Is it informal learning if ...

What makes informal learning "informal"?

• Is it the lack of a certificate of completion?
  
• Is it the lack of an instructor?
  
• Is it the lack of learner evaluation?
• Is it the lack of a "formal" motivator?

I can think of examples for each of these that would qualify as "informal" learning. I can't think of a single characteristic of learning that could not be informal for one person and formal for another.

For example:

• When I wanted to learn about SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference Model), I searched the Internet and found a web-based tutorial on SCORM. The tutorial tracked my progress and when I completed the tutorial I was presented with a certificate (on the screen) that I could print. Would this be "formal" learning because I received a certificate? I would not call it such. To me, this was also informal learning. However, if I needed a SCORM certification, then the certificate of completion could be considered formal training. This also serves as an example of learning without an instructor. The course did not even have an associated email address for learner questions. The learners were completely on their own.
  

• Currently, I am auditing a couple of sociology courses at the University of Ottawa. I attend the "formal" lectures, but do not write tests or papers, and I am not graded. From my perspective, this is an informal learning opportunity for me. I am not part of any formal process, I simply attend the lectures I chose to attend and I learn (I think I learn a lot more than those who attend the course formally, since I am not concerned about how I will be graded). But for the majority of folks in the class, this is a formal learning opportunity. Their learning is measured and they received "credit" for the learning that they demonstrate. For the other students, the credit provides an external motivator. My motivation for attending is strictly personal interest.
  

So, is "informal" just a context?

An ah-ha moment -- Learning Theories

I'm taking an introduction to sociology class at the moment, and in yesterday's class I had one of those ah-ha moments. Back when I was studying learning theories (as part of the Master of Arts in Distributed Learning program) I had a hard time grasping the relationship between the different theories. I was trying to analyze learning theories as a "natural scientist" rather than a "social scientist". With a background in computer science and physics, I suppose that isn't too surprising ... however, a paradigms shift was definitely necessary for me to grasp learning theories.

In sociology class we are exploring the different ways in which socialists attempt to describe culture (specifically western culture). Each of the sociologists do their analysis using a different theoretical framework. It is within the confines of their frameworks that they are able to describe how people interact with the society. Reasons for a given behavior can be describe in many different ways, based upon the framework used for the description.

This concept also applies to learning theories. For example, behaviorist learning theory is not an attempt to describe absolutely how everyone learns: rather, it is an attempt to describe how learning occurs within the constraints of the framework. In the case of behaviorist learning theory, the constraint is the stimulus-response framework. The cognitive learning theories use the framework of the brain as an empty vessel, and learning is the process of filling the vessel. The constructivist learning theories use the framework of building learning through social interactions.

Each learning theory is an attempt to describe how learning occurs given the specific framework. Learning theories are not absolutes. As an educator, my job is to alter the frameworks as necessary to ensure that learning occurs.

A different perspective

The people enter the ritual room, each with a sharp implement in their hand. They carry satchels over their shoulders that appear to contain a variety of different tools. As they enter the room, they stack their satchels around the outside edges of the room.

The room is well-lit. It has tables setup in rows with a chair on each end. Each of the people sit within a chair. Strangely, they do not sit next to each other. Each person is far enough apart to see the other person, but not close enough to share any intimate communication.

The authority figure (perhaps a priest or a minister) enters the room. He is older than most of the people. Most of the people are about 18-24 years old, where the priest is easily past 40, perhaps even past 50.

The priest speaks briefly and then passes an offering out to each of the people. The people each take exactly one of the items offered and any remainders are given back to the priest. The room is silent. The priest writes a number and some letters on a large writing stone, that all the people can see. The priest speaks again briefly.

In silence, the people use their sharp implements to make markings upon the offering. Each persons markings are unique. The people are concentrating and working very hard to get their markings just right. Some of the markings are letters and numbers, others are letters and numbers being scratched out and replaced with other markings.

After what seems like a long time (perhaps 2 hours), some of the people start getting up. One at a time mostly, and returning the offering to the priest. The priest accepts the offering without a word or an expression. After giving their offering, the people pick up the satchels they brought in (the same satchel), and depart the ritual room.

After three hours the priest speaks again, and the remaining people stop marking their offerings. The priest walks by each row of tables, and the remaining people give the offering back to the priest. The priest is still expressionless.

The remaining people pick up their satchels and depart.

---

This was an exercise from my sociology text book (Seeing Ourselves: Classic, Contemporary, and Cross-Cultural Readings in Sociology V. , second Canadian Edition, by John J. Macionis, NijoleBenokraitis, and Bruce Ravelli). Did you figure out what the ritual was? The goal of the exercise was to try and remove yourself from a familiar setting and view it as an observer without the pre-knowledge of the activity.

Sociology 100 (1101 actually)

Since my job ended at exactly the right time, I'm taking a short sociology course this summer. I have wanted to take such a course for a while, so when I saw that the course started just after I finished work, I figured why not.

I decided to audit the course, and I'm really glad I did. I really do not agree with tests as a means of motivation or validating knowledge. It turns out the course has a midterm worth 40% and a final worth 50%. So, I'm certain I made the correct decision.

The first class was fascinating. The professor is very good at story telling. He described various concepts and had a story to go with each one (one might call them examples, but the way he told it, it was more like a story).

The professor also provided students with many tips on what or how we should be "learning". The class is a 3-hour lecture format, with a 15 minute break in the middle. During the break I heard fellow students discussing the course. Their entire discussion was about whether they were understanding what information they should be writing down and trying to interpret how to "read" the instructor from a testing perspective. I found this to be so sad. These are the students that our institutions are generating. Their entire world resolved around how they were going to prepare for the test. They did not discuss a single thing related to the actual topics presented.

I had to think back and try and remember what it was like. Was I so test focused during my undergrad years? I don't think so, but I'm not sure. The only social science courses I took were math related philosophy courses and they were all about getting an easy credit, not about the knowledge. So, I guess I must have been in a vary similar mindset.

I think the masters degree I did online (which involved many discussions and papers, and NO tests), has helped me figure out how I learn best. It has also showed me what education could be. Unfortunately, we do not prepare our kids for real education. We teach them to "figure out what the teacher wants" rather than doing any real creative or critical thinking on their own. (By the way, it sounded to me like the professor was looking for critical thinking, so these students may very well be in for a real surprise when they get there results back).

Being honest though, I did find the class a struggle in some respects. I tried very hard to concentrate on listening to the professor. What I haven't figured out yet, is how I will make the best of this opportunity. I need to teach myself how to learn again using the lecture format, rather than the online discussion format.

I am also trying to figure out the best way to take notes in a less linear manner. I saw someone at an Informal Learning unworkshop take notes in the form of a mind map. I thought that was fascinating; however, I don't find the traditional mind maps at all represent how I think. (I think it is related to my inability to consistently file anything!). So, at the moment my notes are a jumble of words, sometimes with arrows connecting the different ideas. I think that I mostly take notes so that I am doing something kinesthetic during the lecture. I wonder if knitting during a lecture would be frowned upon ;).

Cheers,
Becky