Traditionally educators and trainers have not been leaders in intellectual pursuits. For example, tradionally SAT scores for those entering faculties of education have been the lowest among all university attendees. Why? That’s a complex question for another time, but it is clear that many people who are becoming “experts” in education and training have little background in learning theory, or hard core research, and their behavior, intellectually, tends to be suspect.
So what do these folks do to make a living. Well, they may not be the intellectual bright spots, but they sure can “invent” silly terms to take things we’ve been talking about (or discarded) years ago, repackage them in fancier terms, and then convince everyone that what they have is special.
So we get abominations like Learning 2.0, or my favorite, “informal learning. The term informal learning, in particular, is laughable. In educational psychology there exists discussions of incidental learning, and intentional learning, which have a distinguished history. But it’s hard to make a living with those terms which have very specific, almost technical meaning, and tons of well done research to boot.
Now, informal learning simply refers to learning that occurs….well, informally. Nice definition. What it really refers to is learning that happens without someone structuring or teaching it, but if you dress it up and pretend it’s something special, you can create a well paying niche.
So we have ignorant, intellectually impoverished people going around trying to convince corporations that classroom learning is wasteful, and that they should be pouring money into informal learning activities.
Their arguments are not even worth repeating due to their outright silliness. Yet they are getting some footholds.
Here’s my point:
“We”, as supposed professionals have an obligation, an ethical obligation to know our field, and not to create bogus new terms so we can make money by way of conning consumers. And even more important, educators, tasked with the future of our children, should, well, be educated about learning.
The sad part is we are starting to put the futures of our children (and adult learners) into the hands of people who can’t reason their way out of a paper bag, and the scary part is that limited resources may end up being allocated to completely stupid approaches to create learning in others.
So, here’s a message for those out there who are creating new educational fads. Go learn about learning. At least well enough to understand how nonsensical these new terms mean to recognized, long term experts on learning. And stop conning people with terms like elearning 2.0, informal learning or whatever is coming tomorrow.
We can’t afford you.
#1 by John Connell on October 12, 2009 - 8:53 am
“…recognized, long term experts on learning…”
How would you define this, Robert, in order to exclude all those “recognized, long term experts on learning” who do nonetheless use these terms that you dislike so heartily? Is their long-term expertise lacking something that you have gained along the way?
#2 by Rob Wilkins on October 13, 2009 - 11:48 pm
Let me get this right. Jay Cross, whom I believe coined the term informal learning (amongst others) but who backs it up with his experiences within various communities; and a tonne of evidence in published articles and a published artifact (his book) which has met with critical acclaim, is intellectually impoverished? I am using Jay as an example because he may not get a chance to defend himself.
BTW Take the link to his information off your website.
My understanding of informal learning is influenced by the contextual setting it occurs in and why the term was created. To quote Jay: “Informal learning is the unofficial, unscheduled, impromptu way most people learn to do their jobs. Informal learning is like riding a bicycle: the rider chooses the destination and the route. The cyclist can take a detour at a moment’s notice to admire the scenery or help a fellow rider.” And he takes the time to recognise self directed learning and all of the other terms that have been “invented” so people can make sense of them. This is an extension of, or clarity of, theory and practice, not the invention of silly terms.
A little more of an evidenced based approach to opinion please! How can an intellectually impoverished person design the first business degree program offered by the University of Phoenix. Insulting a participatory community only leads to yourself being viewed as an extremist and one who has produced little evidence to counter terms that are popular because they make sense to the community who choose to use/exclude them.
Looks like envy not opinion.
#3 by Robert Bacal on October 14, 2009 - 12:23 pm
The term “informal learning” is one that is completely unnecessary, adds nothing re improving learning and teaching practice, not to mention that there exists pre-existing, well researched language within educational psychology that is better and more precise.
The term simply adds nothing. It describes being alive, since we learn informally whenever we are conscious, and it is as basic as breathing. So that’s what is being described.
I don’t know Jay. If Jay believes his “coining” of the phrase (and I won’t blame him for it, since I only have your suggestion he might have) is a significant, important event, then yes, I’d say he fits the topic. If he (and you) believe you’ve discovered something important, I’d suggest you (and he) are ignorant about the subject, and need to invest in some proper psychology text books.
Many of the people using these “new” terms, and who are gaining some influence in education and corporations believe sincerely in their “inventions” of new words and have a very strong agenda which is ideological, and has nothing to do with better learning.
That’s the problem. The agenda is anti-establishment, anti-research, anti-intellectual, anti-university, and tends to demean organized and DISCIPLINED inquiry.
As an example tune in to the lrnchat on twitter, or read the transcript. The number of educators and trainers who mention twitter/lrnchat as their main RESEARCH TOOL is scary. I’ll document this when I get a chance, since you want more evidence.
These emperors wear no clothes and I do not want them near children, schools, school systems or companies in any guise, because what they are going to achieve is the sucking of short supplied resources out of legitimate learning endeavors.
I’ll leave you with one more remark: The fact that there are well-spoken marketing oriented people pushing “informal learning”, or learning 2.0, or any of the silly, completely unproven approaches to increase learning, and who have a following of likeminded fools does not make them right.
One of the hall marks of the informal cadre is that they refuse to engage with critics, and spend their time patting each other on the back, and, I might add, lining their own pockets.
#4 by Rob Wilkins on October 14, 2009 - 6:03 pm
Quote:
“Many of the people using these “new” terms, and who are gaining some influence in education and corporations believe sincerely in their “inventions” of new words and have a very strong agenda which is ideological, and has nothing to do with better learning.”…….
Then your research on the subject needs a lot more reading. I am completing my third degree so I have read enough text books (including psychology) to know that new “terms”, ideas, and synthesis is essential for a deeper more considered understanding of what is working and what is not working. Not a dismissive stance that is self promoting.
I do not want to know what happened in the industrial age. I want to know what is happening in the information age. And each of the respected colleagues I liaise with from around the world share a view that models and paradigms are changing and I guess this is why new terms are “invented” to help make sense.
Mr Bacal, your closed mind is dangerous and slanderous and “We”, as supposed professionals have an obligation, an ethical obligation to know our field, and not to invoke uneducated opinion so we can make money by way of conning consumers. And even more importantly, educators, tasked with the future of our children, should, well, be educated about learning….. on ALL levels.
BTW here is a starting point for the body of research that exists on informal learning, that “invented” term:
http://www.umsl.edu/~sigiler/ – Informal Learning Environments research at the university of missouri
http://www.elearningguild.com/research/archives/index.cfm?id=111&action=viewonly – 2006 research by the elearning guild
http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/ – Digital Youth research into informal learning
http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,42447,00.html – Forrester Research on informal learning in Coporates
Also try Brandon Hall and Elliot Masie as I am sure they have a tiny bit of literature on the subject. There is also ASTD, AITD, CIPD and AQPC to name a few organisations who have looked into this and for closer to your home try Peter H. Sawchuk from the university of Toronto who has researched this “new” term for the last 12 years.
This will be my only response as clearly, as an educator you have closed your mind off to the possibilities that these new “terms” introduce to our field at a pure sense making level. To ignore why the populus have adopted and continue to explore the use of the term and re-define what you call incidental learning is purely to say that as an educator you do not believe in life long learning. As an educator, I need evidence not self serving opinion. I get enough of that from Australian politicians.
#5 by Robert Bacal on October 14, 2009 - 8:07 pm
Well, Rob, let’s see..I’ll go through this step by step, and I don’t doubt you won’t respond.
You say:
“Then your research on the subject needs a lot more reading. I am completing my third degree so I have read enough text books (including psychology) to know that new “terms”, ideas, and synthesis is essential for a deeper more considered understanding of what is working and what is not working. Not a dismissive stance that is self promoting.”
Me: That’s your rebuttal? You have lots of books?! Is this what I’m talking about or what? Three degrees means nothing, particularly if they are brain dead programs. Let me guess. Online universities, right? As for self-promotion, I have nothing to promote except intelligence and effective use of resources, and might I had, there are some of us who “won’t be fooled again”, having gone through ed. fads since the 60’s that have squandered billions of dollars and kid’s lives.
You: “I do not want to know what happened in the industrial age. I want to know what is happening in the information age. And each of the respected colleagues I liaise with from around the world share a view that models and paradigms are changing and I guess this is why new terms are “invented” to help make sense.”
Me: Yet, understanding what has come before will help you avoid the pitfalls and repetition of errors. But, heck that’s the “industrial age”.
I have no problem with new terms that reflect significant new thinking, and I’ll suggest to you that most like informal learning and learning 2.0 are marketing shctick or poor remakes of older terms that your respected colleagues don’t understand or care about. You don’t stand on the shoulders of giants. You are pygmies pretending to be giants.
You:Mr Bacal, your closed mind is dangerous and slanderous and “We”, as supposed professionals have an obligation, an ethical obligation to know our field, and not to invoke uneducated opinion so we can make money by way of conning consumers. And even more importantly, educators, tasked with the future of our children, should, well, be educated about learning….. on ALL levels.
Slanderous. A fool about law in addition to learning, yes? The fact that you have ethical obligations does not mean you do so, or you are intelligent enough to even know if you are or aren’t. Your latter comment about incidental learning and the populus make it quite clear, you have nothing to say except rambling.
I challenge you to explain why we need the term informal learning, in terms of the existing literature on learning, education and training. I challenge you, rather than to make ad hominem attacks, to explain to me how “learning 2.o0″ means something substantive.
Give me a break. The fact that you can cite your “colleagues”, people like Elliot Masie, who’s blog material is so questionable is once again, proof of the low level of talent and ability. Mr. Masie’s inability to interpret research findings, and to provide faulty interpretations that support his advocated position is an exemplar of what is going on.
Here is what we all need: We need people who truly want to explore concepts and ideas, and who don’t have an agenda. The elearning guild, marcia connor, Elliot Masie and in fact most of the sources you cite are interested parties. It takes about 2 minutes to determine this by reading.
Finally, in the early 1970’s I was programming teacher training simulations in Basic on a Dec10 and then a Vax, with the hope of porting it over to the Apple ][ . Ran several computer literacy bbs systems, and on an on in terms of technology.
I remember PLATO and the buzz. I remember all the other fads including the ones that ended crippling the U.S. educational system. I’ve seen all this before. Really.
You and your colleagues have an agenda that is based on cool technology, and the idea that learning should be play, that facts are unimportant, that learning should be deschooled, and on and on. You’ve got your heads so far up your asses that it’s unbelievable, and part is because you can’t well, and part is that you like to sit around amongst yourselves celebrating your own intelligence.
The world can’t afford you, and the changes you want to bring about. Read your educational history — oh wait, that’s not relevant now is it?
..and that in capsule is your problem. You think you invented learning and you can do it for yourselves and others better than anyone who came before.
You are SO wrong.
#6 by Robert Bacal on October 14, 2009 - 8:09 pm
Man, that’s badly written.
#7 by Dick Carlson on October 15, 2009 - 10:28 am
Mr. Bacal, you’re either a fool or the most effective troll I’ve seen this week. Either way, I’ve learned quite a bit (informally) here.
Thanks for the opportunity!
#8 by John Connell on October 17, 2009 - 2:47 pm
What a strangely stunted and narrow world you live in, Robert. To dismiss any discussion of ‘informal learning’ or ‘learning 2.0′ as ‘marketing schtick’ is a woefully ignorant claim to make. You seem to inhabit a nether world in which people are able to line their pockets from educational discourse, while of course real educators, real teachers, simply get on with the business of teaching and learning – and many of these are doing brilliant work in precisely those areas that you so crassly deprecate. Not only do they USE terms such as the ones you despise, they are making a difference to the lives of learners through their recognition of the nature of the shift that is taking place in education today (whatever terms one might want to use to describe that shift)
Of course, what lies at the heart of your petty and unenlightened remarks is your silly prejudice about such people being ‘anti-establishment’ – many (though not all, by any means) are just that – I have no problem with those who are willing and able to question ‘the establishment’ (whatever that might be) – but very few of the people I know working in this area could ever be called ‘anti-research’, ‘anti-intellectual’ or in any way indifferent to or hostile to ‘organized and disciplined enquiry’.
Perhaps you should get out more and meet some real teachers. You might actually learn something from them.
#9 by Robert Bacal on October 17, 2009 - 10:22 pm
John, the thing about your comments, and in fact all of the comments here is NONE of you has attempted to refute what I’ve said regarding the specific phrases (and the less than insightful people who use them).
It’s all ad hominem attacks. I believe that’s the best you can do, and that it’s the only intellectual arrow in your quiver, and that of the other commentators.
You can present an argument, you are limited in discourse ability, logic, background in educational psychology, yet you and your colleagues continue to lobby for money, and coin new words to confuse those that hold the purse strings.
…and it’s all completely invisible to you. You buy in to an approach and sell it. That’s all you got.
#10 by philhart on October 17, 2009 - 6:46 pm
Your post suggests that you do not understand what is happening in the field of education today. If I was assessing you as a student in this field, I would take your post as evidence of you being “Not Yet Competent”.
#11 by Robert Bacal on October 17, 2009 - 10:25 pm
But you are not in a position to judge me, and I’d suspect that if judging was a function of intellect, experience, position, status, research background, etc, you would be “my student”.
And I’d not “judge” based on so few exemplars of your “work”.
Yet, you do. One has to wonder about the competence of someone who would pass judgment based on…well…blog posts, but, come to think of it, many of today’s educators do “research” on Twitter (see critique of lrnchat article).
#12 by John Connell on October 18, 2009 - 5:42 am
“…you and you colleagues continue to lobby for money…” Pardon? What world do you live in? I do not lobby anyone for money, ever. Is that your unstated problem here? You’re finding that there is competition for whatever monies you need to lobby for in this strange, nether world of training that you inhabit? I and most of those you would call my ‘colleagues’ work in education, not in training.
As for refutation, I suspect that no amount of refutation from the myriad sources who would point up the downright stupidity of your comments would ever suffice for you – a bit like the creationists who ask for ‘evidence’ for evolution but are unwilling to accept the masses of scientific and logical evidence staring them in the face. Like you, they have made their minds up and nothing will shift them.
If you want to take a simplistic, nothing-ever-changes view of education, that’s fine, but you would do well to get out there and start to read the very many educators who are working in those areas that some might choose to call ‘Learning 2.0′ – in fact most of them understand that no shorthand term could ever encapsulate the complexity of the changes that are happening at the moment, a complexity that a dormant, narrow-minded notion of education can simply no longer cope with.
You could begin by looking beyond the shores of your own USA, since most good work at the moment seems to be happening in other parts of the world. Or is that suspect too?
If you were willing to have your views tested, it would not take you long, with just a little bit of research, to find good work going on in many places that give the lie to your extremely narrow view of education. Go on, take a peek and see what you can find…..
#13 by Robert Bacal on October 18, 2009 - 10:39 am
1) Money, honey. There is a significant amount of money being siphoned off from education and training budgets in service of research and use of “tools” to further “informal learning” “learning 2.0″ and other nonsense.
2)Refutation: In case you haven’t noticed, we are interacting as part of a community, as is the case in the other places you choose to discuss this issue (and me, I might add). I don’t write to convince you. I write so the community, and casual readers can learn. Why do you write? Clearly it’s not to carry on a discussion. If so refute my points (I’ll redo them when I get a chance).
Explain to me why we need the concept/buzzwords you guys insist on creating?
3) Lots of things change. Human beings, not so much in terms of their brains, and how they learn. Some, tho. I’ve never met a communication expert who said “Yeah, we need more jargon, particularly jargon which is ill defined. Those of you who insist on talking about “informal learning” can’t even agree on what activities constitute informal learning, and which don’t.
4) Uh. The USA. This is typical of you and your colleagues disinterest in facts, and I have seen it over and over again, and that includes on other blogs where you post. I’m not American. I don’t live in the U.S.A. Then again, what can one expect from people who happily confess that they do most of their research on teaching, learning, and training on TWITTER.
5) The challenge is to explain to me how invention of jargon (and ill defined jargon) helps you help others learn. How does the term informal learning end up informing educational practice?
#14 by Trace Combs on October 18, 2009 - 12:49 pm
Mr. Bacal,
Your post has sparked my curiosity, and I would like to discuss your premise further. I use to be a secondary education teacher, and also worked as a high level manager for a Fortune 100 company prior to retiring.
In your first paragraph you stated,
“Traditionally educators and trainers have not been leaders in
intellectual pursuits. For example, traditionally SAT scores for those
entering faculties of education have been the lowest among all
university attendees.”
What information did you use for your source information for this source material? Could you direct me to your source material because I would be fascinated to see the breakdown of IQ and/or SAT scores and career progression.
Also, you stated,
“Their arguments are not even worth repeating due to their outright
silliness. Yet they are getting some footholds.”
I am interested to see the authors or websites of the main contributors to what you view as new learning, and used as a basis for your premise in order to get a better understanding of your hypothesis.
I don’t disagree or agree with your hypothesis. I only agree that all educators can learn from viewing an individual’s arguments and source data/material. Educational theory rests upon diligent research and transparency. I hope you, being a person who appears passionate about the well-being of education for children and adult learners, will allow the impartial reader the opportunity of transparency that is the standard in educational theory through out the world.
#15 by Robert Bacal on October 18, 2009 - 3:26 pm
Good questions. Let me try the first. Unfortunately, I don’t have all of my old “stuff” (research), so I’m in the same position as you, probably, in that I have to hunt things down on the net. It would be a lot easier if I could hunt in a library.
Ok, here’s a quote (and I’ll keep hunting).
Among college bound seniors, those intending to study Education have
lower scores. This well-known fact is reproduced in the top half of Table 1. For example, the average Math score of intended education majors is 479, while the average score for college bound seniors is 511 and for
college graduates 542.
(from http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/jonathan.guryan/research/GuryanAngristTeacherTestingTeacherEducationandTeacherCharacteristics.pdf
I came across an abstract of an article that suggested the trend towards less able students going into faculties of education was reversed, but couldn’t read the article since it was pay only.
Here’s another quote:
Low Admissions Standards: Universities use their teacher education
programs as “cash cows,” requiring them to generate revenue to fund more prestigious departments.This forces them to increase their enrollments and lower their admissions standards. Schools with low admissions standards also tend to have low graduation requirements.
While aspiring secondary school teachers do well compared to the
national average on SAT and GRE exams, the scores of future elementary
school teachers fall near the bottom of test takers. Their GRE
scores are 100 points below the national average.
This from Educating Teachers Exec. Summary at:
http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Exec_Summ.pdf
BTW, I highly recommend reading the above. It’s scary.
Also of interest: Teaching The Teachers http://www.etsliteracy.net/Media/Education_Topics/pdf/tt.pdf
Another quote:
Before answering our first query about efforts currently underway to prepare teacher candidates for the MTEL, a reminder is warranted about the historical origins of teacher testing in Massachusetts. The first administration of the teacher test in 1998 resulted in a 59% failure rate and generated national news when the speaker of the House of Representatives condemned the failed candidates as “idiots” (Pressley, 1998).
From Education Policy Analysis Archives at
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n50/
I can’t find the really good data, but the above is somewhat suggestive. The farther back you go, the poorer the ability and scores of teachers entering faculties of education and graduating, compared to other faculties.
The reasons are cultural and historical, going back to the belief that it took no ability or skill to teach others, which was active into the 60’s, when licensing started. And the two “acceptable careers” for woman “until they had a child” were nursing and teaching. Hence the quality of the entrance standards, PLUS the quality of the teaching in faculties have been rather poor.
Even when I was teaching at faculties of education, the students were pretty abominable generally.
#16 by Joe on October 18, 2009 - 3:30 pm
Wow, Robert, I guess you had no idea what a hornet’s nest you were stepping on. You might be interested in something I wrote about techno-zealots and the issue which so exercises you, some time ago.
http://joenutt.squarespace.com/educational-research-and-news/2008/8/3/edupunk-or-just-another-techno-zealot.html
Interestingly, last week I was at a meeting with some of the UK leading university teachers who were unanimous in their condemnation of a system that is creating students: too afraid to ask questions because they are too afraid to fail, utterly incapable of learning for themselves and needing remedial attention the moment they enter university. Prensky’s much lauded “digital natives” every one.
I am absolutely sure one of the main causes of this has been the way technologists have influenced policy makers and combined with business interests to sell products, or themselves.
I have no problem at all with businesses contributing to education, in fact I wish more did, and that more showed even the vaguest appreciation of how complex and difficult a “business” education is, but where they do so it has to be because they are interested in more than shifting boxes.
#17 by Robert Bacal on October 18, 2009 - 3:45 pm
Joe, I’ve been around a long time, so I know exactly what the hornet’s nest looks like. The same one when one suggested TV wasn’t going to revolutionize education, and the same one when one implied that computers would have minimal impact on how education worked, back 30 years ago. In fact every decade or half decade seems to produce a new crop of incompetent fools selling something, and sadly more fools to buy in and buy.
The current crop is worse than usual, because their agendas are not just technological. The same people are pushing lower standards for kids, de-emphasizing factual learning in service of “creativity”, suggesting “informal” learning should be relied upon more than it is, support giving adults academic credit for still being alive (rather than dead), claim distance education is the same as non-distance education (higher ed), and generally working to continue to erode concepts of scholastic and intellectual excellence.
It’s an economic issue too. While people in Western/English cultures are eroding excellence and accomplishment, India and China are increasing their commitments to education, and it’s too late to “catch up” quickly.