Defining informal learning

Informal learning should no longer be regarded as an inferior form of learning whose main purpose is to act as the precursor of formal learning; it needs to be seen as fundamental, necessary and valuable in its own right, at times directly relevant to employment and at other times not relevant at all.

(Coffield 2000, p8)

Given the current economic climate, there is an understandable rise in interest in organizations' exploration of ‘learning beyond the classroom.’ There is some doubt as to whether the concept of informal learning is the most useful way forward.

Michael Eraut has contributed one of the most helpful discussions of ‘informal learning’ in recent years. He has suggested that the use of such a catch-all term is not very helpful (2000, p.12). He considers the notion of ‘non-formal learning’ might be more accurate. One aspect of his argument is that the term ‘informal’ is associated with so many other features of situations – such as dress, behavior, discourse –

that its colloquial application as a descriptor of learning contexts may have little to do with learning per se

(Eraut 2000, p.12).

However, the notion of ‘non-formal learning’ in itself may not be any more helpful (and I will discuss this in a forthcoming blog post).

Eraut’s looks at the level of intention in learning. Similar to Rogers’ learning continuum (2004), Michael Eraut establishes a matrix to identify varying types of non-formal learning, based on the timing of the stimulus (past, current, future) and the extent to which such learning is implicit, reactive or deliberative.

According to Eraut, there is a distinction between implicit (informal) learning, which has a metacognitive component, deliberative learning (where the worker schedules time to learn) and reactive learning (where learning is explicit but almost takes place spontaneously, in response to recent, current or imminent situations but without any time being set aside for it). I would suggest that these categories align closely with Kolb’s 4-Stage Experiential Learning Cycle. Similarly, a link can be made between the synchronous and asynchronous delivery mechanisms discussed in an earlier blog entry and Eraut’s Timing of Stimulus category.

Table 1 Michael Eraut’s typology of non-formal learning (2000, p.129)

[Click here to open enlarged view of table - PDF reader required]

More…

__________

References:
Coffield, F. (2000) The Necessity of Informal Learning, Bristol: The Policy Press.

Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge, in F. Coffield (Ed) The Necessity of Informal Learning: Policy Press. Bristol

Rogers, A. (2004) Looking again at non-formal and informal education - towards a new paradigm [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/non_formal_paradigm.htm [Accessed 30th January 2008]

--

E-Learning a second language

As it's nearly St. Patrick's Day...
There's an American-Irish comedian (yes that's correct - a Bronx native who's emigrated to Ireland) called Des Bishop who decided to learn to speak the Irish language. More about his encounter with learning Irish and the context for e-learning and language teaching later.

Now read on.

For non-Irish people - apparently there are approximately two people in the world who don't claim Irish roots - here's some context:

Modern Irish is very different from the other languages discussed ... in that it is not a language which suffers from poor support: questions on the Irish census about Irish language universally show a strong positive reaction to the revival movement. Nor does the language lack official status; it is, according to the constitution of the Republic of Ireland, the “first language” of the country. There is also widespread political and economic support for the revival effort. The numbers of its speakers is not as low as the number of speakers of many languages; the official estimate of native Irish speakers hovers around the 80,000 mark. It also cannot be said of Irish that there has been a lack of a revival effort. The Irish language revival movement dates back to the beginning of the home-rule movement in the middle of the last century. Finally, it is not a language that is lacking in linguistic description or dictionaries. It is, however, a language which is perhaps at the most critical stage in its history and may very well not survive more than another generation or two.

(Modern Irish: A Case Study in Language Revival Failure, p.1)

The most well-known Irish Revival movement began when Irish writers such as Lady Gregory, Percy French, George Russell ("Æ"), Oliver St John Gogarty, Padraic Colum, Edward Martyn, Edward Plunkett and William Butler Yeats stimulated a new appreciation of traditional Irish literature and Irish poetry in the late 19th and early 20th century. For a wide range of (mainly socio-political) reasons, in the mid- to late 20th century, the Irish language was firmly shackled within the constraints and agenda of "Official Ireland" - the structures of government and state, the philosphy of Irish Nationalism, the aspirations of the constitution, and so on.

All the while, the citizens of Ireland went about their English-speaking ways, probably like myself with a vague and romantic affection for the notion of Irish. As a nation we knew full well that to thrive in North America, the UK, and Australia, where Irish emigrants traditionally settled, we needed to focus our not inconsiderable linguistic skills (Ireland's total population is about the same as the city of Los Angeles in the US or Birmingham in the UK; there have been four Irish Nobel Prize for Literature laureates - an extraordinarily high figure of awards per capita) on the English language. So, how do you fail to teach a native tongue to a linguistically sophisticated, geographically isolated, culturally homogeneous, and relatively small populace?

Perhaps the highest blame that can be assigned for the failure of the language and its revival can be firmly placed with the language revivalists themselves. Despite obvious good intentions, some remarkably bad policy decisions have been made. Probably the biggest problem for the revival movement has been in putting the burden on the educational system, rather than in promoting the usefulness of the language in everyday life. Children were expected to learn Irish in school, and this was supposed to revive the language. Not only did this create widespread resentment towards the language, it is a remarkably naïve view of language learning, as first noted by Slomanson (1994). It equates language learning to the learning of math or geography or history. As linguists, we know that this is simply not the case. Language is not a “subject” that can be taught formally in an hour a day. Rather, language learning is a subconscious cognitive system that requires maturation and constant and consistent input. We as linguists know, but the revivalists in Ireland did not, that language is acquired, rather than learned. This naïveté with respect to what constitutes how we acquire language was compounded over and over again by the systematically poor pedagogical methods and materials that were used to “teach” the language. Lessons in Irish consisted, until quite recently, of translation exercises and reading of texts. Little or no work was put into conversation language practice and use. It is no wonder, then, that the emphasis on schooling in the language was an abject failure.

(p.17)

Which brings us back to Des Bishop. As an US-born person who moved to Ireland aged 14 years, Des was "exempt" from taking compulsory Irish in school, but decided in his early 30's to learn the language. He brings what anthropologists call an etic perspective to the culture and the process of attempting to educate individuals in Irish. His experiences (documented in a series called In the Name of the Fada* on Irish state broadcaster RTÉ) reinforce the failure that formal educational approaches have had in learning the language, and how he succeeded in learning Irish experientially; “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984, p.41).

And now here's the e-learning angle: as a recent learner of the language, Des advocates the use of e-learning as a medium to develop language skills: you can try your hand at the course Abhair Leat by clicking on this link or the image below.



Now, I have to confess that I haven't had an opportunity to evaluate the courseware yet - I'll submit a future post on the topic when I have had the chance to check it out properly.

I believe that the Irish experience points to a a much larger development in language learning. Look at the great migrations of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, particularly the number of native Spanish speakers in the US, as well as the likely linguistic impact of migration within the European Union (there are over one million Poles now living in the UK, for example).

Consider the role language plays in bilingual states like Canada and Belgium, and polyglot nations like China and India. As this century progresses, possibly the only way that large numbers of people will successfully acquire the language skills needed to function in a globalized economy will be through e-learning, and in this light, the experience of Irish is a lesson that should be well learnt.

Beannachtai Na Féile Pádraig.

Footnotes:

The acute accent, or síneadh fada (´), serves to lengthen the sound of the vowels and in some cases also changes their quality.

References:

Carnie, A. (1996) Modern Irish: A Case Study in Language Revival Failure [Internet] Available from: http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~carnie/publications/PDF/Endangered.pdf [Accessed 15 March 2008]

Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice Hall
--

What is learning?

I guess it's now time to move on to some of the "big picture" stuff and begin to outline how I characterise terms like "learning" and "e-learning."

---

In the field of organisational development, the terms ‘training’ and ‘learning’ are often used interchangeably: both broadly refer to the acquisition of new or enhanced knowledge, skills, attitudes or behaviour through the medium of instruction whether delivered by a source of information such as a text or a computer application, a teacher, or a mentor. In my opinion, the key difference between the two terms is in the reflexive nature of learning, resulting in the integration of the knowledge, skill, attitude or behaviour into the individual’s cognitive constructs - a process Lev Vygotsky called “internalisation,” which he elegantly described as “an internal reconstruction of an external operation (1978, p.56). The Information Sessions non-formal learning initiative (which I'll be discussing in future blog entries). If you've read my recent posts, you'll understand that the theoretical and methodological framework for this initiative was developed within the Constructivist pedagogical model using techniques derived from the Social- and Cognitive schools of thought, with a focus on experiential learning as defined by Kolb, Vygotsky’s social development theory as it is applied in instructional design and Donald Schön’s and Chris Argyris’s views on professional knowledge and social learning systems.

References:

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society. Edited by Cole, M. John-Steiner, V. Scribner, Souberman, E. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press

Constructivism Pt.5: Experiential learning theory cont'd

In the years since Kolb first devised the learning styles inventory, the definitions of the four learning styles - Diverging, Assimilating, Converging, and Accommodating – (see Table 1), have been refined through research and clinical observation (2000, p.4) in studies carried out in 1984 and 1999.

Table 1 Kolb's Learning Styles' Characteristics

Learning style	Learning characteristic	Description
Converger	Abstract conceptualization + active experimentation	strong in practical application of ideas
		can focus on hypo-deductive reasoning on specific problems
		unemotional
		has narrow interests
Diverger	Concrete experience +	strong in imaginative ability
	reflective observation	good at generating ideas and seeing things from different perspectives
		interested in people
		broad cultural interests
Assimilator	Abstract conceptualization + reflective observation	strong ability to create theoretical models
		excels in inductive reasoning
		concerned with abstract concepts rather than people
Accommodator	Concrete experience + active experimentation	greatest strength is doing things
		more of a risk-taker
		performs well when required to react to immediate circumstances
		solves problems intuitively

Current developments in ELT have led Kolb and his colleagues at Experience Based Learning Systems, Inc. to designate second- and third-order learning styles (pp.23-24) facilitating the creation of a learning styles matrix, which Kolb et alia believe assists in understanding learning “at a deeper and more comprehensive level than previously, and provides guidance for applications to help people improve their learning, and designing better processes in education and development… in organizations and society” (2000, p.28).

References

Boyatzis, R. E. Kolb, D. A. & Mainemelis, C. (2000) Experiential Learning Theory: Previous Research and New Directions. [Internet] IN: Sternberg, R. J. & Zhang, L. F. (Eds.). Perspectives on cognitive, learning, and thinking styles. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Available from: http://www.learningfromexperience.com/images/uploads/
experiential-learning-theory.pdf [Accessed 23rd October 2006]

Kolb, D. A. (2006) Learning Styles Matrix diagram. [Internet] Available from: http://www.businessballs.com/freepdfmaterials/
kolb_learning_styles_diagram_colour.pdf [Accessed 8th January 2008]

Constructivism Pt.4: Experiential learning theory

Experiential learning theory (ELT) describes learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984, p.41). ELT attempts to express the holistic nature of the learning process can be described as a learning model in that it attempts to integrate (see Figure 1.1) portrays what Eickmann, Kolb and Kolb describe in Designing Learning as two “dialectically related modes of grasping experience - Concrete Experience (feeling) and Abstract Conceptualization (thinking) - and two dialectically related modes of transforming experience - Reflective Observation (reflecting) and Active Experimentation (acting). Individual learning styles are determined by an individual's preferred way of resolving these two dialectics” (2004, p.241).

Figure 1 The 4-Stage Experiential Learning Model

Kolb and Fry (1975) argue that the learning cycle can begin at any one of the four modes but suggest that the optimal learning process begins in the Now (mode [1] on the model) as the learner undertakes an immediate action or concrete experience and then observing a response on the effect of the experience. Following this, the learner reflects to understand these effects so that if the same experience or action was undertaken in the same circumstances it would be possible to anticipate the effect of the action. The third step is for the learner to understand and assimilate the principle under which the experience exists, synthesising the experience, their reflection on its effect and previous experiences, to form abstract concepts “from which new implications for action can be drawn” (Boyatzis, Kolb & Mainemelis, 2006, p.3). These implications can be actively tested, from which new experiences can be drawn, iterating the cycle.

Kolb and Fry emphasise the “creative tension” generated by the opposite modes in the model; learning is a process requiring sets of polar opposites among the four learning modes to dynamically interact. It is the very process of taking the learner outside of their comfort zone that causes the learner to extend their current knowledge, skills and abilities. For the learning intervention to be successfully integrated into the learners cognitive scheme, the learning cycle should “touch all the bases - feeling, reflecting, thinking, and acting - in a recursive process that is appropriate to the learning situation and what is being learned” (2006, p.4). How each individual learner achieves this is due to their particular learning style. The learning style inventory (Kolb, 1976) is a catalogue of characteristics designed to place individual learners on an appropriate quadrant of the learning cycle (see Figure 1.2) relevant to their “abilities” (1975, p.35). Boyatzis, Kolb and Mainemelis elaborate on the context of a learner’s abilities in Experiential Learning Theory: Previous Research and New Directions (pp.3-4):

In grasping experience some of us perceive new information through experiencing the concrete, tangible, felt qualities of the world, relying on our senses and immersing ourselves in concrete reality. Others tend to perceive, grasp, or take hold of new information through symbolic representation or abstract conceptualization – thinking about, analyzing, or systematically planning, rather than using sensation as a guide. Similarly, in transforming or processing experience some of us tend to carefully watch others who are involved in the experience and reflect on what happens, while others choose to jump right in and start doing things. The watchers favour reflective observation, while the doers favour active experimentation.
Each dimension of the learning process presents us with a choice. Since it is virtually impossible, for example, to simultaneously drive a car (Concrete Experience) and analyze a driver’s manual about the car’s functioning (Abstract Conceptualization), we resolve the conflict by choosing. Because of our hereditary equipment, our particular past life experiences, and the demands of our present environment, we develop a preferred way of choosing. We resolve the conflict between concrete or abstract and between active or reflective in some patterned, characteristic ways. We call these patterned ways “learning styles.

Figure 1.2 Kolb's Learning Styles

References

Boyatzis, R. E. Kolb, D. A. & Mainemelis, C. (2000) Experiential Learning Theory: Previous Research and New Directions. [Internet] IN: Sternberg, R. J. & Zhang, L. F. (Eds.). Perspectives on cognitive, learning, and thinking styles. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Available from: http://www.learningfromexperience.com/images/uploads/
experiential-learning-theory.pdf [Accessed 23rd October 2006]

Eickmann, P. Kolb, A. & Kolb, D. A. (2004) Designing learning. [Internet] IN: R. J. Boland & F. Collopy (Eds.), Managing as designing (pp. 241-247). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Available from: http://www.learningfromexperience.com/images/
uploads/Designing-Learning.pdf [Accessed 25th October, 2006]

Fry, R. & Kolb, D. A. (1975) Toward an Applied Theory of Experiential Learning. IN: Theory of Group Processes. (Cooper, C. ed). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc

Kolb, D. A. (1976) The Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual. Boston, Ma. TRG Hay/McBer.

Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice Hall