There's no such thing as formal learning. There, I've said it. I feel much better now. I hope you do too.
In the 18th century our best scientists toiled away in an attempt to determine the essence of phlogiston - the substance which allowed things to burn. Turns out, phlogiston never existed; but once you've given something a name it's easy to think that the name must actually correspond to something. And so it is with formal learning.
I thought I would point this out, because I keep finding myself in 70:20:10 conversations, and I think that if we are going to start being a little more honest about learning then we might as well go the whole way.
The thrust of 70:20:10 is that almost all of the learning taking place in your organisation is already informal - stemming from everyday challenges, peers & mentors, and stories. Formal learning (whether e-learning or classroom courses) plays a very small role.
But we're just kidding ourselves: people click through e-learning as quickly as they can, engaging in 'token learning' where they are required to pass a quiz; and recall next to nothing of classroom content. In their feedback they tell us that they value the 'networking opportunity' - which as it turns out is informal learning. But we ignore this and press on with the PowerPoint slides (because it gives an impression that resembles our experience at school). Roger Schank made a similar point many years ago: that at such events the real learning happens at the bar when people swap stories. So f2f events are a good thing - just not for the reasons we had in mind. Workshops are also good - when they present people with real challenges. And online learning can be good when it is performance support - helping people address the challenges they face I.e. in a 'just in time' fashion, or indeed where it is challenging. All of these are 'informal'.
The archetypal case of formal learning - school - fares no better. Students sit wearily through lessons in which they often do little more than take notes. Why do they take notes? Because they know they will need to learn in preparation for an exam. What is cramming? Informal learning (see my previous post for more on this).
So it turns out that not only is almost all learning 'informal learning' but that the formal learning turns out to be informal learning on closer inspection. So can we just drop the pretence and talk about 'learning'? This would be helpful, since the Victorian educational conventions are crumbling around us, courtesy of Google. For sure, anyone can engineer a 'formal learning experience' simply by placing a test at the end of exposure to information - that is, by creating a challenge. But unless the challenge relates to the real context, then we are kidding ourselves that learning has taken place, or indeed that the mechanism is formal just because we are in a classroom. Over the years I have discovered that it is really very easy to identify learning experiences, and there are only two classes: those where a real challenge is presented, and those which address a real challenge (what counts as a 'real challenge' is the question).
I suppose one might object that '70:20:10' was never about different kinds of learning, only a description of where it occurs. But in an 'always on, anywhere-anytime' world this seems an empty observation.
My point, I suppose, is that if you have a good understanding of how learning works, you don't have to fabricate mythical species of learning to explain what you see. There is just learning, and the way in which it happens in various contexts. The more you think about it, the sillier it seems - that we should categorise learning based on the convention in which it occurs. The same mechanism is at work, whatever the context.
There is no such thing as formal learning. Don't mourn its passing - it never existed.
While I understand the sentiment of what you are saying Nick, I don't see any problem in labelling one of the contexts in which learning takes place as formal, i.e. in the context of a course. And are you really suggesting that no learning takes place as a result of the formal element of a course, but only from the opportunities it provides for networking? I am misunderstanding you?
ReplyDeleteI think it's an unhelpful and meaningless distinction - and that technology further exposes that. For example I can picture a context traditionally thought of as 'formal' - say a group of people together in a room - which can either result in learning or not, depending on what is done. A closer inspection of the situation reveals that the decisive factors - e.g. whether people are learning from peers, whether they are tackling job-related challenges or hearing about critical incidents or stories from respected leaders - reveals processes more traditionally thought of as 'informal'. So 'informal' learning seems to lie at the heart of the effectiveness of 'formal' learning (e.g. tests make school work). I would suggest that what is really going on is that learning is either happening or not (whatever the context) and if we focused on the mechanics of learning we would make progress in all contexts.
ReplyDeleteFormal and informal are odd pre-modifier for a verb (learning) that imposes external controls (or the absence of them) are primary factors in the process. We don't use formal and informal where I work... so, that's nice. We still see abuse of the "learn verb" as well as confusion and conflation with things that don't have much to do with learning at all.
ReplyDeleteThere are some useful definitions around modality, particularly when these modalities can be connected with costs and benefit measures. I like a few of these modal definitions. In my org, it breaks down like this:
- Depot: This is where we ship people to training or ship trainers to people. It's funded with some known costs around delivery, housing, and travel.
- Operational: This is unit level training. This takes on quite a few forms from OJT, SOJT, to drills and rehearsal.
- Individual (Work Role): These are things the individual takes on related to building basic proficiency in a new performance area or increasing proficiency. The organization still has a role here, providing resources, policy, encouragement, and supervision (when necessary).
- Individual (External): There is quite a bit of "extracurricular" activity in the organization with folks pursuing degrees unrelated to position, engaging in training and social activities (Physical activities like Judo and swimming as well as other community events with a proficiency development bent) both with co-workers as well as with others in the community.
Our current executive is really clear about his proficiency development model. He defines 5 things we can do together. The first two are the organization's commitment to the teammate, the last three are the individual's responsibility:
1. Training, education, qualification, and certification opportunities (the seeds of proficiency)
2. Opportunities for seasoning and experience (operational practice)
3. Self-discipline and voluntary adherence to rules and values (we're a military organization -- some conformance is expected)
4. Sustained drive to achieve higher levels of excellence.
5. Continuous pursuit of mastery of craft
I like these expectations because it casts learning (the biological process) as an *us* and *we* thing and not as a *me* thing (services I provide to make you learn) and a *you* thing (your exposure to my services).
Learning at school is considered "formal" because it is under stricter control than non-formal and informal learning. These are the definitions that most commonly show up in the literature for different formalities of learning.
ReplyDeleteFormal: within formal educational system
Non-formal: outside formal system, but directed
Informal: unplanned and unstructured
I agree that people learn informally while in the formal system; however, since they are in the formal system the receive the "benefits" of it as represented by "credit" for learning the content. The real differentiation is that informal and non-formal education do not result in official recognition of the learning.
I wrote a post on it a while ago that includes citations. http://jgthornburgh.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/learning-by-any-other-name/
Thanks jgthornburgh. I think you have made my point for me. I picture 'formal thinking' thus: a room with a sign on it saying 'formal thinkers only'; gathered within a circle of gents with fists pressed to forehead while a stern-looking fellow supervises their activity and later distributes certificates.
ReplyDeleteI agree 100% with your reasoning, Nick. However sometimes it's very useful to have a common terminology that helps our thinking and communication. Most domains use some form of nomenclature because it's almost impossible to operate without a common language.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I certainly agree with you that 'formal' and 'informal' are poor descriptors and should be abandoned. Borrowed from other uses, they don't sit comfortably in our sphere. 'Informal' for instance isn't haphazard when practised well - and can contain greater rigour than its 'formal' counterpart at times (if I can use those terms just for a moment :-)).'Formal' is used as a catch-all for anything that has a modicum of structure about it and, as you point out, is often an amalgam of both 'informal' and 'formal'.
In terms of nomenclature I prefer to use the term 'directed' rather than 'formal' as what we're usually referring to are activities that are directed by someone else as opposed to self-directed activities that fall more comfortably into the so-called 'informal' bucket.
As you know, I work with the 70:20:10 framework approach with a lot of organisations. That's another misunderstood set of concepts where terminology is often abused. I don't like the '10% Formal' description in there. In fact I now tend to refer to the model as one to support and facilitate 'EXPERIENCE:EXPOSURE:EDUCATION' followed immediately by the coda that, of course, they are all interlinked to a greater or lesser extent at times, and that if you want to argue about the numbers you clearly don't 'get it'. The numbers are just a shorthand.
If we're going to get into semantics - and it seems we already are knee-deep - I would challenge the use of the term 'learning' even more than the use of 'formal'. If it doesn't involve behaviour change then it shouldn't be called 'learning'. Short-term knowledge retention isn't learning I'm afraid (of course you're the last one I'd try to tell that. I'm sure you know more than me, but many don't). If a learning professional can't demonstrate that any activities they design or support ('informal' or not) result in those involved behaving differently (hopefully better/more proficiently/more productively) then they don't have the right to claim they are learning professionals :)
Charles
Thanks Charles. I certainly prefer the 'experience;exposure;education', support & facilitate model that you suggest.
ReplyDeleteIs it odd that we can't agree on what we mean by learning? Are we happy to be in an undefined profession? You put such questions in the 'semantics' box because, like me, you're shy about raising these deeper philosophical questions (and instead place the emphasis on 'delivery') because we sense the eyes of the business on us. But here's a question: if a catchy tune sticks in my head but I never sing it, have I learned it? Your definition says no. Apparently this is what happens on courses - people learn things but fail to apply them.
And could we change behaviors without the need for (structured) learning at all? Perhaps the only way to change behaviors is to change behaviors. The neuroscience points this way, after all.
I think we're agreed though: the terminology may once have been a useful shorthand for a set of conventions, but now probably not. I would hope, though, that rather than substituting a new terminology we dig a little deeper. Uncomfortable as that may be ;o)
Relevant question and interesting debate, Nick et al.
ReplyDeleteWhile it seems both philosophically and practically impossible to verify whether a concept of 'learning' actually exists (how would you actually prove it?) it does make sense for organisations and business to have definitions that non-learning-pro's (=normal employees) can relate to. Using notions such as 70-20-10 or the like seems a practical way to at least define the boundaries of what we are talking about - and move people from the 'learning equals attending a course/e-learning' towards 'learning takes place in multiple shapes and fora'.
Perhaps it would make more sense to talk of vehicles or stages of learning. I.e. that formal or informal learning are not seen in isolation, but are both way towards achieving new knowledge (learning something). Such as reading a manual as part of learning how to fix your bike. First step towards attaining this new knowledge is reading the manual, second step is testing out your knew knowledge by attempting to fix it. And so on...
I guess this is what was already said in above. My point is just that from an application and communication perspective, there is still some merit in using terms such as formal vs informal ways of learning. While they may not be 100% accurate, they hold tremendous value as they help us communicate with our customers.
Looking through the comments above, I would summarise my reaction as follows:
ReplyDeleteWe had a set of conventions around learning which we dubbed ‘formal learning’. But we fooled ourselves that these were learning interventions. Actually they were worse than average as learning experiences go: kids learned more in the playgrounds than in class and our corporate customers get more from the coffee breaks than the powerpoints. I’m not saying there is no enjoyment to be had in these sessions (for such reasons people dislike elearning more than classroom even though the former has been shown to be marginally more effective as a learning experience). Also, I accept that these conventions may be widely understood by our clients – I just feel a bit of a charlatan if I am selling something that doesn’t work, just because I can.
It would be silly to say categorically that nothing is learned in formal learning sessions: people are flexible and can find ways to learn in almost any situation. But I don’t generally go to a parking lot to eat.