Democratic participation holds the love of learning and pursuit of knowledge

http://pkp.sfu.ca/files/Democracy.pdf

There are objective and subjective considerations here, in my opinion.

Objectively, for subject matter that has to be built from a foundation, such as in science and math, the formal approach is used to build up knowledge systematically. Otherwise, the student risks becoming only "colloquially familiar" with the subject matter, but without truly "getting it." And I think most people would agree that unless the subject matter is absorbed thoroughly, the student will have a slim chance of expanding that field later on in life.

So one point I would make is that interactive group sessions, or student involvement in community affairs, or other such, are valid and useful additional activities, to mold that more complete individual. But these other activities cannot replace the foundation building. You might just end up with a lot of students who know the lingo, interact well with others, but don't truly understand the subject matter. Huge gaps of knowledge, which the less structured learning method was unable to identify and address. Many times, the student would not even appreciate that these gaps exist.

I know that this has been my own experience with the more unstructured teaching methods. I still occasionally have nightmares about it. Coming up to that final exam, and deep down inside knowing full well that I don't have a good grasp of the subject matter at all.

On the other side of the coin:

The argument, I suppose, for the less formal approach, is that the student becomes so very engaged by the experience that he/she will be extra motivated to go out and learn the fundamentals independently. And I'm sure that there are students who would be so motivated. The question then is whether or not they are motivated and diligent enough to actually indulge in independent learning, or whether the distractions, from all these real-world group projects, end up preventing the student from that rigorous learning process.

Another issue I have is with the group project concept per se. Yes, it's true that in the real world, people need to know how to interact. The problem with the collaborative group learning model is that invariably, some students will end up carrying the load for the others in the group. Or said another way, some students will be dragged down, unfairly, by the less diligent members of their group.

Definitely a mixed bag, I think. One hears a lot of "sound good" explanations about the advantages of deformalized learning. When I experience it as a student, it creates more anxiety than extra motivation. That's just me, probably.

One more point I need to elaborate. Structured learning, in my own experience, does not necessarily mean with a teacher, in a classroom setting, the old-fashioned way. It can also mean well-organized material, which presents new material logically, and then periodically introduces a quiz for the student to gauge progress. I've had the opportunity to take several courses this way over the years, and it works well for me. But I'm very well aware that not all students respond well to the same teaching method. Depends how your brain is wired.

I also think a mix of both worlds (formal and informal), planned and designed taking students' needs in mind, is the natural progression for education given the advancement in technology. I teach at the university level and have learnt many lessons from such mixing in the form of blended learning as I shared in this conference paper:

Best regards,

Debra

Conference Paper Championing Blended Learning in Higher Education: Reflection...

Some students require explicit exposure, exposition and explanation, and do not learn through casual observation.  They do not recognize what is seen/heard unless someone or something (computer) calls attention to specific content.  Such students can learn and retain content, but do not have background knowledge or interest that leads to contemplation and connection.  Therefore, considering informal schooling for basic skills and knowledge produces haphazard and inconsistent mastery.  When 1:1 pupil-teacher contact is available (or small groups) an alternation be tween explicit formal instruction and interest-explorative can provide variety.  Any system used as the only way misses the need for individualizing.  Excellent teachers generally attend to interests and abilities for both individuals and groups.  Having an overall context of relevance and interest puts leads students through internal motivation. The teacher can call attention to the relevance of content by using the four aspect quadrants of Crary interests in any lesson content: Scientific-Quatitative, Creative-Aesthetic, Humanistic-Ethical, Vocational-Technical. Devoting one minute of examples for each of these aspects during a lesson connects to the personal agenda of each student in both formal and informal deliveries. 

In my opinion there is a lot of blurring between formal and informal learning in the early years of education. In affluent contexts there is often - an at least hoped for - partnership between school and parent. Significant progress has been made in this regard in relation to reading; although there is far less on the role of parents in supporting early mathematics. The challenge appears to be how this social capital can be made available to children and parents living in poor communities. I think mobiles have a pivotal role to play in supporting parents (and young children) in these crucial early years...where learning is so much more than what is offered formally at school. There is also interesting data about the practices of young adults in moving between formal and informal learning in mathematics later (age 16-18 year olds). The Nokia mobile mathematics service may be of interest in this regard.  

Article From challenging assumptions to measuring effect: Researchin...