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]

--

Knowledge Worker Information Processing - an Overview

The goal behind this series of posts about knowledge working and knowledge workers is to understand something of the audience that most of the efforts of organizational learning and development professionals are targeted at; the knowledge workers (KWs) themselves. Today, I'm will wrap up the series by concluding my analysis of the William P. Sheridan's How to Think like a Knowledge Worker (2008).

I believe that knowledge working is intimately bound within the organizational context: knowledge workers use their skills and experience to innovate solutions to real-world problems. One of the primary conditions of knowledge working is the social aspect – knowledge workers typically collaborate with their peers, whether they are individuals with similar skill assets, such as application development teams working in an agile software development environment, or in project teams which require knowledge workers from different disciplines (technical architects, business analysts, and product consultants, for example) to cooperate in the implementation of the solutions on a customer site.

Figure 1. Human Knowledge Mindmap (after Sheridan)

In this context, Sheridan uses the Human Knowledge MindMap (see Figure 1. to converge the skills and knowledge of domain experts to look at the internal processes a knowledge worker uses to codify and utilize information in a fashion to what Donald Schon calls reflection-in-action.

We can say that the purpose of the mindmap is to enable KWs to "think effectively" (p.13). Most peoples’ thinking, is not clear, focused, or systematic enough to perform knowledge work competently. The purpose of the Human Knowledge MindMap is one approach that enables users to do this. Whether during learning, or on a job, effective thinking consists of a set of components as characterized in the mindmap.

Table 1 Knowledge worker thought processes

Sheridan suggests that to carry out this activity, the worker should do the following:

• Pick a situation, problem, challenge, decision or choice of interest or concern (on whatever basis you regard as appropriate).

Then proceed with the following steps:

• Identify which aspects are of most interest or concern to you.
• Prioritize (rank) your interests or concerns.
• Using the Human Knowledge MindMap as a visual guide, apply the relevant concepts to the most important (prioritized) aspects of your interest or concern (limit it to the top three aspects on your list to begin with).
• If you don’t recall whether or nor a particular concept is relevant, refresh your memory by re-reading the one-page outline.
• From this point apply the methodology as outlined above (this may, in addition to other things, require reading more materials to acquire the necessary depth of understanding in the issues you are trying to deal with).

________________

References:

Sheridan, W.P. How to Think like a Knowledge Worker:A guide to the mindset needed to perform competent knowledge work. United Nations Public Administration Network, New York. [Internet] Available from: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/unpan/unpan031277.pdf [Accessed 24 August 2008]

Thinking like a Knowledge Worker

Return again to a topic I looked at recently, here's some insights to thinking like a knowledge worker I discovered while undertaking my research on the subject. The concepts explored here are investigated in much more depth in a paper called How to Think like a Knowledge Worker by William P. Sheridan. I'd love to go into the level of detail that the author does, but to invoke the spirit of Star Trek's Dr. McCoy "For God's sake Jim, - I'm a blog, not a research paper."

"I'm a Doctor, not a blog..."

Moving on...

In his paper, Sheridan asserts that

Knowledge consists of concepts available to process information and guide action. Knowledge Management refers to "smart use of know-how." In a knowledge economy more and more tasks involved "think work."Thinking involves the separation of relevant information from irrelevant information. Therefore, "think work" is a component of "knowledge work," specifically the information processing part - the other part is just the "informed action" part.

(2008 p.5)

The author asserts that by assembling a "Human Knowledge Mindmap" (see Figure 1) we can develop a method to ensure the quality of knowledge worker outputs. He cites the example of W. Edwards Deming's methodology for quality control in industrial economies being "shunned" in the US, but being a key component in the growth of the Japanese automobile industry in the middle- to late 20th century as an example of how ignoring such approaches is done at organization's peril.

The central ideas of Sheridan's approach are Conceptual Pragmatism and Cognitive Economy.

If your question is "How do I know?" then [your answer] will involve some combination of empiricism, rationalism and constructivism. Such cognitive amalgamations do what makes "knowing" possible.

(p.9)

Figure 1. Human Knowledge Mindmap (after Sheridan)

We can say that there are three factors that characterize knowledge:

1. Empiricism (observable facts)
2. Rationalism (thinking things through)
3. Constructivism (formulating new ideas)

While we all undertake all three of these approaches, most people emphasize one of the trio; these "habits of emphasis" lead to partial or at best inadequate learning and knowing.

More...

________________

References:

Sheridan, W.P. How to Think like a Knowledge Worker:A guide to the mindset needed to perform competent knowledge work. United Nations Public Administration Network, New York. [Internet] Available from: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/unpan/unpan031277.pdf [Accessed 24 August 2008]