Formal learning

Formal learning, normally delivered by trained teachers in a systematic intentional way within a school, academy/college/institute or university, is one of three forms of learning as defined by the OECD, the others being informal learning, which typically takes place naturally as part of some other activity, and non-formal learning, which includes everything else, such as sports instruction provided by non-trained educators without a formal curriculum.^[1]

Formal learning theory

Formal learning theory is the formal study of inductive problems and their intrinsic solvability for both ideal and computable agents. Modal operator theory has very little to do with formal learning theory especially with respects to

1. The significance of method and methodological recommendations.
2. The idea of weakening the convergence criterion in order to get more problems within the scope of reliable inquiry.

The philosophical insights of formal learning theory have largely neglected by philosophers, thus we deemed it important to allocate a section for less familiar field of formal learning theory.

The origin of formal learning theory

The term logical reliability theory from (Kelly 96). It is a term coined over the original name which is formal learning theory given to the discipline by (Osherson et ai. 86). Formal learning going on is theory is an unfortunate rubric because it suggests that what is going on is a formal study of how coynizers actually learn. One has to remember, however, that the primary inspiration of formal learning theory probability theory or pedagogy. This recently led Kelly to rename the approach to computational epistemology which is a really suggestive label for what is going on Computer scientists are in the business of recommending and providing programs and algorithms for various empirical purposes. From this perspective learning is about reliable convergence to correct answar on various empirical question.Thus learning theory is the formal study of inductive problems, their complexity and solvability for both ideal and during computable agents.

In the middle of 1960s,(Gold67) applied formal learning theory to theories of language acquisition in which a child is asked to reliably converge to a grammar for its natural language. Very briefly, language are model led as recursive enumerable sets(or r.e sets) and child is conceived as a function required to converge to a correct r.e index for a given set over all possible enumeration of the set. About the same time H.Reicherbanch's students, Hilary Putnam (Putnam63) applied learning theory to criticize carnap's confirmation theory. Putnam at tempted to show carnap's justification standards for a probabilistic theory of confirmation, there exists a hypothesis the Cornapian extrapolation algorithm cannot learn even given every possible instance of the hypothesis. Further mathematical treatments of the problems of induction were provided by (Blum and Blum75) and (Angluin80). Formal learning theory never really caught on among philosophers perhaps because philosophers found it hard to see how the formal results concerning induction apply to classical philosophical. Due to the work of Kenvin.T.Kelly, Clark Glymour Dan Osherson and other formal learning theory has been adapted to question in philosophy of science, methodology and epistemology.

Logical Reliability

As opposed to reliability in philosophy formal learning theory has a well-defined notion of what it means for a method to be reliable logical reliability does not provide a definition of Knowledge indeed, it is not an epistemological paradigm in this sense. Nevertheless learning theories often suggested that the logical theories play important role in knowledge studies.

See also

• Nonformal learning

References

1. "Recognition of Non-formal and Informal Learning - Home". OECD. Retrieved 9 March 2014.

http://mot.ruc.dk/flt.htm