When we get together, it just all works out.
At this summer's Convocation on the Status of Informal Science and Engineering Education, engineering education researcher, Monica Cardella, said something powerful about informal and formal education.
“I want to make sure we keep our sense of informal learning complex. I wonder how much we equate 'informal' with out-of-school and 'formal' with in-school. And how much do we think about them like [opposite ends of a line]? When it should be thinking of them as two different axes. ...It's more than just a dichotomy of informal or formal.”
In this moment, she described -- with illustrative hand gestures -- something I'd wrestled with for a long time.
Because my career has played jump-rope with that line. All the way back to a (now defunct) grad program that combined museum education and classroom teaching, I've never felt that classrooms and informal settings are opposites. I've always seen expertise in one inform work in the other.
But we've collectively defined "informal education" and "formal education" based on one place. In the school? Formal. Out of the school? Informal. The biggest problem is that this does a huge disservice to informal learning.
You've defined informal learning by what it's not. It's not school. OK, well, that's like 95% of life. So, what is it?
I believe Monica had it right. They are not opposites. They are dimensions.
So I am taking her proposal and running with it.
What is the real difference between formal and informal?
Two characteristics I have found are the crux of the difference between these two spaces: Time Scale. Structure.
Formal Time Scale: Schools work on long time horizons.
Schools have the benefit of extended time with learners -- quarters, semesters, years. It's consistent.
This consistency and time scale has loads of knock-on consequences. It allows learning that happens in sequence. (First this, then this, then this.) And sequence allows you to tackle meaty ideas that require a longer or step-wise process.
Informal Time Scale: The only consistent thing is that it is inconsistent.
Informal learning is defined by some element of free-choice or opting-in. That means you can make few assumptions about how long or how consistently you will have a learner's attention.
That leads us to approach learning as modular. We rarely have the luxury of assuming a very defined sequence. People roam around exhibits. Field trips need to rotate around stations. People skip stuff.
We develop learning experiences that can stand on their own. Beginning, middle, end within a relatively short time-frame. Stack them up, and you'll get loads of benefit! Don't? You can still get something from whichever bite you took. No good comes from assuming someone did X before Y.
Formal Structure: In one word? Standards.
There's a lot of structure to school systems. From curriculum to grade level benchmarks to pacing guides. Some schools are more flexible than others, but they all structure things.
And for most, that includes the Standards. It gives structure and priorities about what is important.
Which leads to testing. There's also systematized accountability -- high-stakes efforts to measure lots and lots of kids by a single yardstick around those priorities.
It's a fact of life in formal ed. And it means that “because it’s cool” is often not a good enough reason to use time.
Informal Structure: In one word? Flexible. (In two words? F*** Standards.)
Now, of course, all of your school programs align with your state standards! But.
Deep down? Those standards are not your reason for being.
Informal ed is powered by the fascinating, messy, cool, beautiful, amazing real world – whatever your niche specialty within that real world may be.
Whether it’s fossils or paintings or oysters or glass-blowing or rocket ships, informal educators want to invite everyone into that nerdy fun. They want everyone to find their spark in it. Because it’s just freakin’ cool. Not because you’re supposed to learn it.
Being interest-driven means we have lots of options. We often facilitate rather than lecture, to let learners find their way to meaning-making. We can be flexible about what it means to "get it." And there are no one-size-fits-all assessments here.
Complementary, not Adversarial
These attributes make the settings distinct. But neither is good or bad. Pitting them at opposite corners of a cage match for educational superiority is silly.
As Monica suggested, what if we put those attributes on two axes? Could the complexity of quadrants help us focus on the meaningful qualities of learning experiences (instead of the real estate where they happen)?
My sketch led me to see four quadrants:
- Pure School: Deep Learning Takes Time & Structure
- Pure Informal: For the Joy of Learning
- Best of Both Worlds: Time to Go Deep, Flexibly
- School-Adjacent: Real-World Spark to Drive Exploration
To test my theory, I plotted a few types of formal and informal programs based on where I think they fall against these attributes.
This exploration illustrates a variety of ways that we can blend the flexibility and real-world spark of informal educators into the longer-term structures and progressions of formal educators.
Why does this matter?
This is pretty inside baseball.
But as an education leader, thinking strategically about the strengths and limits of a program based on its design -- not just where it happens -- can drive your program goals, messaging, and design.
There are no weak quadrants in this diagram. Each quadrant has its own super-powers. The key is knowing which one you fall in.
Because “The Worst of Both Worlds” (not pictured) is when we offer an opt-in, short, interest-driven experience and claim that it will boost Standardized Test scores.
Back when my body allowed me to run long distances, the advice I got was, “Run your own race.” Don’t focus on someone else.
In the complexity of the education landscape, recognize the super-powers of your quadrant. Acknowledge what you are. Let that define what makes you exceptional. You're more likely to make real change by being specific about what you do exceptionally well.
Set your goals according to what you are, not what someone else is.
Real World Example:
We are in the midst of a retrospective evaluation for a museum's long-standing teacher PD program. It lives in the Best of Both Worlds sweet spot.
They've got teachers bringing the time, structure, and relationships of the formal education classroom.
And they've got museum educators bringing all of the real-world prowess, materials-based strategies, and flexible ("maybe just try it") attitude.
Like peanut butter and chocolate, magic occurs.
During a recent Ripple Effects Mapping session, one of the things we heard is ringing in my ears:
"One of the things that I did, which was completely unplanned, when I got home from [museum PD] last year, I took the math textbook that we had been using, and I threw it in the garbage. I said, 'I'm going to write my own math curriculum from scratch.' And it worked. Their test scores went up."
And that teacher wasn't alone.
We heard several stories of teachers taking the innovation, real-world problems, and modularity of museum educators and turning their classrooms upside down.
Uniting the powers of both settings.
Which quadrant does your flagship program fall in? Hit reply and tell me - I'm curious if my framework holds up in the wild.