|
The Growth of Informal Learning Environments
|
| by Paul Cornell, Ph.D. |
![src=]() |
In the November E&I Report, I discussed how teaching and learning are changing. Driven by the growth in knowledge, new research and student expectations, we are using more collaborative and self-directed forms of learning. This impacts the design of learning environments, but it does not spell the end of traditional classrooms and lecture halls. Rather than having a monopoly, these spaces are just two of the many settings increasingly available for learning.
In the previous discussion, I focused on formal learning. In these circumstances, learning is the intention of student and instructor. There is a need and an objective, and typically a structured path for getting from one to the other.
But not all learning occurs this way. Sometimes we learn in spite of ourselves, when there is no intention or motivation. Whether it is a chance encounter with a colleague or that "ah-ha" insight, we learn continuously. We call these experiences informal because there is no agenda, structure, sequence, schedule or controlling "content provider". It is learning that just happens.
The quantity of informal learning is surprising: The U.S. Department of Labor estimates 70% or more of work-related learning occurs outside formal training. While the percentage is less in colleges and universities, it is an important part of the educational experience. If our goal is to support learning, then we need to understand the impact of the environment on both formal and informal processes.
This was a subject in a recent telecast of the Society of College and University Planning (SCUP). The show's host, Donald Norris, contends that education, work and life activities are becoming integrated. Increasingly they will become "fused". (Dr. Norris has written several books on the subject which can be found on the SCUP website.)
|
As this happens, new forms of university environments are needed which combine formal and informal learning and provide a sense of community. Norris and the panelists identified the Johnson Center at George Mason University and the Media Union at the University of Michigan as typical of the new breed. Other examples include the business school at Babson College and the Center for Interactive Learning at Sinclair Community College. Many others are in the works.
Environments for informal learning can easily be incorporated into the range of settings discussed previously (see Diagram A). We grouped environments along two axes --collaboration and self-direction. Self-direction distinguished learning directed by instructors from that directed by the student. We now add a third category-- learning directed (or driven) by serendipity. When you are alone, this could be virtually anywhere. But when collaboration is important, we need to provide opportunities for people to interact, to run into one another. We also want to provide spaces that are attractive, that draw people in.
And if you think these informal spaces are just for university students, think again. Many urban malls and museums are being designed with these characteristics in mind. Corporations realize the value too. Bank of Montreal, Arthur Andersen and Boeing are just three companies that have invested heavily in learning facilities that provide formal and informal learning under one roof.
In a time when learning can occur anytime, anyhow and anywhere, we will seek out those environments that are not only conducive to learning, but provide community and human interaction. This will provide opportunities for informal learning, which by its nature is unplanned and fortuitous. The physical environment can do much to enhance, or impede this process.
|
 |
| > Society of College and University Planning (SCUP) website
|
|
|