I’ve always been a fan of informal learning. Curiousity and all that. I love reading and exploring. Libraries provide near instant access to a wealth of available published data through digital catalogs and access to online peer-reviewed journals. The Internet provides us with excellent methods to connect with experts and engage in conversations. Conferences provide access to alternate opinions and other’s constructions. I find I learn more from conversations with others in my fields of interest than I ever have struggling through a formal learning environment and reading preselected textbooks. Conversations – written and spoken – provide an opportunity for exploration of our own constructions and biases.

Unfortunately for me, the world requires we jump through hoops and prove we’ve learned something in a more formal manner. Otherwise known as *ptooey* credentialism.  Of late I’ve come to believe that formal education is more about biulding and maintaining social class systems than it is about exploring and constructing new knowledge on an individual basis.

I, as always, struggle with the concept of learning in a classroom (face-to-face or online) environment.  While I’ve discovered that I prefer an online environment to a face-to-face setting – mostly because it provides ample time for reflection and forces me to explain my core beliefs and understanding in a written method – I still balk at some of the more formal constructs that are included in instructor led courses.

Twice since I’ve returned to university I’ve encountered profs who assign a reading or assignment and pose a broad topic question for which we are to provide a response.  No other instructions are provided and, up until I receive feedback, reading outside sources is not expressly forbidden at the onset of the assignment.  Both times I’ve received feedback indicating that it’s not appropriate to go outside of the assigned readings and incorporate other materials into the responses.  Once I was told that I’d “over researched” a paper because I’d included three outside references in it. Most recently I was advised that by encorporating the research/theory of an individual not mentioned in the text or assigned reading in my response that I’d gone off topic.  My error? I cited an alternate model of another researcher in the field (Ross) to help define my position.

Confused?  Me too.  I’m still attempting to understand how it can be possible to “over research” a topic simply by seeking alternate points of view on which to base my opinion.

This attitude towards learning and assignments strikes me as extremely detrimental to learning.  To me, it appears to assume that the learner has no previous knowledge of a topic, or no ability to find alternate sources on which to base a new construct, and is entirely reliant on an all-knowing specialist for direction and substance.

And yet, as students in a formal learning environment, we are dependant on our profs.  Not necessarily for our knowledge, but for grades upon which future dreams (i.e. access to Grad school programs) may be dependant.

I’ve yet to fully comprehend why formal education, at least in the undergrad level, is so structured and unbending. Have we not yet reached a point where informal or constructivist learning is accepted outside of Grad school?

There is one bright spot in all this; I have this prof again next semester.  As I’m learning his expectations of his students I’m learning what I need to do to fare better in his future classes.  Of course, that begs the question, how ethical is it to “jump through a profs hoops” rather than following one own path to learning?

In truth, what I am learning in these situations is when and how to subvert my own needs to search out alternate research and construct my own beliefs about a topic in order to parrot the beliefs of the instructor.  Honestly, what type of learning is that?

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.