Why Formal and Informal Learning Are Not Separate Boxes
Why Formal and Informal Learning Are Not Separate Boxes
The main argument
Colley, Hodkinson and Malcolm argue that formal and informal are not two separate kinds of learning. They are attributes present, in some mix, in almost every learning situation.
Where the attributes show up
They group the attributes across a few aspects of any situation: the process, the setting, the purpose, and the content.
Why it matters
A pure example of either pole is rare. Most real learning blends both, so the useful question is how much of each is present, not which box it belongs in.
For teaching
You can bring informal attributes into a classroom and add structure to informal learning on purpose.
A feature-by-feature comparison makes formal and informal learning look like two sealed containers. Colley, Hodkinson and Malcolm argue that this is misleading. In their reading, formality and informality are attributes that appear together, in some mix, in almost any learning situation. A pure case of either is rare.
Two Poles, Not Two Kinds
The comparison of features sets out two poles: teacher control against learner control, planned against organic, assessed against unassessed. Poles are useful for describing extremes. The mistake is treating them as the only two options, as if every act of learning must be one or the other.
Think of a spectrum instead. A workplace training day has a set trainer and a fixed schedule, both formal attributes, but it also lets people pick up skills from each other with no assessment, both informal attributes. Sorting it into a single box loses what is actually going on.
Once you see learning as a mix, the two-column table becomes a set of dials rather than a switch. Each situation turns some dials up and others down.
They are not two separate types, but attributes present together in almost all learning.
Rather than sorting learning into a formal box or an informal box, we should ask how much of each attribute a given situation contains.
Attributes That Mix in Every Situation
If formality and informality are attributes rather than types, the next question is where they show up. Colley, Hodkinson and Malcolm spread the attributes across a few aspects of any learning situation: the process by which it happens, the setting or location, the purpose behind it, and the content being learned. A single situation can be formal on one aspect and informal on another.
That is why a strict two-way sort keeps breaking down. A university lecture is formal in setting and purpose, but a student daydreaming and later teaching themselves the topic from the reading has shifted the process toward the informal, inside the same course.
Seen this way, the labels describe tendencies, not fixed identities. The same course can be pushed toward one pole or the other by changing how it is run.
The process, the setting, the purpose, and the content.
Colley, Hodkinson and Malcolm spread the attributes across these aspects, so one situation can be formal on some of them and informal on others at the same time.
Why This Matters for Teaching
Treating the two as rival camps pushes people to defend one and dismiss the other. The attribute view removes that fight. A teacher can keep the structure and assessment of formal learning while deliberately adding informal attributes: hands-on tasks, peer learning, and room for the learner to choose a direction.
The reverse also holds. Informal learning can be given a light frame, such as a shared goal or a mentor, without losing what makes it stick. The design choice is not formal or informal. It is which attributes to turn up for this group, this content, and this purpose.
The value of the argument is practical. It turns a debate about categories into a set of choices a teacher can actually make in a single lesson.
It turns “formal or informal?” into “which attributes do I turn up?”
A teacher can hold onto structure and assessment while adding informal attributes such as hands-on tasks, peer learning, and learner choice within the same lesson.
How was this article?