I would concur with Jay that one of the only dimensions that meaningfully
distinguishes between what I myself often refer polemically to as
"informal" and "formal" settings is the amount of coercion or choice
individual participants have. Part of the coercion has to do with whether
one walks into or out of the door. At a museum or library people literally
can walk out if they no longer want to participate (with the exception of
children who are being coerced by parents). And although I usually refer to
the after school clubs I work in as "informal", the fact is the
participants often cannot walk out because they are dependent on a ride
that is coming at a certain time that day, or they will hear it from a
parent or school official if they try to drop out altogether. But along the
continuum, they generally have more choice about setting foot in the after
school club than in the school for the "formal" schoolday. So I think there
is some kind of continuum there of "coercion towards physical
presence/absence".
But what many of us care at least as much about is the amount of coercion
toward participation: how much mutuality of interest is there between those
who have more power in the setting (whether they be museum staff, after
school club "mentors", or teachers) and those who have less power (whether
they be museum visitors, club members, or students)? How much do those with
lesser power get to determine HOW they participate in the activities? I
suspect we would all agree there are some GOOD classes in school that do
this better than some after school clubs or museums.
A final point about the word "coercion"--I think it is important to
remember that "coercion" is ENACTED. In other words, being coerced by a
mandated textbook or a curriculum, or by a museum exhibit for that matter,
involves non-deterministic acts of interpretation. Now it is true that
cultural tools or artifacts make it easier or more difficult to do certain
things with them. But even though a lame textbook may not EASILY afford a
critical viewpoint, it does not prevent it in the hands of a good teacher
in a good class. As Jim Wertsch puts it, cultural tools are only partly
ours and partly the culture's. Jim uses the example mostly to counter the
idea that using cultural tools is an act of pure individual will, but the
flip side is true too: using tools is not necessarily an act of pure
institutional slavery. But if we get too wrapped up in the institutional
and cultural determinism of such tools, we can despair and forget to use
our very real personal agency. Granted, it can be a frustrating struggle as
Sara's examples so painfully illustrate, especially as regards such tools
as "outcome-based education". Such "standards" tools when used in the
heavy-handed way of doling out resources or even survival of settings more
severely constrain agency. That is why I find Clinton's State of the Union
accountability proposal so scary.
This is long-winded for me, so I'm going to send it off before I get too
many issues in here which I will invariably try to turn into an essay in a
medium that should not require them ;)
-Joe