Is Social Learning a fad? One Organization Seems to Believe So

Reflecting upon the growing adoption of Web 2.0 technologies in enterprises and organizations, about two weeks ago I wrote a post called Shiny new technologies used by dusty old professions. In it I considered that an ad hoc approach to adding Web 2.0-based learning channels without appropriate strategy, planning, and management could lead to a diminution of their effectiveness in the long term.

In response to my article, I received a comment from a person associated with an organization who had gone down this very road by implementing informal learning and knowledge-sharing channels (including FaceBook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and asynchronous content delivery) on an “as needed” basis, and who contradicted or declared against the points I made in my post.

Here are some of the assertions made in the comment:

• I wrote that informal learning was “casual”
• Regulated professional bodies do not undertake informal learning (supporting evidence to this was included via a link to the organization’s Continuing Professional Education overview document, available online)
• Social Media is a “fad”
• I “miss[ed] the point completely. Social media is nothing to do with e-learning.”
• My name is Brian

Naturally I published the comment (as I do with every comment I receive unless it’s spam). The missive wasn’t e-mailed to me personally, but to my blog, so I assumed it was submitted to the public domain. About a week later, I composed a response to the comment and e-mailed it to my correspondent.

To date I have received no reply from them, so I considered the matter is closed. However, a few people who read the comment got on to me (privately) and said that the remarks that were made in the comment were so inaccurate and erroneous, that it was worth highlighting them to a larger audience.

In fact, they said, the comment was a distillation of the general lack of understanding of informal learning, e-learning, and Web 2.0, and should be addressed as a matter of credibility for L&D professionals, if nothing else. And also that my name is not Brian.

So, for your consideration, my rebuttal to the charge that “Social Media has Nothing to do with E-Learning.”

Now read on…

“To whom it may concern:

Many thanks for taking the time to communicate with me. Firstly I need to apologize: as in many occupations (accountancy among them, no doubt), learning and development professionals sometimes use certain words and phrases in very specific contexts that extend their meaning beyond popular use. It simply didn't occur to me that any of the terminology in the blog article text needed further exposition, and I regret that lack of clarity has caused you to object to and attempt to refute the remarks I made in my blog post.

However, you have misquoted me, suggested that my article was inaccurate, and that I "missed the point completely" so I'm invoking my right to reply. I'd like to say that I hate having to do this, as it makes me come across as long-winded and boring, and I am neither. Nevertheless, I wish to address each of the remarks you made in your comment: I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to reflect upon what follows.

First the misquote: you state in quote marks that I wrote "informal and casual" somewhere in my text. Let me be crystal clear about this: there is nothing "casual" about acquiring skills, knowledge, and expertise. I take the activity (and my part in it) very seriously. I did use the term "ad hoc" but in a completely different context, I will address this later.

I would assert that you felt motivated to respond to me because you would argue for what Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm call the "perceived inherent superiority" (2002, p.2) of formal learning over informal learning.

Let's get this formal/non-formal/informal business out of the way, because it's part of the first point you refuted. All learning occurs on a continuum (see Figure 1) with formal learning at one extreme, and informal learning at the other, and non-formal learning 'in the middle.' Now here's the good bit, so I'm going to place this in a paragraph all on its own:

Eighty percent of organizational learning takes place informally.

Gartner Research (2008, p.1).

You will note that the continuum illustrated below is on a horizontal axis, and that there is no hierarchical distinction between the learning modalities.

Figure 1. The Learning Continuum

It's apparent that a dichotomy exists between the paradigms of formal, goal-directed training programs and informal "learning at the water cooler" (Grebow, 2002):

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).

For much of the forty years since the terms were first coined (Coombs, 1968, p.1.) there has been a great deal of debate as to the nature of formal, informal and non-formal learning; the components of each of the paradigms, their boundaries and their overlaps. It's an ongoing discussion in L&D, but at this juncture we can say that the distinctions between them have been recognized by the EU and the OECD among other organizations. The European Commission state:

Learning takes place in different settings and contexts, formal, non-formal as well as informal. Learning that is taking place in the formal education and training system is traditionally the most visible and the one likely to be recognized in the labor market and by society in general. In recent years, however, there has been a growing appreciation that learning in non-formal and informal settings is seen as crucial for the realization of lifelong learning, thus requiring new strategies for identification and validation of these 'invisible' learning outcomes. However, definitions and understandings of what counts as formal, non-formal and informal learning can vary between countries.

(Valuing learning outside formal education and training)

At EU level, the following definitions are used:

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].

Regarding your own organization, I notice that in Continuing Professional Education, under the section entitled 'Unstructured CPE' (p.3), it is stated that:

Unstructured CPE can be defined as any form of informal learning or development of day to day working skills achieved through self-study and/or informal training. Unstructured CPE can be measurable but is not verifiable [my italics].

Personally, I support Alan Rogers' view that a 'new paradigm' for learning exists, in which "most programs [are] partly formal and partly informal" going from formal to informal and from informal to formal in both directions along a continuum. 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).

As you stated in the Silicon Republic article Number crunchers find social media a ‘tweet’ surprise "It's our job to support our members at each point in their career." Implicit in this statement is support for the ongoing, formal, certified professional development initiatives that are required to ensure your members achieve and retain the appropriate knowledge and skills to undertake their professional activities competently. I didn't question this facet of these activities at any point in my article.

Equally I'm sure you design, develop, and implement your formal training initiatives based upon Training Needs Assessments and Skill/Gap Analyses to remediate deficiencies in your members' current skillsets and knowledge.

The next point I'd like to clarify concerns e-learning, social media, and the Read/Write Web (or Web 2.0). E-learning has been characterized as:

The continuous assimilation of knowledge and skills by adults stimulated by synchronous and asynchronous learning events - and sometimes knowledge management outputs - which are authored, delivered engaged with, supported and administered using internet technologies.

(Morrison, D. 2004, p.4)

So while you confidently tell me that "Social media is nothing to do with e-learning" I have to tell you that you're wrong: it has everything to do with it.

I suspect you perceive e-learning to be that old pageturner-with-audio stuff that characterized e-learning 10 years ago, and is still occasionally foisted upon organizations like the yours for compliance and regulatory reasons.

You don't have to believe me if you don't want to, but believe your own reasoning faculties and reflect on Don Morrison's above definition carefully. You'll see that e-learning 'checks all the boxes' that characterize social media.

As you state, social media are a great way to communicate, engage with, and create dialog between communities of practice. This is what makes Web 2.0 technologies - and it's associated products like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, as well as related technologies like on-demand video, such valuable and effective learning channels. According to industry analysts Forrester:

Learning 2.0 - or informal learning - means that employees take charge of their learning. Specifically, employees decide when they need information, where to go for information, and how to get information from other resources.

(Schooley, C. 2007, p.3)

This approach delivers learning right when people need it via:

• Delivering small pieces of searched for learning content
• Providing collaborative interaction support
• Making job aids, reference sites, and materials readily available
• Bringing contextual learning to specific tasks while workers are on the job

Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but is this not exactly what your organization is doing?
And finally we get to The Point That I Apparently Missed.

Is social media a "fad"? No.

Everett Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation theory tells us that the technology is maturing and has entered the Mainstream Adoption phase. My view is that the shift in information transmission we're seeing will prove to be as socio-culturally important as the invention of movable type 500 years ago.
You say that social media is

one of many communication channels we successfully use to direct members to education and learning opportunities, class-based or online.

I say that it is a learning channel - as you yourself said "Many share war stories and know-how in the forums": this epitomizes informal (e-)learning in action.

I think now I can reiterate my point (remember the "ad hoc" reference?). The purpose of the blog post was to highlight the issues associated with adding new learning / social media channels without a strategy, a plan, a goal, and a set of learning outcomes. Now, as we know, ad hoc according to Webster's Online Dictionary means "for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application." As I concluded my article:

...it's one of the advantages of a non- or informal approach to e-learning, but I would suggest that too much of a 'make it up as we go along' approach can lead to spreading finite resources too thinly for any of them to be truly effective.

Or, more prosaically, if you don't manage, and maintain your content delivery channels effectively, you will see fall-off in use, and enter what Gartner call the ‘Trough of Disillusionment’ where

[technologies] fail to meet expectations and quickly become unfashionable.

Consequently, they are abandoned. In online circles this is called "blogrot" named after the estimated 125 million out of 133 million blogs that are not updated regularly (Technorati, State of the Blogosphere, 2008). To counter this, organizations need to actively manage and maintain their content and their knowledge, or it can peter out and ultimately cease to be of value.

The purpose of my post then, was to commend your informal e-learning activities, but to temper that commendation by highlighting the requirement to keep up the momentum surrounding these activities, for if your initiative fails, it becomes that much more difficult to re-implement similar programs in the future. Indeed, I consult for institutions including UCC and the ECDL Foundation, assisting the development of their learning programs, so I have a substantial amount of experience in this domain.

I hope this detailed missive clarifies matters; I look forward to making your acquaintance at some point in our respective careers, and I wish you every success in your ongoing learning and development initiatives.

Best regards,

Michael Hanley BA, H.Dip.Ed., H.Dip.Communications, MSc. Education (Hons), MIITD

__________
References:
Certified Public Accountants (ND). Continuing Professional Education. [Internet] Available from: http://www.cpaireland.ie/UserFiles/File/CPE/CPE_Requirements.pdf [Accessed 1 July 2009]

Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm J. (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 2009]

Coombs, P. (1968) The World Educational Crisis, New York, Oxford University Press.
Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge, in Coffield, F. (Ed.) The Necessity of Informal Learning. Policy Press. Bristol

European Commission, Education and Training (2009). Valuing learning outside formal education and training. [Internet] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc52_en.htm [Accessed 1 July 2009]

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://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ActiveCitizenship/Conference/05_Surrey_final.pdf [Accessed 1st July, 2009]

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2009). Recognition of Non-formal and Informal Learning. [Internet] Available from: http://www.oecd.org/document/25/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_37136921_1_1_1_1,00.html [Accessed 1 July 2009]

Grebow, D. (2002) At the Water Cooler of Learning [Internet] Available from: http://agelesslearner.com/articles/watercooler_dgrebow_tc600.html [Accessed 30th February 2009]

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

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

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]

Rozwell, C. (2008) The Business Impact of Social Computing on Corporate Learning. Gartner. [Internet] Available from: http://www.gartner.com (subscription required) [Accessed 1 July 2009]

Schooley, C. (2007) Informal Learning Connects With Corporate Training Programs. Forrester Research. [Internet] Available from: http://www.forrester.com (subscription required) [Accessed 1 July 2009]
--

Informal Workplace Learning: KMs and virtual environments

Concluding our overview of influences which are contributing to the emergence of informal and non-formal learning in the workplace. Yesterday, I discussed three of the five change factors influencing how learning activities are being implemented in the workplace:

1. Blended learning
2. Talent management
3. Web / Learning 2.0
4. Knowledge centers
5. Immersive learning simulations (serious gaming).

Today, I'm going to look at the remaining change factors.

Knowledge Centers
A knowledge center provide a central, just-in-time location for information. It is a single-focused interface with information about a specific topic, like IT applications, sales, or project management. A knowledge center is often a portal or part of the company intranet (like Moodle or SharePoint), or it is the knowledge management component of an LMS like BlackBoard. Knowledge Centers are where information workers go for FAQs, the latest tips, tricks and how-to's, links to external resources, relevant information, and other resources about a specific topic that may not be directly related to a formal course (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Employees Find Help In A Knowledge Center

Sites must be useful, up-to-date, and responsive to employee needs. An organization must decide on the most important knowledge center topics, create a user-friendly site, and populate it with information. A designated person must be responsible for maintaining the knowledge center portal and identifying new information and material for the site. Survey employees about their needs and provide a feedback box on the site.

Immersive Learning Simulations: Serious Games
Simulations are models of the real world. Add pedagogically sound content, learner interaction and involvement, and a gaming element — all focused on achieving a learning goal — and the result is an immersive learning simulation (ILS).

The challenge is getting the right mix of learning and gaming. Today’s most immersive learning simulations are custom creations from a specialized vendors, and they are more obviously expensive than traditional e-learning content development. Achieving the right balance between the gaming and learning components takes expertise from three professionals: a subject matter expert, an instructional designer, and a game developer, all working closely together.

As more immersive 3D social networking environments like Second Life (2L) become available, serious gaming will become a more common modality for non- and informal learning. There are some problems associated with the environment, however. According to Bill Brandon (2007, p.7)

for typical non-students (employees) sitting through a slide-presentation-and-lecture in Second Life is no more effective (and likely less so) than sitting through the same dog and pony show in a physical space.

With this in mind 2L does have potential; e-learning practitioners can use it to create effective constructivist learning environments. For example, if you have a requirement similar to this for sales training, negotiation skills, diversity training, or any other communication- based skill, Second Life might be all you need. Interactive learning activities (like simulations, immersive learning, and gaming) put employees in virtual yet authentic situations, where they can learn the skills and materials while also making decisions and getting immediate feedback on their choices.

The transformation of workplace learning means that organizations must develop informal learning as a resource for employees. As the younger workforce becomes a more significant part of organizations and moves into management positions, these people will demand different kinds of learning opportunities and tools to get to learning resources quickly.

Figure 2 VLE on 2L

They expect to control much of their own learning, so learning professionals must offer an range of useful up-to-date resources inside and outside the organization for information, knowledge, and training. If employees don’t see these learning resources as part of their organization's talent management and development programs, the chances are that they will move to more progressive companies that will acknowledge their learning and career development needs.

__________________

References:

Brandon, B. (2007) ‘Give Your e-Learning Some (Second) Life: Simulation Made Easy.’ eLearning Guild. [Internet] Available from: http://www.elearningguild.com/articles/abstracts/index.cfm?action=viewonly2&id=246 (subscription required). Accessed 19 March 2009

Schooley, C. (2008) Informal Methods Challenge Corporate Learning [Internet] Available from: http://www.forrester.com Accessed 12 March 2009

--

Informal Workplace Learning: paradigm changes - more

I'm looking at some influences which are contributing to the emergence of informal and non-formal learning in the workplace. In my previous post on this topic, I outlined five change factors:

1. Blended learning
2. Talent management
3. Web / Learning 2.0
4. Knowledge centers
5. Immersive learning simulations (serious gaming).

I will discuss the first three of these today.

Multiple-Channel learning or ‘blended’ learning is not a new learning approach, but it is becoming more common within training programs. Multiple-channel learning uses a range of learning modalities to train learners, as appropriate to the content and the context (see Figure 1). For example, a learning module might include some classroom learning, followed by some self-paced e-learning, with periodic online virtual classroom sessions for discussions. When learners reach a level of competence, they could be assigned mentors who work with them during their on-the-job training period.

Figure 1. Multiple “Blended” Learning Channels

However, no formula exists for a successful multiple-channel learning course. The question that a learning and development professional must ask is,

What instructional blend is going to work best, given the kind of students, the nature of the content, and the skills these people need?

Sometimes blended learning includes just two modalities, like self-paced online learning along with virtual classroom for discussion and interaction. Sometimes a face-to-face component is central, with synchronous and asynchronous instruction, mentoring, or community of practice used for review, collaboration, and support.

Increasingly, employers struggle to attract and retain the best talent. Enter Human Capital Management. Organizations need the ability to seamlessly assess worker competencies and to provide employees with learning experiences that will close knowledge gaps and enhance job performance. Learning doesn’t stand by itself any longer — it’s integral to the other components of human capital management (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. The Four Pillars Of Strategic Human Capital Management

But unified learning and talent management systems don’t necessarily integrate. Many organizations have embedded legacy point solutions for learning, performance, and compensation. These solutions do not integrate well, and this inhibits seamless movement of information. For example, once a manager conducting a performance review identifies one or more employee competency gaps, the manager should then have the ability (through integrated applications) to assign learning directly to an employee learning plan that will help close the gap.

Learning 2.0 is a trend in which employees take more control of their learning and knowledge gathering. They decide what they need, where to go, and how to find information from a variety of resources both inside and outside of their corporate intranet (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Employees Drive Their Own Learning

To facilitate this, workers must have robust tools like expertise location, search, and instant messaging (IM) available to them, and they must know how to make the best use of these tools. A new mind set is required for Learning 2.0 to succeed. Many business leaders (and indeed HR departments) think of learning as classroom courses, even though most are beginning to grudgingly accepted e-learning as appropriate for certain kinds of training. Many people – especially those from a traditionalist or pre-digital era - are still skeptical about the place of informal tools in the work environment. The thinking goes:

Dollars allocated to learning are for formal courses, even though learning after formal college education takes place informally and non-formally.

Worse again, in certain “toxic” workplace environments individual or small group engage in the unsavory activity of empire building - where they attempt to gain control over key projects and initiatives in order to maximize their job security and promotability.

Empire builders hoard credit and prestige for projects, and knowledge-sharing is anathema to them. This approach prevents other people in the organization from contributing in a meaningful manner, and alternative or competing projects to address the project's goals are destroyed regardless of their merit. The outcome of empire building is, inevitably, that the organization suffers as a whole, projects fail, and organizational goals are achieved only partially, inadequately, or not at all. This sort of behavior is very common.

The tender shoots of non-formal learning will inevitably be destroyed by the weeds of empire building. For non- and informal learning initiatives to be implemented successfully, environment of sharing, where employees are expected to share rather than hoard information must be formed.

More...

_________________

References:

Schooley, C. (2008) Informal Methods Challenge Corporate Learning [Internet] Available from: http://www.forrester.com Accessed 12 March 2009

Informal workplace learning – influences and change factors

Many commentators, including Stern and Sommerlad (1999) assert that informal and non-formal learning

…have acquired visibility and saliency [because they] sit at the juncture of new thinking concerning the nature of learning about new forms of knowledge, about the transformation of the nature of work and about the modern enterprise in a globalized economy

(cited in Fuller & Unwin, 2002, p. 95).

As a concept and set of practices, ‘workplace learning’ has entered a period of political, economic and social transformation. Advances in technology, the demise of manufacturing industries and the growth of service sector industries, have led to changes in the meaning of the ‘workplace’ (for example, home-working (Felstead et al, 2000), working on-the-move (Felstead et al, 2005), ‘flexible’ working (Felstead et al, 1999); concomitantly, the shift towards new, post-industrial style workplace structures and practices,

have led to a new set of concept and practices surrounding ‘workplace learning.’ These include:

• different workplace contexts
• different workplace knowledge-sets
• different workers

to those of the past.

Workplace learning used to occur in the classroom or via online ‘e-training courses.’ While this style of learning is still important for regulatory or compliance training, a strong need is emerging for informal learning that is more closely integrated with employee work. Examples include:

• Some categories of business and technical training
• Procedural learning
• Deeper learning that requires concept development and interaction

Here are some reasons why this shift is happening:

Information / cognitive overload is affecting all workers. We can’t store all the facts, details, and data we need to do our jobs today, and more information is created every year.1 Thus, an important new skill is the ability to search effectively to find the information you need when you need it. It might even be information presented in a course that you took online a year ago.

Immediacy of information is critical in today’s workforce. With today’s fast business pace and emphasis on speed to market, employees may need to access a particular 5-minute piece of learning that will get them to the next step fast.2 This means that learning must come in smaller chunks that are only a click away. It also means that information and learning tend to blur in the work environment.

The Internet generation brings a different work style. The computer-savvy, 20-something ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2000) are very good at using technology to find what they want. They are impatient and want to access information resources quickly, and they assimilate and connect this information to their work. This workers prefers to drive personal learning, rather than simply receive information from an instructor.

Learning and development professionals need to begin working with lines of business outside of the traditional HR / Training orbit to ensure that the organizations provide a variety of formal and informal learning opportunities for employees. In some cases, the training department within HR organizes both formal and informal learning. In other contexts, HR handles formal learning, and individual lines of business handle the informal learning related to their specific activities (with consultation from learning professionals).

As well as these organizational changes, learning professionals must understand five key emerging trends:

1. Blended learning
2. Talent management
3. Web / Learning 2.0
4. Knowledge centers
5. Immersive learning simulations (serious gaming).

More...

_____________________

References:

Felstead, A. and Jewson, N. (2000) In Work, At Home: Towards an Understanding of Homeworking, London: Routledge.

Felstead, A., Jewson, N. and Walters, S. (2005) Changing Places of Work, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. (2003) Learning as apprentices in the contemporary UK workplace: creating and managing expansive and restrictive participation, Journal of Education and Work, 16:4, pp. 407-426.

Lee, T. Fuller, A., Ashton, D., Butler, P., Felstead, A., Unwin, L., & Walters, S. (2004) Learning as Work: Teaching and Learning Processes in the Contemporary Work Organisation,
Workplace Learning: Main Themes & Perspectives Learning as Work Research Paper, No. 2.

Prensky, M. (200) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. [Internet] Available from:http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf Accessed 21 October 2007

Stern, A. and Sommerlad, E. (1999) Workplace Learning, Culture and Performance. Institute of personnel and Development, London.

--

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]

--

Informal and Non-formal Workplace Learning 2

Looking specifically at learning in the workplace, Michael Eraut in Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge (2000) makes a clear distinction between his interpretation of the term ‘non-formal learning’ and what others including Scribner (1988), Conner (2002) and Cross (2003) would call ‘informal learning’ – what Eraut terms ‘incidental learning’ or

the acquisition of knowledge independently of conscious attempts to learn and the absence of explicit knowledge about what was learned’

(Reber, 1993, quoted by Eraut 2000, p.12)

This is, he argues, because most workplace learning takes place outside formal learning contexts, and informal learning carries with it connotations of

so many other features of a situation, such as dress, discourse, behavior, diminution of social differences – that its colloquial application as a descriptor of learning contexts may have little to do with learning per se.

(p.12)

Not only does the term carry unwanted and confusing implications, but it is too vague to be of any real utility. For Eraut, an analysis of learning must focus on activities and the outcomes that that contribute to significant changes in capability or understanding. In a sense, Eraut does not define non-formal learning; rather, he defines the characteristics of formal learning (p.12) as:

1. A prescribed learning framework
2. An organized learning event or package
3. The presence of a designated teacher or trainer
4. The award of a qualification or credit
5. The external specification of outcomes.

The implication of this categorization is that any learning that does not exhibit all of these characteristics should be classed as non-formal. Some reviewers (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002) make the point that Eraut does not make clear what the status is of learning in situations that meet some, but not all, of his ‘formal’ criteria. My interpretation of his characterization is that the very nature of a formal activity -

following or according with established form, custom, or rule

(Merriam-Webster Online, 2007)

validates Eraut’s description.

More…

____________

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 2009]
Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge, in F. Coffield (Ed) The Necessity of Informal Learning: Policy Press. Bristol

Informal and Non-Formal Workplace Learning

One of the central components of the impact of learning (and specifically the development of information workers’ expertise in organizations) is the context within which the learning takes place. A central pillar of this discussion 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) or 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? For much of the forty years since the term ‘non-formal learning’ was first coined (Coombs, 1968, p.1.) there has been a great deal of debate in the literature as to the nature of formal, informal and non-formal learning; the components of each of the paradigms, their boundaries and their overlaps. The locus of this debate is centered on arguments for “the inherent superiority of one or the other” (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002, p.2).

I support Alan Rogers’ (2004) view that a “new paradigm” for learning exists, in which “most programs [are] 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 & 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).

More to follow…

__________

References:
Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm J. (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 2009]
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

Grebow, D. (2002) At the Water Cooler of Learning [Internet] Available from: http://agelesslearner.com/articles/watercooler_dgrebow_tc600.html [Accessed 30th February 2009]

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]

--

More on Non-formal Learning

As discussed in a previous blog entry, one of the central components of the impact of learning (and specifically the development of knowledge workers’ expertise in organisations) is the context within which the learning takes place. A central pillar of this discussion 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 programmes and informal – “learning at the watercooler” (Grebow, 2002) or 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? For much of the 40 years since the term ‘non-formal learning’ was first coined (Coombs, 1968, p.1.) there has been a great deal of debate in the literature as to the nature of formal, informal and non-formal learning; the components of each of the paradigms, their boundaries and their overlaps. The locus of this debate is centred on arguments for “the inherent superiority of one or the other” (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002, p.2).

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).

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

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]

--