Formal+Learning

= Formal Learning =

//**Argument for:**//
Formal learning is essential for all learning endeavors for it provides the architecture necessary for developing healthy and mature learning habits. Behavioral learning theory can be used as a means to validate this model. One of the major tenants of this theory is that learners make causal links between the learning stimulus and the educational response it produces (Burton, Moore & Magliano, 1196). This type of learning is best facilitated in a formal environment for it accommodates the structured, repetitive nature required for an individual to understand the gestalts that exist between. In a study looking at the role of situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education, Korthangen (2010) argues that the gestalt of human consciousness is directly connected to learning - what formal connections are between information acquisition and knowledge transformation, and how well do we understand this process? Further, the development of a healthly stimuli/response model also enables the learner to be more adaptive to more cognitive or constructive approaches that occur in formal and non-formal learning situations - metacognition, therefore is an important element of all domains of learning.

Hall (2009) states that formal learning spaces are critical for individual learning to occur. They are framed by the institution or the lecturer, there is a prescribed learning framework to follow, facilitation by a professional educator and learners receive a formal accreditation. Digital technologies can still play a part in formal learning spaces, the LMS is a classic example of this. A clear and definite structure is in place where learners boundaries are clearly demarcated and the parameters of the learning objectives defined. This formal paradigm therefore, gives authenticity to the learning space and an implied sense of duty and obligation ensues.

The formal, rigid and institutionalised nature of the formal learning environment is seen as a necessary and important consideration for academic equity. Formal qualifications and recognition of achievement are based on formal programs to ensure standards are met with Education, Institution and Professional arenas.

It could be argued that without a sense of formality within education, what scaffolding structure would there be to contain the essential and necessary elements of informal and non-formal learning that occupy the spaces in-between? The argument that will support informal learning, (see next week) will be in part based on the provision that there is a sense of formality to the way in which we approach our learning objectives.'

The following video demonstrates how formal learning can be fused into the current eco-cultural landscape of 21st century learning. It highlights the direction and innovation needed to renegotiate the terms of what we understand to be 'formal learning'. Formal learning is more than the rigid, Sage on the Stage model of teacher instruction and dictation. Formal learning is more about the formalities of learning and the methodologies we undertake to ensure the necessities of education are shared and distributed to the learning community.

media type="youtube" key="QgTQzZwClNU" height="315" width="420"

//**Argument against:**//
Standardised testing was introduced in 1844 and the results were used to "galvanise public outrage" (ibid, p.3) at the poor outcomes, consequently, this "machine-age thinking was a model of school separate from daily life, governed in an authoritarian manner, oriented above all else to producing a standardised product" (ibid p.3) to meet the demands of the workplace. ff The assumption that all students learn at the same pace and in the same way created a divided scenario of smart and struggling students where teachers are judges, motivators and disciplinarians and parents are either required to participate or are in awe of the system (ibid p.4). Direct instruction delivering standardised curriculum designed to meet national standards created a "deficit perspective" (ibid p.7) where the school is required to correct the problems in the student. Teaching to the "head" has created a passive model of instruction, where "students are receivers of so-called knowledge" (ibid p.9). Constantly testing students to ensure they have learned prescribed information does not develop collaborative, creative, capable students, instead it has developed a workforce who is often compliant, unquestioning and modestly productive (ibid p.6). ff This classroom centred model does not engage the modern learner, many who come to school with extensive knowledge as a result of their access to a range of informative media, such as television and the internet and have been raised on the values of the extensive community they inhabit. "The healthy functioning of any community depends on its capacity to develop each gift" (ibid p.12) that children represent. Fragmenting knowledge into discreet subject is "antithetical to a systems view of reality, that reality is composed fundamentally of relationships not things" (ibid p.15). We are not developing students who are capable of seeing the big picture to diagnose and solve problems, understand human emotional and social connections to communicate and collaborate effectively or are capable of seeing intricacies to form new connections and innovate. ||= media type="youtube" key="p_9mzssc5cI?rel=0" height="315" width="388" align="center"
 * Formal learning developed from the liberal tradition of "discipline-based cognitive learning" using the "transmission" theory where knowledgable teachers taught students who, it was assumed, had no knowledge to learn by rote. (Bolt 2008 p.2). An exploration of the history of formal schooling reveals that it is based on the industrial system of the production line, (Senge 2000 p.3). "Like any asembly line. the system was organised in discrete stages. Called grades they segregated children by age. Everyone was supposed to move from stage to stage together. Each stage had local supervisors - the teachers responsible for it. Classes of twenty to forty students met for specified periods in a scheduled day to drill for tests. The whole school was designed to run at a uniform speed, complete with bells and rigid daily time schedules" (ibid p.3).

** That formal education is poisoning the mind of teens and children ** //Cody's Call YouTube video.//Presented by an eloquent student, his information is not always correct but he does have some interesting suggestions for more creative teaching. The comments at the end of the video are worth reading. ||

References:
Burton, J.K., Moore, D.M., & Magliano, S.G. (1996). Behaviorism and instructional technology. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for research for educational communications and technology (pp. 46-73). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. ISBN: 002864630

Cody's Call, // The formal Education that is poisoning the mind of teens and children!!! // YouTube video Feb 24, 2009. [] Accessed 2/9/2011.

Hall, R (2009) Towards a fusion of Formal and Informal Learning Enviroments: The impact of the Read/Write Web. //The Electronic Journal of elearning, Vol 7 Issue 1 pp. 29-40.// Downloaded from www.ejel.org on 26 August 2011 Korthangen, Fred A.J (2010) Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: Towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning //Teaching and Teacher Education// 26 pp. 98-106 Senge, P., (2000) The industrial Age System of Education. Abstract from Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., Kleiner, A. (2000) Schools that Learn (pp.27.58). London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.