What is Informal Learning and how does it happen?

In his report for the OECD on recognition of “informal and non-formal learning” Patrick Werquin defines informal learning as:

“… learning that results from daily activities related to work, family or leisure. It is not organised or structured in terms of objectives, time or learning support. It is in most cases unintentional from the learner’s perspective (Cedefop, 2008).”

(Werquin 2010:24)

This definition resonates with the concept of social networks of all types, and with the varied types of connection one may have in social media. However Werquin’s is not a universal definition. Dr Veronica McGivney (McGivney, 1999 cited (as NIACE 2001) in Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, 2008) proposes three more prescriptive forms of “informal education” including “learning that takes place outside of a dedicated learning environment and may not be recognised as learning”. The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (2008) prefer a broader approach:

“structured or unstructured part time, nonvocational learning which does not lead to qualifications - or at least where qualifications are incidental to the learning”

(Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills 2008: 5)

This definition resonates with Tony Jeffs and Mark Smith’s concept of “a spontaneous process of helping people to learn.” (Jeffs and Smith 1997, 2005, 2011), which comes closest to Vygotsky’s (1978) ideas on teaching and scaffolding behaviours. Livingstone (2001), acknowledging the problematic conflation of learning types and definitions, proposed a similar definition of informal learning as any activity “which occurs without the presence of externally imposed curricular criteria.” (Livingstone 2001:4).

The validity of such definitions, particularly when informal learning may be connected to the workplace or professional role – as in the research presented here - is disputed by Billett (2001). Billett argues convincingly that “formal” and “informal” learning are oppositional positions, that workplace learning may be more structured than it, at first, appears. CPD activities may be informed by factors such as workplace expectations, social contexts and specific local practices that may, Billett argues, have a formalising effect.

Eraut (2004) acknowledges subtler variations in the relationship between learning and the workplace, describing learning as a highly varied range with concepts of “formal” and “informal” sitting at either end of this spectrum. Eraut provides a useful typology of informal learning structured around three subtypes (implicit learning, reactive learning, deliberative learning), with each providing an insight into the learner’s self-awareness of their learning processes.

My intent is to encompass informal learning in the broadest sense, situated closer to the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (2008) definition or Jeffs and Smith’s (2008) “spontaneous process” than McGivney’s (1999) more specific forms. This understanding of “informal learning” is informed by Billett’s (2001) cautioning that motives, agendas, and structures of learning are likely to be influenced by professional environs and communities: that “informal” may sometimes sit at different points on Eraut’s (2004) “continuum”.

Previous Section: Social Media and Actor-Network Theory | Next Section: Existing research on social media and learning