Any paper that contains this sentence can't be all bad: "Learners used to informal learning might be pathologised within more formal educational processes." In fact, this paper isn't bad at all - after a brief introduction to the origins of informal learning in theory, the authors offer a nice list and description of a half dozen or so theories of informal learning (as distinguished from formal learning) and attempt to extract a synopsis of those views. The criteria, argue the authors, map along four dimensions: process, location and setting, purpose and content. But even the resulting sixteen types of learning could not effectively classify some particular examples. Most learning is a combination of the two. Consider, for example, the case of formalizing youth mentoring, and example on which the authors linger (perhaps a bit too much). They conclude that "Boundaries between formal, non-formal and informal learning can only be meaningfully drawn in relation to particular contexts, and for particular purposes." and "Both with regard to specific situations and more generally, it is often more helpful to examine dimensions of formality and informality, and ways in which they inter-relate with each other." Via Seblogging.
Today: 0 Total: 1092 [Direct link] [Share]
