How teachers learn: the roles of formal, informal, and independent learning

Abstract

A qualitative study of math and science teachers at two middle schools identifies how their system for learning to integrate technology into their teaching goes beyond what school leaders typically consider when planning for teachers' learning. In addition to (a) the districtinitiated, or formal, system of professional development (PD) and professional learning communities (PLCs), it includes (b) teacher-initiated, or informal, learning with colleagues as well as (c) teachers' independent learning activities. Analysis of why and how they form their system highlights how by only supporting the formal PD activities and PLCs, the district not only loses the valuable collective knowledge of the districts' teachers derived from their informal and independent learning activities, but also diminishes the learning teachers derive from the formal PD activities since informal collaborations and independent work after formal PD activities often helps to bring the learning from the training room to the classroom. We present teachers' insights and then discuss implications for the design of a holistic approach to facilitate teachers' formal, informal, and independent learning that is tied together and supported by technology. While research on formal, informal and independent teacher learning exists, with technology frequently mentioned as a potential support for each of these three modes, these approaches have not been considered together as interdependent parts of the same holistic system for teacher learning nor has the way technology might knit these modes of teacher learning together been imagined as a part of that system.

Preschool Teachers’ Engagement in Professional Development: Frequency, Perceived Usefulness, and Relationship with Self-Efficacy Beliefs

“…Examples of these activities are structured seminars and workshops, graduate courses and programs, or mandated staff development conferences and symposiums (Bautista, Cañadas, Brizuela, & Schliemann, 2015). Most formal PD utilizes faceto-face instruction, being therefore constrained to a specific time period and location, which inherently possess both temporal and geographic difficulties for teachers (Jones & Dexter, 2014). Formal PD is also characterized by the common lack of follow-up support given to teachers after the completion of the event.…”

“…Unlike formal PD, informal PD activities can be either planned or unplanned as well as structured or unstructured. In most cases, however, these activities do not follow a specified curriculum and are not constrained to specific learning environments or time periods (Jones & Dexter, 2014). Informal PD is commonly optional (not mandatory), emerging from teachers' own initiatives (Eraut, 2004).…”

Using Technology to Enhance Extension Education and Outreach

“…One instructional decision particularly relevant for extension professionals is the structure of the learning experience: formal, informal, or independent (Jones and Dexter, 2014). Jones and Dexter (2014), studying teachers learning to integrate technology, identified formal learning as initiated and planned by organizational leaders, whereas informal and independent learning are learner initiated.…”

“…Jones and Dexter (2014), studying teachers learning to integrate technology, identified formal learning as initiated and planned by organizational leaders, whereas informal and independent learning are learner initiated. Informal learning occurs when learners within an organization share, building collective knowledge, and independent learning occurs when learners go beyond the organization seeking additional information.…”

The Marginal Syllabus: Educator Learning and Web Annotation Across Sociopolitical Texts and Contexts

“…A similar case may be made about educator professional development, which historically has been limited by atomistic and authoritative design (Webster-Wright, 2009), as well as disconnection from relevant learning activities and contexts (Hill, 2009). Amidst these conditions, digital technologies and everyday media practices have opened public, more participatory, and collaborative repertoires through which educators have begun to frequently engaging in professionally-relevant learning (Gover, 2017;Jones & Dexter, 2014;Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2013). At times both promising and also problematic, efforts like Twitter chats (Carpenter & Krutka, 2015;Visser, Evering, & Barrett, 2014), EdCamps (Carpenter & Linton, 2016), and online affinity spaces (Nacu, Martin, Pinkard, & Gray, 2016) have sought to honor educator curiosity and amplify the affordances of new technologies as relevant to everyday problems of practice (see also Nussbaum-Beach & Hall, 2012;Smith, West-Puckett, Cantrill, & Zamora, 2016).…”