Characteristics of Informal Learning

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]

--

To-Learn Lists: September 2008 Learning Circuits Blog Big Question

This month's Big Question emerged from a short essay written by James Collins in LEARNING JOURNEYS Top Management Experts Share Hard-Earned Lessons on Becoming Great Mentors and Leaders (2000). The author wrote:

A true learning person also has a “to-learn” list, and the items on that list carry at least as much weight in how one organizes his or her time as the to-do list.

More specifically, The Big Question is about:

• If you have a to-learn list and are willing to share, and willing to share how you work with that list, that would likely be helpful information.
• As Knowledge Workers, work and learning are the same, so how does a to-learn list really differ from a to-do list? How are they different than undirected learning through work, blogging, conferences, etc.?
• Are to-learn lists really important to have? Are they as important as what Jim Collins tells us?
• Should they be captured? If so how?
• How does a to-learn list impact something like a Learning Management System in a Workplace or Educational setting?
• What skills, practices, behaviors do modern knowledge workers need around to-learn lists?

So it's really a bunch of Big Questions this month. I'm not going to answer any of them, as I'm not so conceited as to think that you haven't better things to do with your time, than to think about what I do with my time. However, the topic did get me thinking...

First of all, some context - I undertook some research on the text that the idea of the To-Learn List originated from. Learning Journeys contains 37 two- to three-page essays by

some of the best and most well known of human resources and organizational leaders and pioneers. From Stephen Cover to Dave Ulrich, from Marshall Goldsmith to Robert Eichenger, these individuals have done much to shape current thought in the areas of organizational development and leadership.

Amazon.com reviewer

As such, the text is orientated towards the needs of HR and organizational development people, rather than learning & development professionals. No harm: it's always useful to get a different perspective (or to put it another way - a friend of mine reads a certain national newspaper because he "...likes to know what the enemy is thinking!"). One of the elements of the text that became apparent to me (from reading a part of the text using Amazon.com's Look Inside functionality) was that the learning perspectives discussed would probably work better for people who are not professionally involved with training others: in this capacity, it indicated some potentially useful approaches on how to engage others in continuous learning, and pointed towards some avenues that might assist in achieving this objective.

As discussed in a previous blog entry on the E-Learning Curve, one of the central components of the impact of learning (and specifically the development of knowledge workers’ expertise in organizations) is the context within which the learning takes place. A central element of this context is the type or format of the learning taking place. In the literature, it is apparent that a dichotomy exists between the paradigms of formal, goal-directed training programs, and informal “learning at the watercooler” (Grebow, 2002); what Michael Eraut (2000) describes as incidental learning that takes place almost as a side effect of work: “it is difficult to make a clear distinction between formal and informal learning as there is often a crossover between the two” (McGivney, 1999, p.1). Another complexity in the discussion is where is non-formal learning located in relation to the diametric opposites?

I support Alan Rogers’ (2004) view that a “new paradigm” for learning exists, in which “most programmes will be partly formal and partly informal” going from formal to informal and from informal to formal in both directions along a continuum (see Figure 1) . “Both forms of education are important elements in the total learning experience” (looking again at non-formal and informal education - towards a new paradigm, 2004).

Figure 1 the Learning Continuum

Similarly, Hodkinson and Hodkinson argue that focusing on the extent to which learning is planned and intentional may be a way of by-passing the distinction between formal, non-formal and informal altogether.” (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002).

So, to return to the topic, my To-Learn List has one entry: to learn.

I would categorize myself as a "learnivore" - I continually acquire new knowledge and information through my Web-, book-, podcast-, and presentation reading, blogging (reading and writing), academic study and research, and work-based learning-related tasks. These activities are drivers for the information I try to take on board in my attempts to enhance my skills, abilities, and expertise.

_____________

References:

Colley, Hodkinson, Malcolm (2002) non-formal learning: mapping the conceptual terrain. a consultation report [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/colley_informal_learning.htm [Accessed 28th January 2008]
Coombs, P. (1968) The World Educational Crisis, New York, Oxford University Press.

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

Goldsmith, M. Kaye, B. Shelton, K (eds.) (2000) LEARNING JOURNEYS Top Management Experts Share Hard-Earned Lessons on Becoming Great Mentors and Leaders. Davies-Black Publishing

Grebow, D. (2002) At the Water Cooler of Learning [Internet] Available from: http://agelesslearner.com/articles/watercooler_dgrebow_tc600.html [Accessed 30th January 2008]

McGivney, V. (1999) Informal learning in the community: a trigger for change and development NIACE. Leicester.

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]

--

Approaches to evaluating learning

In yesterday's post I put forward some thoughts on terminal second-level examinations and the effect that faring poorly in these could have for young adults' future lives.

I received a comment on the topic from a correspondent who asserted:

...does success in exams equal education? Exams are an outmoded assessment tool - success in them means nothing more than a certificate and maybe entry into higher education - where you sit more exams until you finally move into the real world...where you realise your so called education did you a grave disservice.
Can you think? Can you create? Can you problem solve? Does an exam system fit into 21st century learning?

Now read on...

Do we have practical solutions (as opposed to high aspirations) about the best way to serve students in the 21st century?

Hard to say.

I would suggest that the best way to prepare people for the workplace is to evaluate learners as if they were in the workplace. So let's look briefly at the role of certification in this context.

Certification is the ability to prove through testing if an individual has achieved a mastery of skills, knowledge and attitude. Certification can also prove the ability of an individual to apply those skills and knowledge in specified areas and job functions.

(Certification: Corporate America’s Secret Weapon. Hilbink, P. 2004 p.2).

In 1959, Donald L. Kirkpatrick first published his four-level training evaluation model (see Table 1) in a series of articles for the US Training and Development Journal. “The reason for evaluating is to determine the effectiveness of a training program” (Evaluating Training Programs, 2006, p3). The reason for the four-level model then “was to clarify the elusive term evaluation” (2006, xv). In articulating evaluation through each of the four levels – reaction, learning, behaviour and results – the model aspires to

inspire us to look beyond our traditional classroom content delivery model and opens windows to the many way we can improve the performance of our organisations.

(2006, p.xi)

Table 1 Kirkpatrick’s Four-level Model

In the context of Kirkpatrick’s Four Level Model, second-level certification is typically interpreted at Levels Two. We can say that the most effective approach to understanding how well learners have acquired new knowledge, skills, and expertise is to ask them to demonstrate what they have learned: they sit a test. In the context of second-level education, certification assesses the learner at Level 2: Transfer of Learning. It is important to measure learning transfer because no change in behaviour can be expected unless one or more of these learning objectives have been accomplished. Measuring learning means determining one or more of the following metrics:

• What knowledge was learned?
• What skills were developed or improved?
• What attitudes were changed?
  

The benefits to conducting Level Two tests are that the learner must demonstrate that the learning transfer has occurred, and that the assessment provides verifiable and conclusive evidence that an improvement has occurred in knowledge, skills, or attitudes.

Assessment tests are a powerful tool for organisations, institutions and society-at-large, as they combine a hierarchical observation and a normalising judgement. Testing makes individuals visible (who has attained the qualification? who has not attained certification?) and enables them to be categorised (how well did they do?). Exams also normalize people by assessing them according to the same metric, and subsequently measures them in relation to one common standard.

Having established the value of Level Two assessments to understand how well knowledge has been transferred, what next? Does the education system as it currently exists meet the needs of students as they prepare for life in the Information Age, or is there a lag between national educational policies & strategies, and how students' skill need to be shaped?

Substantial resources (time, well-paid teacher, continuous training for educators etc) are required to undertake these types of evaluations, and the ministries and agencies with responsibility for managing these tasks don't seem to have the influencing powers to ensure these assets are in place.

A cynic might say that it's because such an initiative requires long-term planning. The results of such an approach mightn't be seen for five to ten years, and a politician who advocated such a spend on education might not be in a position, a decade or so later, to reap the rewards of such an innovation in national education policy.

_____________________

References:

Hilbink, P. (2004) Certification: Corporate America’s Secret Weapon [Internet] Available from: <http://www.digital-latitudes.com/docs/Cert_White_Paper.pdf> [Accessed 7 July, 2008]

Kirkpatrick, D. & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006) Evaluating Training Programs. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

--

It's not the end of the world, you know

Today's blog post is not so much about e-learning or learning and development but rather more about education in general. Whether it's the Leaving Certificate (the final course in the Irish secondary school system), SATs in the US, O- and A-Levels in the UK, or le bac in France, I'm sure you are familiar with the day of reckoning just-finished secondary-level students are facing about now as their results are published in advance of matriculation for third-level and university places, as well as those former students who intend to go straight into employment, or take a gap year to figure out what they want to do with their lives.

Now read on...

In Ireland, the examination results were published yesterday, and today they're released in the UK; tuning in to Irish and British radio and TV broadcasts over the last twenty-four hours you would be forgiven for thinking that we're on the edge of a natural catastrophe (well, apart from the monsoon-like rain we've been experiencing for the last week, but that's another story).

You may be familiar with the format:

• Images / sounds of students opening their results envelopes and shouting for joy / groaning with disappointment
• Vox-pop of said students as they discuss their plans now that they've achieved / failed to achieve the marks they needed
• Outro from reporter which goes along the lines of "... you might not have got what you wanted, but it's not the end of the world, you know" before an short excerpt of some successful local business person or politician describing how they left school at 15 with no qualifications and worked their way up from tea-boy to head of a transnational organisation (before giving out the number of the helpline worried parents can call for advice).

While I completely understand the need to sympathize with devastated young adults who see their hopes, dreams, and career options evaporating before their eyes, I believe that to glibly state that "it's not the end of everything" simultaneously devalues the emotional and psychological impact of performing poorly in such an important life event, and provides false hope that somehow it will be all right.

Sadly, the reality is that in the 21st Century knowledge economy, a less-than-average result in these examinations seriously affects most young peoples' ability to move forward with their lives - particularly in these increasingly straitened times. As the world transitions to an Information Age where the primary asset an individual possesses is their expertise, a misstep on this lowest rung of the ladder has the potential to damage an otherwise bright, intelligent individual's potential to both contribute to, and make their way in their society.

For every business leader who "did it the hard way" or "learned from the university of life," there are ten frustrated employees working in the wrong career, and maybe ten times that number pumping gas, or just about making enough to hang in there, not really living, just existing. Unless you're in a position where you have the financial resources, the family or social contacts, or just the pure luck to break into your chosen path, you have to pretty much generate your own career based upon your abilities and talents - hopefully enhanced by what you learned in school.

I never cease to be amazed by (for example) politicians who state that through hard work and perseverance they finally got elected and rose to the position they're in now... while omitting that their father held the seat before them and they're based in a traditional constituency where the electorate has voted for the 'name they know' for generations, or the business-person who was a millionaire by thirty, through their ceaseless efforts and dedication ...and the fact that they come from a wealthy family with the resources to set them up.

I heard one such person on the radio yesterday who asserted that "all you need to be successful in your chosen career is to be focused on your goal and to be passionate about what you want to do." Try this experiment - say for example you want to be a project manager - send your résumé to as many organisations as you like, outlining your passion, enthusiasm and lack of formal qualifications in the field. Then, wait for the employment offers to roll in.

But don't hold your breath.

Passion is great, but in many cases it's the last resort of the incompetent (look at all those candidates on The Apprentice who, when about to be fired protest that they're "passionate about what they do"). Enthusiasm is an admirable quality, but certainly no substitute for expertise, ability, and experience: organisations understand this, though professional competence is boring and makes for poor reality TV.

Which one of these would YOU hire?

One of the primary reasons I take such joy in my career (and it's not even a logical reason) is that it puts me in a position to see people reach their potential. Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics) believed that education was fundamental to the human condition - the fulfilled person was an educated person.

Perhaps this week, more than at any other time of the year his assertion that

the roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet

is at it's most evocative and apposite.

_____________

References:

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics

_____________

Images' source:

Radio Telefís Éireann image library

BBC. The Apprentice. [Internet] Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/apprentice/ Accessed 14 August 2008

--

May 08 Learning Circuits Big Question: Learning design differences for Digital Natives?

This month' LCBQ is:

Learning design differences for Digital Natives?:

1. Do you believe that we have to design, develop and deliver instruction differently for the so-called Digital Natives?
2. Are there differences in learning expectations and styles or can we just design good instruction and know that it meets all generational needs?
3. If you have an audience that includes natives and immigrants, how can you effectively design instruction without breaking the bank?"

In my view, we are on the threshold of a learning revolution, akin to the explosion of knowledge made possible after the general availability of printed texts following the invention of movable type and the printing press in 1440.

Now read on...

One of the first manifestations of this will be a total redefinition (or perhaps definition?) of e-learning. Right now, “E-learning” means different things to different people. When you consider that you can call the discipline “e-learning”, “elearning” or even “eLearning”, it’s no surprise that there is a range of definitions of the subject, as “we prefer to define things according to how we use them” (Morrison, 2004, p.4).

Clark and Mayer (2003) consider the “how, why and what” of e-learning: that the “e” in e-learning refers to the “how” - the course is digitised so that it can be stored. The “learning” refers to the “what” - the course includes content and ways to help people learn it, and the “why” - that the purpose is to help learners achieve educational goals or to help organisations build skills related to improve job performance (pp.13-14). The assumptions in their definition are telling: note the use of the term “course” and references to organisational skill-building – there is an inherent, unspoken claim on e-learning (what ever that is!) to be part of the corporate, human resources development arena.

Now consider Will Richardson’s Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms, published only three years later. In the e-learning context, a quick scan through a text’s table of contents, introduction, or index will usually orient the reader to the author’s perspective on what they think e-learning is: not in this text. The very first point Richardson makes is that “this may look like a book about technology, but it’s really a book about …connections” (p.vii). With a nod to David Jonassen, the he discusses “cool tools”, “collaborations and conversations” and “creatively motivating students to learn more deeply” using a teaching and learning “toolbox” (p.9). He’s obviously talking about e-learning, but does not see the need to define what it is. So, e-learning has become a common if imprecise term used to refer to technology-enhanced learning.

Will digital natives care?

Probably not a jot.

I'm sure they will still refer to the term, much as we digital immigrants will still differentiate between say "book learning" or "instructor-led" for example, but all our "cool tools" will become just part of the range of media channels available to learners. Naturally, their expectations of learning will be different from those prevalent at the moment, just as one-time learning tools such as audio tapes and 16mm informational films seem terribly quaint now. Similarly, even Generation Xers used electronic calculators in the classroom - using tools like these inevitably shape the expectations of the individuals who interact with these devices.

I think we can expect to see

• Enhanced more immersive Second Life-type personal learning environments
• learning on devices like the Wii (good for those kinaesthetic types)
• learning via 'personal electronic things' (PETs)

Instructional Design

I would assert that the fundamentals of instructional design won't change especially; people still learn in the same way, and as much as technology may change, we as a species are still lumbering around with our hunter-gatherer brains. At this point I should say that Marc Prensky suggests that the new technologies actually lead to physiological changes in the way the brain is 'hard-wired' due to the range of stimuli digital natives receive through interacting with new technologies, but there is no evidence to support or refute this, though it is an interesting assessment.

I think that the changes will be more in the area of content authoring and development. If technological progress in learning demonstrates the same vigour as it did during the transition from CBT to e-learning proper, it will be some years before vendors recognise the niche, and there will be a lag before easy-to-use content authoring environments are brought to market - remember how long we had to struggle with Authorware and clunky, inflexible, horrible-to-use proprietary authoring tools, before Captivate and Articulate et al were eventually released?

Having said that, the open-source community are always ahead of the curve in this domain, and there are already some quite user-friendly open source 3-D engines that could form the basis for highly interactive learning environments in a milieu that digital natives are familiar and comfortable with.

...and who knows what else the next decade may bring? If it's as extraordinary as the last ten years, it's going to be one fun ride...

References:

Clark, R. C. & Mayer R. (2003) e-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning, San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer

Morrison, D. (2004) E-Learning Strategies: how to get implementation and delivery right first time, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Richardson, W. (2006) Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

--

LCB February's Big Question - ISD on the precipice of a crossroads

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

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

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

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