I was reading a post by Peter Isackson on the Learning Circuits blog, called Saving Knowing from Imminent Execution In the final paragraph, Peter mentions that deep learning occurs when knowledge is formalized. This led me to some tangential thoughts about learning. In school, essay tests are sometimes used to see how students have synthesized what they have learned. In adult learning, the ability to transfer knowledge is an indication that deep learning has occurred. (Note that some schools, particularly Montessori schools, have older children show/teach younger children.)
My own experience is that teaching a subject, or being a consultant on a subject, does require me to process knowledge more fully — even more than being able to demonstrate the skill or execute the task.This is formalizing knowledge in the sense that the information must be digested and organized. For me personally, to teach a topic also requires a broad understanding of concepts and context.
Like Peter and Clark, I believe that the distinction between “knowing” and “doing” is a false dichotomy. I propose that there is a cycle:
Knowing
As preparation for doing, this might be as simple as “observing the master.” But growth in knowledge continues throughout the rest of the cycle.
Doing
There is a range of skill from beginner to expert. For many things, this progress requires years of both formal study and practice (for example, medicine).
Teaching
The essence of teaching is passing on the skills and knowledge. But the best teachers learn even more in this phase, synthesizing others’ expertise as well as their own experience and the experience of the “students”.
Is “learning to draw a straight line” a part of “knowing” or “doing”? I think it must be both. In adult learning, I believe there is little that can be categorized as fully one or the other.
How does all of this relate to formal vs. informal learning? There seems to be some thought that
Knowing = what formal learning emphasizes = ineffective
Doing = what informal learning emphasizes = effective
I don’t believe that this is true. I don’t know anyone who is actually working on informal learning that believes it either. Informal learning can and does encompass both knowing and doing. Formal learning can, too. Good instructional design and good teaching need to consider the whole cycle.
June 20, 2006 at 2:02 am
If I were to draw a visual image of this knowing-doing interaction, it would be the spiral.
June 20, 2006 at 11:43 pm
I see informal learning as a way of addressing performance needs that cannot be developed through formal training or education. Education is based on a lot “just in case” knowledge and provides opportunities to develop mental models. Much of the detail is later forgotten. Training addresses a specific lack of skills or knowledge that is needed to perform a task – like driving a car.
In the performance technology field we will conduct a performance analysis and then determine how to address the gaps and opportunities. In the case of learning needs, there may be instructional and non-instructional interventions. The latter were usually job aids or performance support tools (just-in-time). With informal learning on the web, we now have a lot more options for non-instructional interventions. Because everyone knew about training, it was often prescribed when we should have used a non-instructional method instead.
I think that informal learning is a way of categorising a whole range of strategies that we now have available with the advent of cheap web access, powerful personal computers and low cost applications likes blogs, wikis, tags, etc. I think that informal learning offers a new array of tools for the learning professional’s tool box.