Do we need a pedagogy of informal learning environments?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Zhi Feng Liu on February 13, 2009 at 8:25pm

I agree the community of pratice is very important. In this electronic conference, the participation is so important. But there is another emerging question, how the electronic participation can replace the F2F participation? Do these two kind of participation the same? or different? or electronic participation is still an aid to F2F participation?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bronya Calderón on February 14, 2009 at 6:28am

I think we got the answer on 'social practice' and in 'legitimate participation' ...in how are we able to account for our practice...online or offline...This bring to me what happen with Iceland, how people participate online to come to agreement on their lives about their government. It is not much to see the difference or similarities of this participation, but make an account for something...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jay Cross on February 14, 2009 at 2:36pm

Bronya, in a word: YES.

Perhaps the biggest shift in learning is from push to pull. This is what occurs as the learner becomes a participant as well as a recipient of learning. I'm trying to get my arms around a new concept of instructional design that focuses on setting up conditions for learning, not just content transfer.

By the way, I choke on the term pedagogy because this applies to learning throughout life, not just children.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dean Sheetz on February 15, 2009 at 1:28am

Hi Bronya,

I would ask the question: Is the traditional dichotomy of informal vs. formal learning valid?

I feel that informal and formal describe contexts more than types of learning. I feel strongly that people learn at all times and in all places. Any attempt to classify learning that doesn't acknowledge that, or attempts to give a higher place to one context over another, is misleading and unproductive.

Cheers,
Dean

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bronya Calderón on February 15, 2009 at 5:00pm

Hi Dean,
Thank you for your question. I can answer from the practice point of view. A pedagogy of informal learning environments refers to a different practice. The pedagogic discourse of a teacher refers to the school’s system; about curriculum, tests, students, etc. A museum’s visit for example refers to a different experience, where timeframe, roles and discourses are different. My emphasis, here, is not much about learning, but about environment as you said.






Dean Sheetz said:

Hi Bronya,

I would ask the question: Is the traditional dichotomy of informal vs. formal learning valid?

I feel that informal and formal describe contexts more than types of learning. I feel strongly that people learn at all times and in all places. Any attempt to classify learning that doesn't acknowledge that, or attempts to give a higher place to one context over another, is misleading and unproductive.

Cheers,
Dean

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bronya Calderón on February 15, 2009 at 5:22pm

Hi Jay, Many thanks for your participation!
Yes, agree with you about the 'pull'
My concern, here, is about how institutions (formal learning environments) based their practice on the assumption about learning, as a mind activity only (based on Psychology-research). The metaphor of participation opens up a new way to see learning.....However, I don’t agree with you about instruction, because this also implies an instructor, which belongs to the formal (Psychology) paradigm.




Jay Cross said:

Bronya, in a word: YES.

Perhaps the biggest shift in learning is from push to pull. This is what occurs as the learner becomes a participant as well as a recipient of learning. I'm trying to get my arms around a new concept of instructional design that focuses on setting up conditions for learning, not just content transfer.

By the way, I choke on the term pedagogy because this applies to learning throughout life, not just children.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mark Oehlert on February 15, 2009 at 8:56pm

First - hi all!
Second (jumping right in here) I don't really want to start splitting hairs but IMHO we've really done a disservice to this debate by using phrases like e-learning, formal learning and informal learning. What we've REALLY been talking about is instruction - formal, informal and technologically-mediated. I think this kind of focus has not only hampered us in terms of ROI discussions but also in terms of keeping the focus on US and not on the LEARNERS. You want a REALLY different conference? Really want some engaged speakers? Invite all the people forced to take e-learning/compliance courses. Listen to them.
Third, I think Eric asks a great question - the primary question really - what will be the ongoing relationship between F2F and online conferences? I've got a story here so bear with me - there's a point - I belong to a fraternity. Joined in college, chapter officer, then national officer then worked for the HQ - very into it. The one thing that I became convinced of over about 90 campuses and 15+ years of leadership involvement was that fraternities real problem began when they started buying houses. Then they started having to worry about filling the house. Having enough members and so on. This allowed the quality of men invited to join to slip and so on. One of the issues with conferences is that they are businesses. This means that certain things that may be in the attendees' best interest may not be commercially viable for the conference organizer to provide. I don't know how to get past this but it is a reality we should acknowledge.

I do think one REALLY interesting model is TED. Monsterously expensive to go - if you can even get invited - but they push more content from that closed little world to the rest of the world than just about any other conference I know. Check out their iPhone app. Amazing.

I guess that good for a first post! :-)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nigel Paine on February 15, 2009 at 10:47pm

Yes! The profile of informal learning needs to rise as well. Because educators are trying to apply an inappropriate paradigm, they find it difficult to see the real benefits of informal learning and it becomes 'not quite' formal learning and therefore not quite as 'good'. The paradigm has to incorporate all the other benefits of informal learning like community, search, interpretation, verification and trust which enhance performance and help broadly in building life-long learning skills.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dean Sheetz on February 15, 2009 at 10:49pm

Hi Mark,

Good point about the use of the term instruction here, rather than learning. There's one thing I've finally figured out about eduction: only a fraction of the efforts of educators is on learning. A big fraction, but probably not even 50% for the front-lines let alone the back end.

If one of the problems with conferences is their business model, then how can we change the business model? From the practitioner perspective, I think small conferences, locally sponsored by an educational institution, with a focus on improving practice is the way to go. There would be a nominal cost to cover the lunch and coffee breaks, but that's all. No big invited speakers, no need for gurus, just people getting together and helping each other improve practice.

Cheers,
Dean

Mark Oehlert said:

First - hi all!
Second (jumping right in here) I don't really want to start splitting hairs but IMHO we've really done a disservice to this debate by using phrases like e-learning, formal learning and informal learning. What we've REALLY been talking about is instruction - formal, informal and technologically-mediated. I think this kind of focus has not only hampered us in terms of ROI discussions but also in terms of keeping the focus on US and not on the LEARNERS. You want a REALLY different conference? Really want some engaged speakers? Invite all the people forced to take e-learning/compliance courses. Listen to them. Third, I think Eric asks a great question - the primary question really - what will be the ongoing relationship between F2F and online conferences? I've got a story here so bear with me - there's a point - I belong to a fraternity. Joined in college, chapter officer, then national officer then worked for the HQ - very into it. The one thing that I became convinced of over about 90 campuses and 15+ years of leadership involvement was that fraternities real problem began when they started buying houses. Then they started having to worry about filling the house. Having enough members and so on. This allowed the quality of men invited to join to slip and so on. One of the issues with conferences is that they are businesses. This means that certain things that may be in the attendees' best interest may not be commercially viable for the conference organizer to provide. I don't know how to get past this but it is a reality we should acknowledge.
I do think one REALLY interesting model is TED. Monsterously expensive to go - if you can even get invited - but they push more content from that closed little world to the rest of the world than just about any other conference I know. Check out their iPhone app. Amazing.

I guess that good for a first post! :-)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Keith Quinn on February 16, 2009 at 5:26am

I agree totally. I sometimes think the distinction between "formal" and "informal" learning is used by some to create a false hierarchy of learning. The implacation being (of course) that "formal" learning is somehow more worthy and valuable. Given that 80%+ of the learning we do over our lifetime could be classified as "informal", this doesn't quite ring true.

In the current economic climate, and given the ongoing changes in the delivery of learning & development, it seems to me that channels for the delivery of learning which lead to qualifications need to open up their systems to validate all learning (formal or informal) & recognise that it is the learning which is important, not the delivery mechanism.

Dean Sheetz said:

Hi Bronya,

I would ask the question: Is the traditional dichotomy of informal vs. formal learning valid?

I feel that informal and formal describe contexts more than types of learning. I feel strongly that people learn at all times and in all places. Any attempt to classify learning that doesn't acknowledge that, or attempts to give a higher place to one context over another, is misleading and unproductive.

Cheers,
Dean

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Keith Quinn on February 16, 2009 at 5:31am

Following on from Jay's point regarding the move from "push" to "pull" learning, it was suggested at the Learning Technologies Conference in London recently that, in this context, we may need to refocus and redefine the learning & development function - to move away from learning & development professionals as content providers, to a model where learning & development professionals focus on being enablers of learning. This may mean supporting others in developing the skills to learn and providing an infrastructure to support learning.

Jay Cross said:

Bronya, in a word: YES.

Perhaps the biggest shift in learning is from push to pull. This is what occurs as the learner becomes a participant as well as a recipient of learning. I'm trying to get my arms around a new concept of instructional design that focuses on setting up conditions for learning, not just content transfer.

By the way, I choke on the term pedagogy because this applies to learning throughout life, not just children.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bronya Calderón on February 17, 2009 at 1:44pm

Hi Mark,
It seems that there is a need to rethink ‘conference’ in the 21st century, but also make explicit about the kind of conference …academic, sport, business…But, to be able to think a conference as an ‘informal learning environment’ may need a bit of imagination…Just, because we still using only one paradigm, the formal one.

Bronya

Mark Oehlert said:

First - hi all!
Second (jumping right in here) I don't really want to start splitting hairs but IMHO we've really done a disservice to this debate by using phrases like e-learning, formal learning and informal learning. What we've REALLY been talking about is instruction - formal, informal and technologically-mediated. I think this kind of focus has not only hampered us in terms of ROI discussions but also in terms of keeping the focus on US and not on the LEARNERS. You want a REALLY different conference? Really want some engaged speakers? Invite all the people forced to take e-learning/compliance courses. Listen to them.
Third, I think Eric asks a great question - the primary question really - what will be the ongoing relationship between F2F and online conferences? I've got a story here so bear with me - there's a point - I belong to a fraternity. Joined in college, chapter officer, then national officer then worked for the HQ - very into it. The one thing that I became convinced of over about 90 campuses and 15+ years of leadership involvement was that fraternities real problem began when they started buying houses. Then they started having to worry about filling the house. Having enough members and so on. This allowed the quality of men invited to join to slip and so on. One of the issues with conferences is that they are businesses. This means that certain things that may be in the attendees' best interest may not be commercially viable for the conference organizer to provide. I don't know how to get past this but it is a reality we should acknowledge.

I do think one REALLY interesting model is TED. Monsterously expensive to go - if you can even get invited - but they push more content from that closed little world to the rest of the world than just about any other conference I know. Check out their iPhone app. Amazing.

I guess that good for a first post! :-)

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page