beverage of choice), I must now temper it by saying that I believe the primary exception to what I have just outlined is the COTS courseware industry, which will continue to produce content according to the proven production model that has worked so effectively for the creation of generic training content for the last 20 years or so.

Returning to my SME and his demo and PPT – I worked with him to develop an appropriate instructional design that met the end-users’ needs, without doing a ‘rip and replace’ on the hard work he had already put in to developing the content.

We didn’t need an instructional designer.

But someone had to know about instructional design.

Introduction to Non-formal Learning

Michael Hanley — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:35:00 +0000

Well, I had to redefine all learning in order to write the book because the world is changing so fast. The concepts we had when knowledge was fixed in place, like something you could put in a library, don’t work anymore. So I look at all learning as adaptation to the communities that matter to you, to your ecosystems, if you will. Informal learning is simply that, which is not directed by an organisation or somebody in a control position.
(Jay Cross, Interview with Jay Cross: Informal Learning, 2005)

In their 2001 document Communication on Lifelong Learning: formal, non-formal and informal learning, the European Commission defined the terms formal, non-formal and informal learning (p.9):

Table 1 Definition of learning types

Learning Type	Description
Formal Learning	Learning typically provided by an education or training institution, structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support) and leading to certification. Formal learning is intentional from the learner’s perspective [my italics].
Non-formal Learning	Learning that is not provided by an education or training institution and typically does not lead to formalised certification. It is, however, structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support). Non-formal learning is intentional from the learner’s perspective [my italics].
Informal Learning	Learning resulting from daily life activities related to work, family or leisure. It is not structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support) and typically does not lead to certification. Informal learning may be intentional but in most cases it is non-intentional (or “incidental”/ random) [my italics].

More tomorrow…

References:

Cross, J. (2004) An informal history of eLearning. On the Horizon [Internet] 12(3). pp.103-110. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?Filename=html/Output/
Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/2740120301.pdf [Accessed 20th February, 2007]

Holford, J. Patulny, R. & Sturgis, P. (2005) Indicators of Non-formal & Informal Educational Contributions to Active Citizenship. A Paper Prepared for the European Commission by the University of Surrey. [Internet]. Available from: http://farmweb.jrc.cec.eu.int/CRELL/active_citizenship.htm [Accessed 25th October, 2006]

Constructivism Pt.11: Organizational Learning

Michael Hanley — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:30:00 +0000

In their 1974 work Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness, Chris Argyris and Donald Schön support the constructivist argument that individuals (and in the context of this paper particularly knowledge workers) have schemata or mental maps both for their skill assets and they contend, with regard to how to act in situations. This directs the way they plan their activities, execute their tasks, and how they reflect upon their actions once tasks (or components of larger-scale tasks) are complete. They assert that it is these mental maps that guide people’s actions rather than the theories they explicitly espouse. Further, knowledge workers (unlike academics, for example) are typically required to apply their skill- and experience assets in real-world situations which exhibit degrees of uncertainty about both the situation itself and the desired outcomes. Much of the real-world job of the knowledge worker is more concerned with problem setting then problem solving. To move from a problematic situation to an actual problem, the practitioner must “frame the problem: …determine the features to which they will attend, the order they will attempt to impose on the situation, the directions in which they will try to change it. In this process, they identify both the ends to be sought and the means to be employed” (p.165). This process is what Schön describes as reflective practise. He divides reflection practise into two subcategories, notions of reflection-in-action, and reflection-on-action. Reflection-in-action has been colloquially described as ‘thinking on your feet’ and involves building new understandings based on previous experiences to predicate actions in the situation that is unfolding at present:

The practitioner allows himself to experience surprise, puzzlement, or confusion in a situation which he finds uncertain or unique. He reflects on the phenomenon before him, and on the prior understandings which have been implicit in his behaviour. He carries out an experiment which serves to generate both a new understanding of the phenomenon and a change in the situation.
(p.68)

Thus, when investigating a situation individuals are consider, and use, strategies based upon their repertoire, the situation’s frame of reference, what has gone before and potential outcomes. Michael Eraut in Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence (1994) – who we will encounter later in this chapter when we discuss non- and informal learning, and as such is worth discussing here – negatively criticises Schön’s evaluation, considering reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action as a iterative process rather than as discrete actions:

When time is extremely short, decisions have to be rapid and the scope for reflection is extremely limited. In these circumstances, reflection is best seen as a metacognitive process in which the practitioner is alerted to a problem, rapidly reads the situation, decides what to do and proceeds in a state of continuing alertness.
(p.144)

References:

Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Eraut, M. (1994). Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence. London: Falmer Press.

Constructivism Pt.10: More Mindtools

Michael Hanley — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:43:00 +0000

Significantly, Jonassen et al point out that learning is not restricted to formal learning environments, and that learners can “acquire sophisticated skills and advanced knowledge in natural learning situations” (p. 28).

Table 1 Characteristics of a computer-based learning environment (after Jonassen, 1994)

Characteristic	Definition
Active:	Learners are engaged by the learning process in mindful processing of information where they are responsible for the result. In natural learning situations, learners, without the intervention of formal instruction, can acquire sophisticated skills and advanced knowledge about what they are learning. Through formal and informal apprenticeships and communities, learners develop skills and knowledge which they then share with other members of those communities with whom they learned and practiced those skills. In all of these situations, learners are actively manipulating the objects and tools of the trade and learning by reflecting on what they have done.
Constructive:	Learners integrate new ideas with prior knowledge in order to make sense or make meaning or reconcile a discrepancy, curiosity, or puzzlement. They construct their own meaning for different phenomena. The models that they build to explain things are simple and unsophisticated at first, but with experience, support, and reflection, they become increasingly complex. They can only know what they know, so they should be supported in the process of coming to know.
Collaborative:	Learners naturally work in learning and knowledge building communities, exploiting each other’s skills while providing social support and observing the contributions of each member. Humans naturally seek out others to help them to solve problems and perform tasks.
Intentional:	All human behaviour is goal-directed (Cleary & Schank, 1995). That is, everything that we do is intended to fulfil some goal. When learners are actively trying to achieve a cognitive goal (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994), they think and learn more. Learning environments need to support learners in articulating what their goals are in any learning situation.
Complex:	Teachers oversimplify most ideas in order to make them more easily transferable to learners. In addition to stripping ideas out of their normal contexts, concepts are distilled to their simplest form so that learners will more readily learn them. But the message this gives learners is that t the world is a reliable and simple place. However, the world is not a reliable and simple place. Problems have multiple components and multiple perspectives. They cannot be solved in predictable ways. Learners need to be engaged in solving complex and “ill-structured problems as well as simple problems” (p.31). Unless learners are required to engage in higher-order thinking, they will develop oversimplified views of the world.
Contextual:	A great deal of recent research has shown that learning tasks that are situated in some meaningful real world task or simulated in some case-based or problem based learning environment are not only better understood, but also are more consistently transferred to new situations. Rather than abstracting ideas in rules that are learned by rote and applied to other “canned problems” (p.31), knowledge and skills should be delivered in reality-based, useful contexts and provide new and different contexts for learners to practice using those concepts.
Conversational:	Learning is inherently a social, dialogical process (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). That is, given a problem or task, people naturally seek out opinions and ideas form others. Technologies can support this conversational process by connecting learners across an organisation or across the world. When learners become part of knowledge-building communities they learn that there are multiple ways of viewing the world and multiple solutions to most of its problems.
Reflective:	Learners should be required by technology-based learning to articulate their actions, the decisions they make, the strategies the use, and the solutions that are generated. When they articulate what they have learned and reflect on the processes and decisions that were entailed by the process, they understand more and are better able to use the knowledge that they have constructed in new situations.

The implications of placing learners in this technology-based environment fundamentally affect pedagogical approaches to learning. An interesting subtext to this approach may be the design of the internet itself: as Agre (1999, p.3) points out, the Internet was originally designed for the scientific community. As a result, its underlying design features reflect that community’s high capacity for self-regulation and openness. Applications can be used to represent knowledge that is generalisable to content in different subjects; learners are engaged in critical thinking about the subject; and, as skills are integrated into the learner’s schemata, they become transferable to other subjects (1996). From a practical viewpoint, Mindtools can be developed for applications the learner is already familiar with, and that are non-content specific – the classic example Jonassen gives is semantic organisation using databases (1998). Similarly, computers and the internet enable the learner to engage with microworlds that allow the learner to experience multiple representations or simulation of real-world phenomena and which provide immediate feedback when learners attempt to solve problems (1996).

References:

Agre, P. E. (1999). Life after cyberspace. EASST Review, 18(2), pp.3-5.

Carr, C. Jonassen, D. H. & Hsiu-Ping, Y. (1998) Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking [Internet] TechTrends 43(2). pp.24-32. March 1998