Transcending the Walls of the Classroom

The power of informal learning has been overlooked for a long time by yester-years educators who are eager to teach and turn students into information databases. Like Winston Churchill said, “Personally, I am always ready to learn, but I do not always like being taught.” This essay will research the importance of informal learning and bring to readers attention about the misleading term “knowledge management” instead of information management. I am a champion of informal learning, which is in line with the constructivism theorem, and the fact that knowledge can be constructed internally depending on individual experiences. Rossett and Hoffman (2007, p. 167) provide the characteristics of informal learning: authentic, happening beyond the control of facilitators, outside the limits of the classroom, or training facilities. Education has evolved over the years from being an institution that would bring a certain degree of social leveling, social justice, and social cohesion (Borg & Mayo, 2006). Today, we are dealing with schools and educational institution’s ability to empower, democratize knowledge, and create a genuinely “meritocratic” society.

Informal learning supports the notion of lifelong learning as it underlines the aspects of learning and pedagogy that occur outside the domains of formal learning institutions. Sociological interpretations refute the structural-functionalist view of schooling; this is due to the emergence of various schools of thought (Gumport, 2007). The homogenization of learning is one of the tragedies created by traditional educators over the years, which is flawed and not inline with reality. I believe informal learning is a bridge to knowledge construction and acquirement. Education goal is to empower and improve the mobility of human capital, not to build moving silos of information. For institutions to successfully empower learners should “create bridges and articulate between various learning pathways” to avoid the possibility of giving learners passes instead of empowering them with applicable skills and help them construct knowledge. The application “taylor-made” learning approach for learners in their own environment is long overdue. The rise of bureaucratic principles and values paved a way for formal education, instead of transformational and entrepreneurial type of education.

The growing of various schools of thoughts promotes “threaded discourse” which encourages reflection. I concur with Brown and Campione (1996) that discourse is central to knowledge advancement. Also the availability of Internet enables learners to conduct their own research in pursuit of their own inquiries. The only concern with the Internet is when authors start referring to information as knowledge. I have a lot of reservation on Rosenberg (2007) referring to information management system as knowledge management system, or interchange the two. Turban et al. (2002) define knowledge as “the understanding, awareness, or familiarity acquired through education or experience.” My concern is how do you manage knowledge, when in my world knowledge construction is a “reflective process that is fundamentally dialogic” (Bereiter, 2008). Let me just congratulate our transformative professor for introducing a democratic environment where students enter into learning contracts, which means students are taking charge of their learning or advancement of their personal knowledge and the classroom community. Brown and Campione (1996) describe the turning over to students’ part of their educational process as metacognitive.
Hannum and McCombs (2008) from the learner-centered psychological principles (LCPs), “ they understand learning and motivation as natural processes that occur when conditions and context of learning are supportive of individual learner needs, capacities, experience and interests.” During the informal learning boundaries are limited only by imagination and need for access to expertise. Normal experts have specific knowledge and experience in an area. The notion of managing knowledge using management systems is far from being realistic in capturing knowledge. The knowledge acquired by experts is through experience and is situational, thus in my understanding it is not feasible to manage knowledge, but information and data can be managed for later use. There has been a lot development of expert system to mimic human experts, but they are still based on the experience of the experts. System cannot construct knowledge but can use information provide in the form of Artificial Intelligence to support its decision-making process. Turban et al. (2002) provide four activities of transferring expertise from an expert to a computer and then to the user: knowledge acquisition, knowledge representation, knowledge inferencing, and knowledge transfer to the user. Again what is acquired is information and skills from experts or documented sources.

The limitations of Expert Systems by Turban et al. (2002):
• Knowledge to be captured is not always readily available
• Expertise is hard to extract from humans
• Expert Systems work only within narrowly defined subject areas such as diagnosing a malfunction in a machines

Even if it was possible to manage knowledge it would still be subjected to perceptual and judgmental biases. The most important thing is to integrate learning and motivational strategies in order to help learners become self-directed learners. As Hannum and McCombs (2008) the key to informal learning is to find strategies that respond to individual differences and diversity of learner needs, abilities, and interests. Technology is key to the informal learning process as it further promotes learners connections and help them build learning communities. The availability of networked, three-dimensional virtual environment has transformed the ability to work in groups on classroom and real-world projects across time and space. Transformational instructional designers would agree that instructional design is moderately structured and heuristic, as learning is non-linear. Kelton (2007) approximated that 200 colleges in the United States and other countries have presence in virtual environments. Even public and private enterprises such Dell, BP, IBM, Intel, NASA, Library of Congress, Microsoft, etc have presence in virtual environments to facilitate meetings, training, and projects design and development work. There are still education administrators and faculty who still do not believe that virtual environments technology have academic relevance.

The exchange and sharing of different experience add value to learners experience and enhances their educational experience, as they become participants in their education. Just like the idea of open-source communities where information and knowledge about different technological advancements is shared. Those who are still novice in the field can be empowered by going through different forums and learning from the shakers and movers in the technology field. The amount of information available for free cannot be purchased, but the effect it has on different communities is unbelievable. The traditional approaches to education are failing to appreciate innovation, peer-to-peer learning, information exchange, and knowledge sharing. Formal education sometimes focuses on meeting key subject standards dictated by state and federal legislation, of which sometimes fails to address students learning needs. Everything is about test scores outcomes instead of making sure learners are prepared for the next curriculum level. There is tangible evidence by the federal government pumping millions of dollars in higher education to empower those underprepared students.

The system should help students find their passion and joy attached to their journey to construct knowledge that will add value to their lives. De Castell & Jenson (2004) acknowledge that learners are increasingly demanding greater accommodation to their learning needs and preferences. But the current formal pedagogy is failing to understand the diversity of learners and their needs for success. Informal learning allow “learners the freedom to be protagonists in an adventure they themselves navigate” (Wilson et al., 2008, p. 40) and “instructors as guide or supportive character in the unfolding narrative of the project, rather than just teacher” (Parrish, in press).

The five elements of expanded scheme for instructional outcomes (Wilson et al., 2008, p. 43):
• Effective instruction – meets the targeted goals of knowledge, skill, and attitude.
• Efficient instruction – does so in a cost-effective and timely way.
• Engaging instruction – challenges learners to respond through meaningful activity.
• Good instruction – leads learner to valued ends while minimizing any negative impacts.
• Transformational instruction – encourages deeply engaging experiences that can potentially transform identities and practices.

The above elements subscribe or almost subscribe to the notion of informal learning, which normal engages learners on a subject and learn from their peers or learning/social communities. Informal learning avoid memory overload and enable students to develop longlife knowledge and skills. Sometimes in my arguments about the adoption of constructivism principles in the classroom a lot of people get lost and I respectful understand, because of their up bringing in an inactive and conservative environment. Before, most educators can fully appreciate the uniqueness of their students transformation will not take place. Wilson et al. (2008) provide readers or researchers with three-paradigm change for FutureMinds Initiative (p. 46):

• Paradigm shift 1: Teaching and learning must be transformed and customized to meet individual learner’s needs.

• Paradigm shift 2: The school system’s social infrastructure must be transformed from a command-and-control organization design to a participatory organization design.
• Paradigm shift 3: Transform the isolative relationship of school system from its systematic environment to collaborative and proactive one.

In conclusion informal learning should be recognized because of its ability to bring like minds or people who share same interest to further research, exchange and share information on the subject of their interest. Learning has evolved, but outdated teaching methods are still in place to detach learners from the reality.




Reference:

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of
innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovation in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

De Castell, S. & Jenson, J. (2004). Paying attention to attention: New economies for
learning. Educational Theory, 54(4), 382-397

Gumport, P. J. (2007). Sociology of Higher Education: An Evolving Field. In P. J.
Gumport (Ed.), Sociology of Higher Education (pp. 17-52). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Hannum, W. H. & McCombs, B. L. (2008). Enhancing distance learning for today’s
youth with learner-centered principles. Educational Technology 48(3) May-June

Kelton, A. J. (2007). Second Life: Reaching into the virtual world for real-world learning.
ECAR Research Bulletin. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ecar_so/erb/ERB0717.pdf

Parrish, P. (in press). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational
Technology Research and Development.

Rosenberg, M. J. (2007). Knowledge Management and Learning: Perfect Together. In R.
A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp. 156-165). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Rossett, A. & Robert, H. (2007). Informal Learning. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey
(Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (pp. 166-172). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2008). Pedagogical Biases in Educational Technologies.
Educational Technology: the Magazine for Managers of Change in Education, 48(3), 3-11.

Turban, E., McLean, E., & Wetherbe, J. (2002). Information Technology for
Management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Wilson, B. G., Parrish P., & Veletsianos, G. (2008). Raising the Bar for Instructional
Outcomes: Toward transformative learning experiences. Educational Technology: the Magazine for Managers of Change in Education, 48(3), 39-44.