Re: evaluating the informal

Sara Hill (sara.l.hill who-is-at vanderbilt.edu)
Thu, 21 Jan 1999 10:19:03 -0500

Dear Nate & Eugene:
I think that the Lave & Wenger (1991) critique of the dichotomy between
formal and informal learning is important to remember -- to paraphrase,
learning is always an outcome of participation in social practices,
whether one achieves an intended outcome of instruction or not is
another thing entirely. I'm glad Eugene pointed it out. I think when we
look across activities and contexts (such as between schools and
community centers) we see different ways that learning is organized
(and, least we forget, ways learning is "truncated"). In-depth studies
of social institutions have been extremely helpful when looking across
institutions -- this has certainly true of studies of families
child-rearing and language development practices (such as the work of
Cazden, Snow, Bruner, etc.) which have informed the notion of
instructional scaffolding. I also really like the work of M.
Harness-Goodwin, who looked at how girls talked across activities (such
as between games of jump rope and playing house) when they were hanging
out in their neighborhood after school. This long-term observational
study challenged the notion that there is a distinct difference between
the ways boys and girls talk by observing them across activities. There
really isn't, as far as I can tell, any study which has looked at
learning in community organizations in any in-depth and descriptive way
which may help with cross-institutional comparisons. It's something
that has occupied me a great deal at the moment. Certainly in the realm
of community based organizations (where I've worked for fifteen years),
it seems entirely premature to desire a measure of effectiveness if we
don't even have a language to describe activities or suggest a theory of
learning. Unfortunately at times I act like a bull charging at the red
flags of measures of effectiveness, because my state, which funds many
of these community institutions, is now requiring what is called
"outcome-based evaluation." That is, the state is very worried that
they're getting a bang for their buck, and have selected what is the
epitome of a positivist tool to make sure they do. This new requirement
is starting to make things more difficult for practitioners in community
based organizations, many of whom do great jobs with young people in
very trying circumstances, and now have to incorporate another demand
that probably won't help them do their work any better.
Sara

nate wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eugene Matusov <ematusov who-is-at udel.edu>
> To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 3:45 PM
> Subject: RE: evaluating the informal
>
> >Hi Kevin, Judy, David and everybody--
> >
> >I think all learning is essentially "informal" in a sense, as
> Jane Lave
> >argues, that learning is an aspect of any activity. It always
> involves
> >learner's social history. A student who is bored by a lesson
> learns how to
> >"kill time" without attracting much attention. Thus, "formal
> learning" is a
> >specially organized "informal learning."
> >
> >What do you think?
>
> I guess I view informal as having a natural tension between
> cultural, community, family goals and individual ones. Maybe
> the dialectic of invention / convention would be a good way to
> look at it. The type of learning enviroments that occur in
> family or a community center environment. I see the force issue
> coming into play in compulsary education because the invention/
> convention tension is often destroyed. If in a family /
> community setting I am trying to impart cultural knowledge there
> is a natural tension I must respect - making the activity
> interesting enough. If not the child will leave the activity
> setting, and have that option if its informal. Maybe the
> distiction I see is not formal - informal, but community -
> school learning environment.
>
> Nate
>
> >
> >Eugene
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu [mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu]
> >> Sent: Monday, January 18, 1999 2:39 PM
> >> To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
> >> Subject: Re: evaluating the informal
> >>
> >>
> >> diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu on 01/16/99 01:26:28 PM
> >> To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu@internet
> >> cc:
> >> Subject: Re: evaluating the informal
> >>
> >> I'll try my hand at that, Kevin. In "formal" learning,
> systematicity
> >> is accomplished in terms of the perspective of a teacher or
> more
> >> capable other,
> >> whose reference is a conceptually consistent history of
> ideas.
> >> In "informal" learning, the systematicity is accomplished
> within the
> >> learner's social history -- that is, that which is learned is
> consistent
> >> with the learner's lived experience.
> >>
> >> So actually, both kinds of learning co-occur, but settings,
> >> institutional arrangements are designed to effect formality
> >> or not.
> >>
> >> whaddayall think?
> >>
> >> Judy.
> >>
> ______________________________________________________________
> >>
> >> Judy,
> >> Your thinking on this resonates with my own.
> >>
> >> I regard constructivism as providing a basis for theorizing
> >> about formal learning in that it elaborates students'
> conceptual
> >> structures vis a vis mature competency. Such theorizing
> enables
> >> the teacher to develop specific plans for bringing the
> student
> >> along a "hypothetical learning trajectory" (Simon, 1995).
> >>
> >> Sociocultural constructs such as Leont'ev's notion of
> appropriation
> >> more often describe inadvertant learning ...how people
> develop
> >> through mismatches in conceptual orientation. Of course,
> >> constructivists never quite get it right (and in fact, many
> of
> >> them recognize the impossibility of getting it right). So
> even
> >> in good formal instruction some degree of appropriation is
> >> needed on the part of the student. But if the theories of the
> >> constructivist-oriented teacher are "viable" the teacher will
> >> be able to construe her or his intervention as successful. If
> >> not, it's back to the drawing board to develop a better
> >> conceptual model and/or a better intervention from which to
> >> construct a better hypothetical learning trajectory. To teach
> >> formally means to teach for advertant learning along the
> lines
> >> sketched above.
> >>
> >> Switching to the student's perspective, the clarity of the
> >> teacher's presumptions about students' learning gives way
> >> to a good deal of murkiness. Generally speaking, the student
> >> is not in a position to judge, or even to know about, the
> >> teacher's interpretations of what should transpire in some
> >> learning activity. Indeed, there is no qualitative difference
> >> in the learning that happens to follow the teacher's
> >> intentions and that which happens inadvertantly through
> >> appropriation. Constructivist analysts interested in
> contributing
> >> to the teacher's efficacy tend not to see the inadvertant
> learning
> >> resulting from appropriation. Sociocultural analysts may be
> >> less attuned to the detailed cognitive models underlying
> >> an instructional approach, and more attuned to the full
> >> spectrum of the students' engagement in the learning
> activity.
> >> But learning does sometimes tend towards the plans of the
> >> teacher. For such occasions, my preference is to substitute
> the
> >> dichotomy advertant/inadvertant in place of the more familiar
> >> formal/informal.
> >>
> >> David Kirshner
> >>
> >> Louisiana State University
> >> dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu
> >>
> >