Formal Systematic Learning Is of Less Importance than Informal Learning - Research Paper Example

Introduction Learning – “one of the most outstanding human characteristics” (The Learning Process 2003) – is an activity intrinsic to man, as man is given the power to think, to rationalise, to create and re-create, to build, to theorise, etc. Having been a natural part of man’s growth and development, learning comes to man without realising that indeed he/she is actually learning, especially so that traditionally, learning is equated with schooling. However, as man becomes more and more in control with his/her environment learning has become more indispensable. And, “as learning becomes increasingly central to our work and lives, an array of templates, methods, blends, objects, and knowledge repositories have been created to facilitate wider distribution of information” (Forman 2003, p. 39), which has resulted to the emergence of energy and creativity outside schools (Sterling 2008, cited in Bull et al. 2008, p. 102). This phenomenon has not only developed in the users the aptitude to access and enjoy the wonders of ‘social media’, but most importantly it has empowered the users “to create, produce, publish, and maintain it in real time” (Bull et al. 2008, p. 100). Accordingly, with the rapid progress of Information Technology, learning is now evidently taking place anywhere at any time (Ramey-Gassert 1997; Bentley 1998, cited in Chen, Millard, & Wills 2008, p. 339), as it happens during leisure time, as it happens in the workplace, in the home (Halliday-Wynes & Beddie 2009, p. 2), defying the traditional classroom-based learning. These developments have subjected the understanding of learning to a different perspective other than the traditional view. So before going into finding out why is formal systematic learning less important than informal learning, it would be wise to define first what learning is. Is it a product or a process? Is it always intentional or could it also be accidental? A good look at some learning theories would help us be illuminated on this matter. Learning In the ‘60s and ‘70s, learning is generally defined as a change in behaviour, approaching learning as the recognisable or perceived end product or outcome of a process. Such approach has virtually emphasised an essential aspect of learning, which is change. However, not all behavioural change as the end product of experience entails learning. For example, conditioning may result to change simply due to conditioned reflexes and not of new knowledge drawn upon experience. (Smith 1999) Not necessarily contradicting this definition, instead bringing it to a higher plane, Ramsden (1992, p. 4) focused his attention not in overt changes but more in changes by which people “understand, or experience, or conceptualize the world around them.” Meaning to say, “... students who conceive of learning as understanding reality are also able to see it as increasing their knowledge” (Ramsden 1992, p. 27). Thus, learning is seen not simply as an end product, but more so as “a process by which behaviour changes as a result of experience” (Maples and Webster 1980, cited in Merriam and Caffarella 1991, p. 124). From these two views it could be construed that learning is going through two hierarchical stages, which could be described according to what Ryle (1949, cited in Smith 1999) termed as ‘knowing that’ and ‘knowing how’, with the first term to define the first stage highlighting learning as an end product – learning is something external to the learner, and the second term to define the higher stage perceiving learning more as a process – learning is something internal and personal to the learner. Related to this, levels of learning (see illustration # 1 below) may also be classified progressively with rote learning as the lowest level – being able to repeat something without necessarily comprehending it, while the higher levels as understanding what has been taught or instructed, attaining the competence for application of knowledge learned, and correlation of currently acquired knowledge with other matters learned earlier or later. (The Learning Process 2003) A deeper insight to learning that centres on the well-being and transformation of the individual learner, believing that “there is, in the person, an ability to actualize the self, which, if freed, will result in the person solving his or her own problems” (Zimring 1994, p. 411) is emphatically expressed by Carl Rogers (1983, 18-19) in his book Freedom to learn for the 80s accentuating the process of knowledge search. I want to talk about learning. But not the lifeless, sterile, futile, quickly forgotten stuff that is crammed in to the mind of the poor helpless individual tied into his seat by ironclad bonds of conformity! I am talking about LEARNING - the insatiable curiosity that drives the adolescent boy to absorb everything he can see or hear or read about gasoline engines in order to improve the efficiency and speed of his 'cruiser'. I am talking about the student who says, "I am discovering, drawing in from the outside, and making that which is drawn in a real part of me." I am talking about any learning in which the experience of the learner progresses along this line: "No, no, that's not what I want"; "Wait! This is closer to what I am interested in, what I need"; "Ah, here it is! Now I'm grasping and comprehending what I need and what I want to know!" Thus, learning could be well-understood based on its three domains known as the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor, which could be better understood in its current formulation as follows: Remembering: Retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge from long-term memory. Understanding: Constructing meaning from oral, written, and graphic messages through interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, and explaining. Applying: Carrying out or using a procedure through executing, or implementing. Analyzing: Breaking material into constituent parts, determining how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose through differentiating, organizing, and attributing. Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria and standards through checking and critiquing. Creating: Putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure through generating, planning, or producing. (Anderson & Krathwohl 2001, cited in Forehand 2005) However, another significant query as to the extent of people’s awareness on their engagement in learning arises, bringing to fore the confusing notion of informal learning (Smith 2005), which today has earned wide interest especially in Human Resource Development and Performance Management, as “informal learning accounts for over 75% of the learning taking place in organizations today” (Conner 1997-2009). As to whether learning is intentional or accidental, Rogers (2003) offered two different yet complementing ways by which to identify learning: (1) ‘task conscious or acquisition learning’, and (2) ‘learning-conscious or formalised learning’. The first one, also referred to as ‘unconscious or implicit learning’ (Rogers 2003, p. 21) or more popularly, informal learning is “concrete, immediate and confined to a specific activity; it is not concerned with general principles” (Rogers 2003: 18). As it is “learning resulting from daily life activities related to work, family, or leisure” (Colardyn & Bjornavold 2004, p. 71) such as bearing a child, planting rice, parenting, managing a home, etc., it is also often referred to as experiential learning and sometimes incidental learning. In contrast, the second one, better known as formal learning, is conscious and explicit as it is organised and systematically guided. “Learning itself is the task. What formalized learning does is to make learning more conscious in order to enhance it” (Rogers 2003, p. 27). Formal learning such as “formal schooling, in-company training... is intentional from the learner’s perspective” (Colardyn & Bjornavold 2004, p. 71). Between the two, formal learning traditionally takes the centre stage, thus, regarded as of higher importance, especially in finding employment. In fact, the higher educational attainment one earns, the higher is his/her chance to be employed. However, with the development of the “knowledge-based economy, new technologies, the growing speed of technological changes and globalisation... the need to improve the population’s skills and competences” (European Commission, 2002; OECD, 2001, cited in Colardyn & Bjornavold 2004, p. 69) has become imperative, suddenly making informal learning a subject of a number of researchers and policy pundits (Informal Learning and Non-formal Learning 2003), as more and more employees specifically adult employees gain skills required by the current technology through informal learning. Moreover, informal learning is now seen more important than formal learning. Why this is so would be best understood by comparing and contrasting formal systematic learning with informal learning focusing more on their advantages and disadvantages. Informal Learning vs. Formal Systematic Learning In his book, Educating the Reflective Practitioner, Donald Schön (1987, p. 3) reflectively provided us with a very good metaphor to compare and contrast formal systematic learning and informal learning with the swamp and the high ground, wherein formal systematic learning is symbolised by the high ground, while informal learning by the swamp: On the high ground, manageable problems lend themselves to solution through the application of research-based theory and technique. In the swampy lowland, messy, confusing problems defy technical solution. The irony of this situation is that the problems of the high ground tend to be relatively unimportant to individuals or society at large, however great their technical interest may be, while in the swamp lie the problems of greatest human concern. The practitioner must choose. (1987 p. 3) Schön’s metaphor, expresses two points of comparison as to how each deals with life’s problems. First, on the contrasting methods each apply in solving problems, wherein formal systematic learning approaches problems according to research-based theory and techniques, while informal learning simply utilises common sense practical solutions learned from previous related experiences. “Common sense is a powerful force. It provides a framework for the way things ought to be” (Forman 2003, p. 39). Second, on the differentiated importance each contribute to life’s problems, indicating that informal learning is dealing more with more relevant life problems which are of higher importance to man’s well-being. Such, analogy also illustrates the irony of learning: that formal systematic learning, which deals with highly technical knowledge requiring so much attention, academic excellence and discipline is in fact only tackles the surface of life’s problems, unlike informal learning which appears so simple and natural is actually dealing with the essence of life. Usher’s (1993, p. 169) vivid description of informal learning goes as follows: Once we start analyzing something, once we start making something the object of our investigations, we do so within and through a discourse. It gives us a vocabulary, a set of concepts and pre-understandings, a motivating focus and direction of our investigations – above all a disciplined and systematic way of ‘talking about’. For a clear cut definition o the two terms let us adopt Conner’s (1997-2009): “Formal learning includes the hierarchically structured school system that runs from primary school through the university and organized school-like programs created in business for technical and professional training.” On the other hand, “informal learning describes a lifelong process whereby individuals acquire attitudes, values, skills and knowledge from daily experience and the educational influences and resources in his or her environment.” Informal learning’s environment is wide –ranged as it may come “from family and neighbours, from work and play, from the market place, the library and the mass media” (Conner 1997-2009). Advantages of Informal Learning Since “knowledge is power” (Bacon cited in Dancer, 2006, p. 1530), its accessibility therefore is very important, especially so that knowledge is commonly regarded as a powerful tool to equalise opportunities in life, while organisationally, this could mean success as “employees and partners with more capacity to learn are more versatile in adapting to future conditions” (Cross 2003). In this context, that the first advantage of informal learning can be viewed, with informal learning’s wide-ranged environment, learning can practically occur anywhere, anytime (Pesanelli 1990, p. 29; Dancer, 2006, p. 1530), making learning far more accessible than in formal systematic learning. Opposite to traditional belief, learning happens mostly through informal processes and not during formal training programs (Conner 1997-2009). “The Business Intelligence Board (CLO, 2007) reports that 58% of the learning occurring in their organizations is informal” (cited in Clark 2007). Furthermore, a three-year study revealed that more workers attribute everything they need to know about their jobs to have been acquired on the job rather than in the classrooms (Carnevale, Gainer & Villet 1990, cited in Clark 2007) thus, showing that not the schools or universities, but “the workplace is the most frequently travelled avenue to education and training” (Carnevale, gainer & Villet 1990, cited in Clark 2007). At work we learn more in the break room than in the classroom. We discover how to do our jobs through informal learning -- observing others, asking the person in the next cubicle, calling the help desk, trial-and-error, and simply working with people in the know. Formal learning - classes and workshops and online events - is the source of only 10% to 20% of what we learn at work. (Cross 2003) Moreover, Carnevale, et. Al (1990) also accounted that “the amount of employer investments in workplace training hovers around $210 billion annually [with] $180 billion [86%]... spent on informal or on-the-job training” (cited in Clark 2007). “Capital Works reported that we learn at work through the following means” (see illustration # 2, cited in Conner 1997-2009), clearly showing the predominance of informal learning with on-the-job experience posting 40% and interaction with co-workers garnering 18% as against formal education’s 5%. As Frank Smith (1992, p. 432) has once said: "We learn from the company that we keep." ( Secondly, “informal learning is more effective because it is personal” (Cross 2003). It is “self-directed and focused and more meaningful as it’s often directly relevant to your job and can be done in bits and pieces as your schedule allows” (Dancer 2006, p. 1530). Besides, as motivation is vital on and is likewise largely determined through the learning process, self-directed learning, which is more a characteristic of informal learning than formal systematic learning, allows the learners to see and realise that " what they are learning makes sense and is important, their intrinsic motivation emerges" (Wlodkowski 1991, p. 1). As it is only but natural to learn from our rich life experiences making large amount of our real skills gained through informal learning (Tsubata 2005, p. B04) only shows the effectiveness of informal learning. Informal learning is a type of education or training program in which learners define what they want to learn, and learning is considered successful when learners feel that they are able to master their intended objectives (whether or not the course designers believe that the learners have demonstrated mastery). It contrasts with formal learning, in which instructional designers set the objectives and assess whether learners have successfully achieved the objectives. (Shawn 2007, p. 1) Furthermore, just like self-direction and motivation, self-efficacy, which is “the perceived belief in one's abilities to organize and execute a learning task” is also an important attribute of lifelong learners (Helterbran 2007, p. 7). Bandura (1997, p. 37) clarifies that “perceived self efficacy is not a measure of the skills one has but a belief about what one can do under different sets of conditions with whatever skills one possesses.” A study among small businesses strongly supports the effectiveness of informal learning. “About two-thirds of owner-managers thought practice, discovering what works, and reviewing what they did, had made very important or critical contributions to helping them do their job better (Informal but Effective Learning 2004, p. 6). Furthermore, it also found out that: Substantial proportions of owner-managers believe more effective learning occurs if it is directed at solving problems for the business; that you can learn a lot from the experience of other small businesses; find that time is the biggest constraint on personal development activities; prefer learning-by-doing; and would do more self-development if activities were 'bite-size'. (Informal but Effective Learning 2004, p. 6) Consequentially, lessons or knowledge gained from informal learning are more lasting (Stamp 1993, p. 263). Reminiscing his own learning with his mother in the fabric shop, Stamp explained stated: My mother taught me some of the most significant lessons of childhood. I know now that those lessons in the fabric shop were not really about sewing at all--they were about life. (Stamp 1993, p. 265) As such, a recent study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported that “significant numbers of young people... had more positive experiences from learning in informal settings compared with learning within the formal setting of school” (Wikeley et al. 2007, cited in Walker 2008, p. 1). Also the findings further show that “learners viewed their informal educators as ‘experts’ who treated them as ‘co-learners’, whereas their formal educators were seen as simply delivering a ’system’” (Wikeley et al. 2007, cited in Walker 2008, p. 1). However, not all problems in life are practical problems that require practical or common sense solutions, which can be provided by informal learning. There are life situations that equally need scientific solutions. For example, in the case of the Columbine High School massacre, police officers have informally benefitted from this fiasco but more on generalities than school security principles as to mass murder and warning signs (Hosen, Solovey-Hosen & Stern 2002, p. 242). Advantages of Formal Systematic Education Formal education is most oftentimes equated with schooling – the primary provider of formal learning that is rigidly structured and bound with so many rules making “formal education... more formal than education itself” (Hosen et al. 2002, p. 236). However, as presented earlier, formal learning is not necessarily school-based, as there are varied formal training being developed and utilised by companies to enhance employees’ performance. Probably, what makes formal learning formal is not much on the location where it is being held but more on the systematic organisation of its content guided by a well-defined objective and the trainer-trainee relationship necessary to achieve desired goals. As such, Hosen et al. (2002, p. 236) suggest that formal education can plausibly function only in two legitimate ways. One is to provide “specific learning relevant to a real world that is necessary to achieve a goal, [which] if successful... [could] reduce uncertainty and error.” Unlike informal learning which is prone to trial and error, as its basic premise is learning from mistakes; formal education on the other hand, raises matters into scientific theory, thereby enabling it to reduce uncertainty and error. Anyway, it is through scientific experimentation to which w e owe the modern technology we are enjoying right now. The other one is “to enlarge the student's portfolio of transferable abilities and generalized attributes which must be kept primed with regular practice. This enhances effective future problem-solving and self-instruction (Hosen et al. 2002, p. 236).” Since informal learning is similarly inadequate to provide all aspects of learning necessary to cope with the fast-changing demands of the modern world, Hosen et al. (2002, p. 236) furthered that... Formal education can be particularly directed to developing causal models in domains in which experiential learning is insufficiently effective. It can transmit specific models in which cues become independent variables and various actions can be shown to have systematic outcomes. It can also enhance facility in using predictive models, in general, to be applied to an individual's choice of content in the future. In addition, looking at the complementary roles of formal and informal learning, Cross (2005) clearly defined it as: Novices learn best through formal learning, for it provides the structure, signposts, and scaffolding a new by lacks. Old hands learn best informally, because they already have foundation knowledge, familiarity, and a framework for understanding. In other words, formal learning is only to provide the necessary tools for us to efficiently explore and exploit everything around us. On the other hand, informal learning provides us life’s challenges by which we are to make use of the tools developed in us by formal learning. Confronted with a wide-range media of learning introduced by modern technology, a ‘hybrid approach’ in the school setting could help bridge the increasing gap between formal systematic learning and informal learning. “While content will always be of primary importance in school, it may possible to engage students in exploration of materials that other students helped create” (Bull et al. 2008, p. 102). For now, formal systematic learning may appear less important than informal learning (Hosen et al. 2002, p. 236) as the traditional way of providing formal learning has yet to reinvent itself in order to be more responsive to the fast-changing demands of the modern world and to be able to integrate the wide-range medium created by modern technology which informal learning has easily maximised. Cross (2003) reported that “formal learning - classes and workshops and online events - is the source of only 10% to 20% of what we learn at work.” Cross (2003) further illustrates the lesser impact formal learning has impact on job (see Illustration 3). The inadequacy of formal systematic learning to provide what the multi-faceted and highly complex modern world today requires – life skills, which is defined by the World Health Organisation as "the abilities for adaptive and positive behaviour that enable individuals to deal effectively with the demands and challenges of everyday life” (cited in Life Skills 2004, p. 7-2) such as problem solving, critical thinking, effective communication skills, decision-making, creative thinking, interpersonal relationship skills, self-awareness building skills, empathy, and coping with stress and emotions (UNICEF, UNESCO & WHO, cited in Life Skills 2004, p. 7-2), is the main reason why it has been dethroned by informal learning. For example, organisations today highly “expect employees to be flexible, adaptable and constantly learning to perform new and changing tasks” (Poell, et al. 2000, cited in Coetzer 2006, p. 143). Another important aspect of today’s generation where formal systematic learning falls short its inability to provide “the multidimensional polychromic (many things at one time) learning environment [that today’s generation demands] instead of a sequentially linear mono-chronic (one thing at a time) learning environment” (Arina 2007, p. 4). The differences of these two learning environments are comparatively illustrated below (See illustration # 4). However, despite its inadequacy, although very essential in the contemporary world, formal systematic learning remains necessary as it still provides valuable element – “the ‘bricks’ for the ‘mortar’ to bind to” (Clark, Donald R. 2007) to further learning and optimise all possible modes of learning. Conclusion Evidently, learning is far wider than schooling, as learning is a lifetime process that takes place anywhere, anytime, thus entailing different ways by which to acquire the necessary knowledge, attitudes, skills, etc. necessary to cope with the increasingly becoming more complex demands of life, specifically of working organisations. This present challenge calls for lifelong learning, which is regarded to be responding to life skills as today’s world requires. In this context, informal learning becomes more important than formal learning because the nature of informal learning blends harmoniously with the wide array of learning venues and tools that current technology offers. More importantly, the practical difficulties that organisations go through today are effectively being bridged by informal learning. Data show the far bigger impact of informal learning on job compared with formal learning. On the other hand, formal learning, which traditionally is highly regarded, is now rendered less important as its very structured nature makes it inflexible to cope with the rapid changes that the present generation goes through. However, this does not mean that formal learning is no longer necessary. Instead, what this new developments bring to fore is the necessity for formal learning to reinvent itself by trying making itself more relevant and responsive to the fast-changing demands of the modern world. Although it may be true that informal learning is more important today, the fact remains that it cannot provide what formal learning can, which in fact is necessary to informal learning. The knowledge and competences individuals acquired through formal education have in fact played a critical role in their professional development (Eraut 1997, cited in Glahn, Specht, & Koper 2008, p. 1). Thus, instead of unnecessarily pitting each other, which both are endowed with complementing roles and functions, because “learning is a continuum from informal natural learning through loosely structured learning experiences to formally structured and designed training” (Gram 2009).  Given the function that formal learning could effectively provide, lack of it could incapacitate the individual to effectively function in an organisation, which is likewise formal. ) On the other hand the essential value of formal learning can only be fully realised if it is utilised leading to the maximisation of informal learning. Therefore, the present challenges that modern organisations today confront emphasise the fact that in order to acquire the functional beliefs and skills that would enable individuals and organisations to promote human progress, the complementary roles and functions of formal and informal learning is indispensable. Reference List Arina-Bolzano, Teemu 2007, Informal Learning and the Role of Emerging Social Technologies, viewed 22 December 2009 Bandura, Albert 1997, Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, Freeman, New York. Bull, Glen, Thompson, Ann, Searson, Mike, Garofalo, Joe, Park, John, Young, Carl, and Lee, John 2008, ‘Connecting Informal and Formal Learning Experiences in the Age of  Participatory Media’, Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, vol. 8, issue 2, pp. 100-107. Chen, Wen-Pin, Millard, David E., and Wills, Gary B. 2008, ‘A Four Dimensional Model of Formal and Informal Learning’, Learning Societies Lab, School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, UK, viewed 22 December 2009 Clark, Donald R. 2007, ‘Formal and Informal Learning’, Big Dog & Little Dog’s Performance Juxtaposition, viewed 22 December 2009 Coetzer, A. J. 2006, ‘Developing Human Capital in Small Firms: A Conceptual Framework for Analysing the Effects of Managers on Employee Learning’, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 143-179. Colardyn, Danielle and Bjornavold, Jens 2004, ‘Validation of Formal, Non-Formal and Informal Learning: policy and practices inEU Member States’, European Journal of Education, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 69-89. Conner, Marcia 1997-2009, Introducing Informal Learning, viewed 22 December 2009 Cross, Jay 2003, ‘Informal Learning – the other 80%’ (DRAFT), Internet Time Group, Berkeley, California, viewed 26 December 2009 Read More