Informal learning is important. It accounts for how we learned much of what we know: experience. However, it should not and will not replace formal learning. As more emphasis is being put on constructivist methods and social learning, it is important not to deemphasize the role that formal learning plays.
Some tasks are best taught through formal learning. These tasks have low complexity, require low autonomy, are standardized, are highly specific or routine, or may be time sensitive. For example, Flora McDora created a slideshare to emphasize this point. You can view it here: Informal v Formal Learning. Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) also state that when dealing with new information, learners need to be specifically shown what to do. On his Informal Learning Blog, Jay Cross posits that novices learn more through formal instruction and that formal learning is best for explicit knowledge. This may be attributed to cognitive load theory. A trial-and-error approach without any form of guidance can result in a heavy load on working memory. This is particularly true for novice learners who may lack the proper schemas to integrate the new knowledge with prior knowledge (Kirschner, et all, 2006). In fact, novice learners may not have the prior knowledge to integrate new knowledge with. Mayer (2004) addresses this further with the assertion that guided discovery is necessary to activate knowledge to make sense of new knowledge and to integrate new knowledge with prior knowledge. He further suggests that left to their own devices, learners may never encounter the objective material.
Sometimes, the need for formal learning is based on practicality. People need to perform a certain way every time and there is no room for mistake. Period. Think about an assembly line making brakes for your car or a new surgical procedure. Do you want the guy making your brakes or the doctor performing your surgery to have learned in a formal environment or through experimenting and trial-and-error. In his blog, The Pursuing Performance Blog, Guy Wallace provides a witty look into The Research Evidence Against Informal Learning.
He asks, “IF informal learning DOES account for 80% or more of “how kids learn about sex” – does that make IT the approach to actively support?” (para. 3). While the shock value of the statement is what caught my eye, it certainly resonates with the theme of practicality.
It is also important to note that informal learning should not be considered a replacement for formal learning. Formal and informal learning are complementary (Cofer, 2000). They work together. Clark (2007) points out that a lot of informal learning would fail to occur without formal learning programs. In this vein, I would like to leave you with a quote from Cross (2010), “When you dig down into the details, you’ll find that all learning is part formal and part informal. The only thing worth discussing is the degree of formality or informality, for it’s never either/or.” (para. 13).
References:
Clark, D. R. (2007). Formal and informal learning. Retrieved February 9, 2010 from http://www.knowledgejump.com/learning/informal.html
Cofer, D. (2000). Informal workplace learning. Practice Application Brief. NO 10. U.S. Department of Education: Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.
Cross, J. (2010). Where did the 80% come from? Informal Learning Blog. Retrieved Febraury 9, 2010 from http://www.informl.com/where-did-the-80-come-from
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?: The case for guided methods of instruction. The American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
McDora, F. (2009). Formal v informal learning. Retrieved February 9, 2010 from http://www.slideshare.net/theexplorer/informal-v-formal-learning
Wallace, G. (2007). The research evidence against informal learning. Retrieved February 9, 2010 from http://pursuingperformanceblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/research-evidence-against-informal.html
Guest Blogger: Carmen Weaver is the project manager for the TLINC grant at the University of Memphis. She also teaches technology integration to undergraduate education majors at the University. Carmen has a background in Computer Information Systems as well as Secondary Education. She is a doctoral student in Instructional Design and Technology.
Carmen, this post rings true with how I learn myself. When I’m trying to learn concepts or something completely new, I find myself preferring a formal experience. My pursuit of this degree is a personal example from my own life. I was very unfamiliar with many of the concepts and ideas behind instructional design. Now that I have that formal guidance, I’m looking forward to learning instructional design in a more informal way through work experiences and engaging with other instructional designers. Having the formal degree has helped lay the groundwork.
Carmen – If you would have posted this on Facebook, I would have hit the “Like” button immediately! I saw in my own classroom that formal and informal learning played important roles. For example, when I taught a unit on supply and demand, through formal learning I was able to explain the concepts of each theory. Then I would let the students “experience” each theory by running their own store via the Virtual Business software ( http://www.knowledgematters.com/products/vbr/)we had access to. Through their simulated businesses, they were able to see the effects that their business decisions as well as external factors had on supply and demand for their store and their profit and loss statements. Those informal learning experiences through playing the Virtual Business game helped them to understand the concepts of supply and demand as well, if not more, than what they acquired through the formal learning process.
Carmen, very interesting post. It’s great to see thought around the “grey area” between informal and formal learning and their mixture with almost any learning experience. My only critique might be with your very strict definition of what informal learning might be. It seems as if you are saying informal learning can only be unguided trial and error learning on your own. While that is definitely informal learning, I can’t help think that informal learning takes in a much more diverse set of experiences that could be called informal. You mention the Jay Cross quote about how all learning is informal or formal. I’m thinking there are experiences guided by more knowledgeable mentors which still qualifies as informal which would not fit in your strict definition of individual trial and error experiential learning. Many in the workforce learning field believe informal learning is a title for anything occurring outside the classroom. That’s quite a bit of learning and only some of it is done by trial and error really. You ask questions, get feedback, ask for help, watch others, etc. your entire career to learn your job and this is informal learning. You’re rarely learning “alone” since you are constantly getting help from others. So, we aren’t really saying anything different except for the fact that informal learning is really more guided than you might give it credit for out there in the workplace. As Cross’ quote stated … it’s a healthy mix all the time and I would add that true everyday informal learning has more guidance than some might think.
Stacy – You are apparently an exception. Knowing yourself and how you learn is so important. In my readings, I found that people often choose to learn novel information in an informal way because they perceive that it will be easier. This is not the case. They need the structure and guidance. The opposite is also true, typically experts choose to engage in learning formally when they may actually get more out of an informal environment and experimentation because they have prior knowledge to draw on.
Kristy – This is a perfect example of how formal and informal learning can work together to form a sort of synergy. Thanks for sharing this. Having been taught formally, your students were able to activate knowledge and make new connections. This method also ensured that they met the objectives that you wanted them to meet and got the right information from their informal experience.
Michael – Thanks for making this point. You would not believe how many definitions of informal learning I have come across in the past week alone! You are right, I chose a very conservative definition. I like your statement that “… informal learning is really more guided than you might give it credit for out there in the workplace.” This exemplifies how they really are mixed together and opens the door for the debate as to if we have somehow managed to formalize informal learning.
Formalizing informal learning … yes … that gets to the crux of the issue in my book. I’m trying to balance the world of ISD with free-form informal learning and it’s hard. The question for me is how far ISD can go before the utility and innate attraction of informal learning is destroyed when trying to structure informal learning opportunities. Can we put some structure around water cooler talk? Do you want to? We’re spent the last five years building incredible CoP online environments and Dr. Martindale and I looked into PLEs as well that makes this point. We have technology at our disposal now that we could only dream of a few years ago … are we armed with too much at times? I’m worried about swinging a wild ISD “hammer” at every learning “nail” I find in the workplace under the guise of making it better, more efficient, and more effective. The KM movement in industry has “gone off the rails” in my opinion with every shred of explicit knowledge logged, labelled, and stored for future use by the organization. The problem is that KM built the perfect mousetrap but they can’t get to the mouse now … there has been no “end game” in KM looking at how the organization actually uses the vast storehouse of knowledge. Read more Nokano for good research on explicit/tacit knowledge transfer. I feel that informal learning has gotten to a similar ridiculous curve in the road where we are building ornate superstructures to handle the online interplay between people but we really have lost touch with the art of conversation and personal learning between someone who knows something and someone who wants to know it. All you have to do is look at the critiques regarding Stephen Downes Canada-based social experiment with Web 2.0-driven learning to see how far off the rails we can get. Dozens of apps mashed together to form the most perfect jumble of social interactions ever devised. We in ID are victims at times from our own processes and technologies … we often lose sight of the human side of learning in the workplace field. No, the irony is not lost on me!
As I read your post, the words ‘guided discovery’ caught my attention. Yes we often think of formal learning occurring only in a classroom, training session or a staff development seminar. As Michael noted, I agree that our learning outside these arenas is not necessarily informal but guided by such actions with our peers and networks. My thoughts are the same with formal learning; there must be some structure in place to start the process.
I think I’d like to ask about the introductory sentence, “As more emphasis is being put on constructivist methods and social learning, it is important not to deemphasize the role that formal learning plays.” It strikes me that you are placing constructivist methods and formal learning in separate arenas. According to the TIP web site, constructivist learning is “an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current/past knowledge” (http://tip.psychology.org/bruner.html). But having this active, engaging process does not mean that it cannot be part of a formal learning environment. In fact, I believe that the formal learning environment, typically seen as the classroom, is greatly enhanced when the teacher takes the role of a facilitator who guides and supports the learner(s) through a learning experience where they ‘construct’ their own meaning and find their own connections.
Also, as I read Michael Dowdy’s comment about the trial-and-error definition given to informal learning, I agree that the distinction provided between formal and informal learning is misdrawn. Plus I don’t agree that formal learning is limited to “tasks [that] have low complexity, require low autonomy, are standardized, are highly specific or routine, or may be time sensitive.”
Maybe initially the two were distinguished as “school” and “nonschool” learning. But we have become a lot more savvy through the years. Envision formal and informal learning as you might a venn diagram with two circles that partially overlap. In the overlap, both forms can share certain ideas: both can have incidental learning, can have an inherent structure, and can have a facilitator.
Amanda – Thanks for commenting. You are correct in your view that formal learning does not take place only in a classroom, training session, or seminar. Traditionally, learning from our peers and social interactions has fallen under the label of informal learning, but we are seeing more and more that the lines of what is informal learning are being blurred. I attribute this to the fact that formal and informal learning are complementary. That is why I thought Cross’s quote resonated with today’s learning environments – “all learning is part formal and part informal”.
Linda – Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I do want to point out that the intention of my blog post is not to provide an analysis of what constitutes formal vs informal learning. It is only to give some examples of why even though informal learning is growing in popularity, it will not replace formal learning.
I also feel that some of your assumptions about the post are incorrect. I do not place formal learning and constructivism in separate arenas. While I do believe that informal learning environments are most often constructivist ones, I never meant to imply that formal environments could not be. The point of the introductory sentence was to point out that the role of formal learning should not be deemphasized when considering constructivist and social learning methods.
You also stated that you don’t agree that formal learning is limited to “tasks [that] have low complexity, require low autonomy, are standardized, are highly specific or routine, or may be time sensitive.” Neither do I. This quote was taken out of context. I did not say I thought formal learning was limited to these things. I said some tasks are best taught through formal learning and gave these as examples. The literature supports this, and I stand by it.
You point out that the distinction between formal and informal learning is misdrawn, but the purpose of this post was never meant to distinguish between the two. I’m afraid it would take an entire article to do that. The purpose was to give some examples of why formal learning is still important given the popularity of informal learning. I only provided a few examples and I know there are many more situations and contexts that could have been covered. I hope I provided enough to convince readers that formal learning will always have a place.
Great post Carmen. I wholeheartedly agree with many of the statements in your post. I particularly enjoyed the statements that caused me to think of informal/ formal learning in a new light. For instance, I had previously only considered the either/ or approach to informal/ formal learning. I was of the mind that formal learning is what must be done early with novice or inexperienced learners. Then as novice learners became more proficient, they could move into more of an informal learning environment. Although I still believe that novice learners should begin with some prior knowledge via formal learning, your post made me consider the ideas of formal learning and informal learning working together as complimentary and the possibility that all learning is both part formal and part informal. I really think I will have to spend some more time thinking of that final Cross quote as it forces me to think about learning in a new light.
I support the fact that learning is both formal and informal. I have been in classrooms where the material was taught either completely formal or informal and I did not take much out of these classes. I personally learn better from a combination of the two. I plan to teach Kindergartner one day and this post helped me realize the importance of addressing different types of learners and also the importance of taking effective teaching methods into my classroom.