Low- Education Adults’ Participation in Informal Learning

Activities: Relationships with Selected Demographic Characteristics

The article, Low-Educational Adults’ Participation in Informal Learning Activities: Relationships with Selected Demographic Characteristics, sourced from the Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 2 (2), 67-73 and authored by Smith, M. C., & Smith, T. J. (2008) is one of a few research studies done on adult learners. The study compares two populations of adults: graduates who have not continued with education and non-graduates who are currently in a learning program (GED or ABE) with low-education adults who did not graduate and have not participated in a GED or ABE program within a year of the study. This study seeks to find out the degree to which these individuals engage in any type of informal learning in their daily happenings. The reasoning behind the study is to bring to the awareness of adult educators that informal learning can be a foundation on which other learning can evolve.
Methods
To investigate the topic, the authors used pre-collected data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), (as cited in Smith and Smith, 2008). The data was obtained via random-digit dialing and computer-assisted interviews. The respondents were questioned about their participation in informal activities. The questions pertinent to the study were: one, whether high school graduates with no education beyond high school, and high school non-graduates presently in a program were more prone to take part in informal learning activities than the group who did not have previous learning and was not in any program? (Smith & Smith, 2008) And two, whether there was a “relationship between participation in informal learning activities among these three adult populations [with reference to] selected demographic characteristics such as gender, income, ethnicity, and age?” (Smith & Smith, 2008) Responses were assessed using the chi-square tests of independence and the Cramer’s V. The second question was, also, assessed by the chi-square tests of independence. However, in addition, Smith and Smith used the phi coefficient to assess strengths of relationships, and binary logical regression for the prediction of a categorical outcome (p. 69).
The method by which the data was obtained was not appropriate for this study because one, there are limitations rising out of surveys that are cross-sectional by design (the sample being taken all at the same time),thus leaving no allowance for continual update; and two, the method of questioning was too informal. A door-to-door would have produced truer responses. The authors’ approach to supporting the thesis made sense. The survey’s format was a viable attempt and the analysis of relationships between the three groups with respect to gender, income, ethnicity and age, was an important feature in collecting differential data samples. However, categorization of the demographic characteristics should have been more detailed. For instance, if gender was broken down into male and female, the results would have been more meaningful because it would have itemized each sex in their participation in informal learning activities. The other concern was the interpretation of the statistical data. For the average layman, the charts did not make much sense, and the authors did not provide footnotes explaining the use of the symbols used in the heading.
Evidence of Thesis Support
In support of the thesis the authors used a wide range of works from other authors. They also incorporated studies from The New Approaches to Lifelong Learning (NALL), and the Longitudinal Study of Adult Learning (LSAL). The strengths of the evidence lie in those works which correlate with the authors’ beliefs that all people participate in some kind of informal learning. They may not all be conscious of it happening but it does happen as interaction with the world and the people occurs. The weaknesses are in the inconclusiveness of an agreed upon definition of ‘informal learning’ by all researchers in this particular area of research. The authors supported the evidence by sharing findings from Tough’s work (Tough, 1971). Tough (as cited in Smith & Smith, 2008) “found that 80% of adult learning is informal and planned by the learner rather than by others (i.e. teachers or employers).” (p. 68). However, his work and findings do not distinguish between low-education adults and those who have a high school diploma or in a program of study. How is the reader to know what part of 80% represent low-education adults (the targeted population) of this study? The other work cited dealt with the clarification of the definition of the term informal learning.
To conduct a relatively well-balanced study, Smith & Smith used Livingstone’s definition of “informal learning”. Smith (as cited in Smith &Smith, 2008) wrote that, “Research on adult learning is bedeviled by the lack of consensus regarding the meaning of the term informal learning.” (p. 67) If there is no set definition, on what are we basing our judgment of what is or is not informal learning? The final evidence of support was the external studies.
In contrast to the findings of Smith and Smith’s study, which concluded that low-education adults showed no interest in informal learning activities, NALL study and the LSAL survey showed, respectively, that low-education adult participants in the study “also engaged in informal learning”, and participants in Portland were quoted as, “being capable of independent study to improve their literacy skills” (p. 68).
Contribution
This type of study is important and would benefit adult educators because it gives insight into the minds of adult learners, more so, low-education adults, a group often stereotyped because of their seemingly lack of interest. But here we see that there is learning taking place as “a natural human activity” (Tough, 2002, working paper #49), somewhat invisible but happening in the absence of consciousness of the individual. As an educator understanding the importance of informal learning as part the learning process, it is a welcomed teaching tool because now that this information has been revealed, facilitators will be able to incorporate this new information in curriculum and program planning. Smith & Smith (2008) also sees it as “an important implication for adult education programs” (p. 73), such as, ABE. The authors see the two - informal and formal - as “sustaining” each other (p. 73). Because of the dropout rate of school-age youths in the low-socioeconomic group, more detailed and invasive research on the relationship between informal learning activities and demographic variables with a particular focus on the differences between males and females in minority groups should be pursued. It is imperative that we find a way to entice them back into or keep them in a learning environment that would encourage them to complete high school with a vision to transfer to a formal setting for the betterment of themselves, their family and society as a whole.
Conclusion
I picked this article because it provides new approach for teaching low-education adults. Did the article do what it set out to do? Smith & Smith set out to show a comparison between adults with former learning and/or engaged in present learning, and low-education adults and informal learning. They were successful in bringing awareness about individuals “invisible” learning (Tough, 2002).The work is significant in that there is much learning to be gained from including this concept into daily teaching practice. It can present an unobstructed transition of knowledge from one form to the next as adult educators become aware of the importance of informal learning as a foundation to possible further learning.


Smith, M. C., & Smith, T. J. (2008). Low-educational adults’ participation in informal learning
activities: Relationships with selected demographic characteristics. Adult Basic Education and
Literacy Journal, 2 (2), 67-73. Retrieved October 1, 2008 from

http://web.ebscohost.com.avoserv.library.fordham.edu/ehost/results?vid=2&hid=117&sid

Tough, A. (2002). The iceberg of informal adult learning. The Research Network for New
Approaches to Lifelong Learning: NALL Working Paper No. 94. Paper presented a the NALL
annual meeting, Toronto. Retrieved October 12, 2008 from
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/sese/csew/nall/res/49AllenTough