Dr Anna Mariguddi, Learning and Teaching Fellow, Senior Lecturer in Education (Music), Edge Hill University

This is a question which has bothered me for some time, in the context of Higher Education. As a Learning and Teaching Fellow at the University, it is something that I now feel brave enough to explore and unpick.
Informal learning as a concept is problematic as there is no agreed definition. Jeffs and Smith drew upon the experiential element to explain the term: ‘informal education is the wise, respectful and spontaneous process of cultivating learning. It works through conversation, and the exploration and enlargement of experience’ occurring at any time, anywhere. The informal learning situation is ‘not sequenced beforehand’ and occurs during ‘self-chosen and voluntary activity’, according to Folkestad. The work of Prof Lucy Green is seminal in putting all of this into practice within a more ‘formal’ education environment (secondary school music lessons – where inevitable boundaries are put in place). In the context of schooling, it is understood that informal learning represents something which is not truly ‘informal’, but as informal as we dare. The role of the teacher becomes a facilitator, rather than a didactic instructor. Research has shown that informal learning is able to increase motivation, autonomy, authenticity and inclusion for learners. This approach continues to spark debate and prove relevant in music education, advocated by organisations such as Musical Futures.
Key principles of Green’s model of informal learning include increased student choice and autonomy, ‘haphazard learning’ at times, working within friendship groups and integration of components that are sometimes artificially separated out within formal education environments. It is the spontaneity, respect and redistributed power between teacher and student that are particularly attractive about the pedagogy, suggesting potential for integration into Higher Education practice.
However, in order to suit the Higher Education environment, certain aspects of formality and expectation have to be adhered to (akin to schooling): for example timetabling, meaning that learning cannot happen at ‘any time, anywhere’; prior session planning ensures that the situation is ‘sequenced beforehand’ to a certain extent; and set content cannot be entirely self-chosen and voluntary due to validation and assessment policy. I also question what the expectations of students are. Would they feel like they are getting ‘value for money’ on their course if sessions align with an informal learning ethos to a greater extent, where moments are purposefully left unplanned and the teacher intentionally hands over control (despite this being a research-informed approach)? To what extent can such a pedagogical risk be taken, trusting that the benefits of informal learning will come to fruition? To navigate these concerns, adaptation is required to mediate between informal learning and the Higher Education environment. The aim is for a balance to be struck.
For Higher Education colleagues, I argue that informal learning can promote critical thinking and reflection about alternative teaching methods, and provoke thought about where opportunities for increased student autonomy, choice, spontaneity and ‘haphazard learning’ might occur within sessions. Herein lies my challenge – to explore ‘how ‘informal’ can Higher Education go?’