I was saddened this evening when I found that a learning expert who I admire a great deal decided to no longer follow me on Twitter. This was after a discussion concerning the merits of informal learning. In my previous blog at Design of Knowledge, I was very critical of informal learning and especially of Jay Cross’ concept of informal learning. I did a five-day series criticizing his book and followed up with periodic responses to his postings.
Now, I don’t dispute that informal learning has some value but I questioned the lack of a good definition of informal learning (other than it wasn’t anything you didn’t like about lectures) and the lack of research. I cited studies that showed that informal learning could actually cost more than formal learning, that blended learning is much more effective than either informal learning or formal learning alone, and that the benefits of informal learning are very hard to measure. I also brought up the possibility that informal learning can lead to excluding others and lead to groupthink.
I did this in the spirit of good, vigorous debate that I thought that the learning community would welcome. That didn’t happen. Instead responding directly to my questions and concerns, I was told that I was trolling for Google juice and received an angry email from Cross himself (understandable because in a fit of hyperbole, I referred to one of his postings as bullsh*t). Some were supportive of my observations but it was clear that I was a minority voice in the path of an ever-expanding bandwagon.
This experience has been quite fascinating. In my second job, I teach at two universities and have taught for the last ten years. In that time, I have seen the scholarship of teaching and learning grow as universities realize that straight lecturing doesn’t work anymore and that professors have to use social networking in their teaching. I have also become greatly interested in neuroscience and how it affects human communication. There is a lot of fascinating research out there that can revolutionize learning and training. But, except for the notable exception of Ruth Colvin Clark, training does not seem to have incorporated this new research.
For example, Michael Hanley has written some great posts that explores the history of informal learning and its implications. Great stuff but only one comment on one post. I especially like this observation:
“Now, informal learning seems to have emerged as the shiny new toy. It fits so well with social networking, Web 2.0, and asynchronous media delivery platforms. It’s primary value seems to be as a “money-saving strategy” (i.e. cheap), rather than for its effectiveness as a learning modality – and undertaken correctly it is a very effective approach to workplace learning.
But it’s is not this year’s novelty. Just like The Watchmen, it has been around for much longer than you may suspect. But you would not know it’s there if you googled Informal Learning; the domain characterized as “informal learning” by Bersin & Associates (and other organizations) is more correctly called Non-Formal Learning. What’s more, there is a solid body of research on the topic going back over forty years. In this context, reviewing the current crop of articles on informal learning is akin to watching people actually trying to reinvent the wheel.”
So, there are two responses to this. I can either continue to question informal learning, point out the lack of research that supports the overhyped claims, and insist on a definition. Apparently this leads to one being viewed as some kind of clueless crank. Or I can lay low, wait until this trend runs its eventual course, and continue to quietly work on my research in mental-model based teaching and learning.
I prefer the latter. It’s no fun being run over by a bandwagon.