Informal workplace learning – influences and change factors

Many commentators, including Stern and Sommerlad (1999) argue that informal and non-formal learning

…have acquired visibility and saliency [because they] sit at the juncture of new thinking concerning the nature of learning about new forms of knowledge, about the transformation of the nature of work and about the modern enterprise in a globalized economy

(cited in Fuller & Unwin, 2002, p. 95).

As a concept and set of practices, ‘workplace learning’ has entered a period of political, economic and social transformation. Advances in technology, the demise of manufacturing industries and the growth of service sector industries, have led to changes in the meaning of the ‘workplace’ (for example, home-working (Felstead et al, 2000), working on-the-move (Felstead et al, 2005), ‘flexible’ working (Felstead et al, 1999); concomitantly, the shift towards new, post-industrial style workplace structures and practices,

have led to a new set of concept and practices surrounding ‘workplace learning.’ These include:

• different workplace contexts
• different workplace knowledge-sets
• different workers

to those of the past.

Workplace learning used to occur in the classroom or via online ‘e-training courses.’ While this style of learning is still important for regulatory or compliance training, a strong need is emerging for informal learning that is more closely integrated with employee work. Examples include:

• Some categories of business and technical training
• Procedural learning
• Deeper learning that requires concept development and interaction

Here are some reasons why this shift is happening:

Information / cognitive overload is affecting all workers. We can’t store all the facts, details, and data we need to do our jobs today, and more information is created every year.1 Thus, an important new skill is the ability to search effectively to find the information you need when you need it. It might even be information presented in a course that you took online a year ago.

Immediacy of information is critical in today’s workforce. With today’s fast business pace and emphasis on speed to market, employees may need to access a particular 5-minute piece of learning that will get them to the next step fast.2 This means that learning must come in smaller chunks that are only a click away. It also means that information and learning tend to blur in the work environment.

The Internet generation brings a different work style. The computer-savvy, 20-something ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2000) are very good at using technology to find what they want. They are impatient and want to access information resources quickly, and they assimilate and connect this information to their work. This workers prefers to drive personal learning, rather than simply receive information from an instructor.

Learning and development professionals need to begin working with lines of business outside of the traditional HR / Training orbit to ensure that the organizations provide a variety of formal and informal learning opportunities for employees. In some cases, the training department within HR organizes both formal and informal learning. In other contexts, HR handles formal learning, and individual lines of business handle the informal learning related to their specific activities (with consultation from learning professionals).

As well as these organizational changes, learning professionals must understand five key emerging trends:

1. Blended learning
2. Talent management
3. Web / Learning 2.0
4. Knowledge centers
5. Immersive learning simulations (serious gaming).

More...

_____________________

References:

Felstead, A. and Jewson, N. (2000) In Work, At Home: Towards an Understanding of Homeworking, London: Routledge.

Felstead, A., Jewson, N. and Walters, S. (2005) Changing Places of Work, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. (2003) Learning as apprentices in the contemporary UK workplace: creating and managing expansive and restrictive participation, Journal of Education and Work, 16:4, pp. 407-426.

Lee, T. Fuller, A., Ashton, D., Butler, P., Felstead, A., Unwin, L., & Walters, S. (2004) Learning as Work: Teaching and Learning Processes in the Contemporary Work Organisation,
Workplace Learning: Main Themes & Perspectives Learning as Work Research Paper, No. 2.

Prensky, M. (200) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. [Internet] Available from:http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf Accessed 21 October 2007

Stern, A. and Sommerlad, E. (1999) Workplace Learning, Culture and Performance. Institute of personnel and Development, London.

--

Defining informal learning

Informal learning should no longer be regarded as an inferior form of learning whose main purpose is to act as the precursor of formal learning; it needs to be seen as fundamental, necessary and valuable in its own right, at times directly relevant to employment and at other times not relevant at all.

(Coffield 2000, p8)

Given the current economic climate, there is an understandable rise in interest in organizations' exploration of ‘learning beyond the classroom.’ There is some doubt as to whether the concept of informal learning is the most useful way forward.

Michael Eraut has contributed one of the most helpful discussions of ‘informal learning’ in recent years. He has suggested that the use of such a catch-all term is not very helpful (2000, p.12). He considers the notion of ‘non-formal learning’ might be more accurate. One aspect of his argument is that the term ‘informal’ is associated with so many other features of situations – such as dress, behavior, discourse –

that its colloquial application as a descriptor of learning contexts may have little to do with learning per se

(Eraut 2000, p.12).

However, the notion of ‘non-formal learning’ in itself may not be any more helpful (and I will discuss this in a forthcoming blog post).

Eraut’s looks at the level of intention in learning. Similar to Rogers’ learning continuum (2004), Michael Eraut establishes a matrix to identify varying types of non-formal learning, based on the timing of the stimulus (past, current, future) and the extent to which such learning is implicit, reactive or deliberative.

According to Eraut, there is a distinction between implicit (informal) learning, which has a metacognitive component, deliberative learning (where the worker schedules time to learn) and reactive learning (where learning is explicit but almost takes place spontaneously, in response to recent, current or imminent situations but without any time being set aside for it). I would suggest that these categories align closely with Kolb’s 4-Stage Experiential Learning Cycle. Similarly, a link can be made between the synchronous and asynchronous delivery mechanisms discussed in an earlier blog entry and Eraut’s Timing of Stimulus category.

Table 1 Michael Eraut’s typology of non-formal learning (2000, p.129)

[Click here to open enlarged view of table - PDF reader required]

More…

__________

References:
Coffield, F. (2000) The Necessity of Informal Learning, Bristol: The Policy Press.

Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge, in F. Coffield (Ed) The Necessity of Informal Learning: Policy Press. Bristol

Rogers, A. (2004) Looking again at non-formal and informal education - towards a new paradigm [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/non_formal_paradigm.htm [Accessed 30th January 2008]

--

Informal and Non-formal Workplace Learning 2

Looking specifically at learning in the workplace, Michael Eraut in Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge (2000) makes a clear distinction between his interpretation of the term ‘non-formal learning’ and what others including Scribner (1988), Conner (2002) and Cross (2003) would call ‘informal learning’ – what Eraut terms ‘incidental learning’ or ‘the acquisition of knowledge independently of conscious attempts to learn and the absence of explicit knowledge about what was learned’ (Reber, 1993, quoted by Eraut 2000, p.12) This is, he argues, because most workplace learning takes place outside formal learning contexts, and informal learning carries with it connotations of “so many other features of a situation, such as dress, discourse, behavior, diminution of social differences – that its colloquial application as a descriptor of learning contexts may have little to do with learning per se” (p.12). Not only does the term carry unwanted and confusing implications, but it is too vague to be of any real utility. For Eraut, an analysis of learning must focus on activities and the outcomes that that contribute to significant changes in capability or understanding. In a sense, Eraut does not define non-formal learning; rather, he defines the characteristics of formal learning (p.12) as:

1. A prescribed learning framework
2. An organized learning event or package
3. The presence of a designated teacher or trainer
4. The award of a qualification or credit
5. The external specification of outcomes.

The implication of this categorization is that any learning that does not exhibit all of these characteristics should be classed as non-formal. Some reviewers (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002) make the point that Eraut does not make clear what the status is of learning in situations that meet some, but not all, of his ‘formal’ criteria. My interpretation of his characterization is that the very nature of a formal activity -

following or according with established form, custom, or rule

(Merriam-Webster Online, 2007)

validates Eraut’s description.

More…

____________

References:
Colley, Hodkinson, Malcolm (2002) non-formal learning: mapping the conceptual terrain. a consultation report [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/colley_informal_learning.htm [Accessed 28th January 2009]
Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge, in F. Coffield (Ed) The Necessity of Informal Learning: Policy Press. Bristol

Informal and Non-Formal Workplace Learning

One of the central components of the impact of learning (and specifically the development of information workers’ expertise in organizations) is the context within which the learning takes place. A central pillar of this discussion is the type or format of the learning taking place. It is apparent that a dichotomy exists between the paradigms of formal, goal-directed training programs and informal “learning at the watercooler” (Grebow, 2002) - what Michael Eraut (2000) describes as incidental learning that takes place almost as a side effect of work:

it is difficult to make a clear distinction between formal and informal learning as there is often a crossover between the two

(McGivney, 1999, p.1).

Another complexity in the discussion is where is non-formal learning located in relation to the diametric opposites? For much of the forty years since the term ‘non-formal learning’ was first coined (Coombs, 1968, p.1.) there has been a great deal of debate in the literature as to the nature of formal, informal and non-formal learning; the components of each of the paradigms, their boundaries and their overlaps. The locus of this debate is centered on arguments for “the inherent superiority of one or the other” (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002, p.2).

I support Alan Rogers’ (2004) view that a “new paradigm” for learning exists, in which “most programs [are] partly formal and partly informal” going from formal to informal and from informal to formal in both directions along a continuum (see Figure 1) . “Both forms of education are important elements in the total learning experience” (Looking again at non-formal and informal education - towards a new paradigm, 2004).

Figure 1 the Learning Continuum

Similarly, Hodkinson & Hodkinson argue that focusing on the extent to which learning is planned and intentional may be a way of by-passing the distinction between formal, non-formal and informal altogether.” (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002).

More to follow…

__________

References:
Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm J. (2002) Non-formal learning: mapping the conceptual terrain. a consultation report [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/colley_informal_learning.htm [Accessed 28th January 2009]
Coombs, P. (1968) The World Educational Crisis, New York, Oxford University Press.

Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge, in F. Coffield (Ed) The Necessity of Informal Learning: Policy Press. Bristol

Grebow, D. (2002) At the Water Cooler of Learning [Internet] Available from: http://agelesslearner.com/articles/watercooler_dgrebow_tc600.html [Accessed 30th February 2009]

McGivney, V. (1999) Informal learning in the community: a trigger for change and development NIACE. Leicester.

Rogers, A. (2004) Looking again at non-formal and informal education - towards a new paradigm [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/non_formal_paradigm.htm [Accessed 30th January 2008]

--

Characteristics of Informal Learning

Changes in the world economy are forcing corporations to rethink how workers learn and to perform effectively. How do people learn? Why? What accounts for the upswing in interest in less formal learning? Does it work?

In the corporate context, learning is about mastering technical and social skills, and product knowledge. The focus is on attaining the skills. knowledge, and expertise required to meet the promise made to the customer.

In an interview in 2005, the estimable Jay Cross articulated a concept that many (including myself) felt was an emerging trend in corporate learning and development:

Well, I had to redefine all learning …because the world is changing so fast. The concepts we had when knowledge was fixed in place, like something you could put in a library, don’t work anymore. So I look at all learning as adaptation to the communities that matter to you, to your ecosystems, if you will. Informal Learning is simply that, which is not directed by an organization or somebody in a control position.

(Interview with Jay Cross: Informal Learning)

The year 2005 heralded the recovery from the Dot-Com Crash in 2001, a year Kevin Kruse has described as one that

    ...brought the harsh, steep slope of unfulfilled promises. Several high-profile [e-learning] providers shut their doors while many more announced large-scale layoffs in the face of missed revenue targets and crashing stock prices. E-learning advocates retreated to the more defensible ground of "blended learning. This year [went] down as the Trough of Despair. 

As a result of this turn-of-the-century disillusionment, a key document on lifelong learning published by the European Commission in the same year went unnoticed by many training professionals. In their 2001 document Communication on Lifelong Learning, the authors Holford, Patulny & Sturgis defined the terms formal, non-formal and informal learning (p.9):

Table 1 Definition of learning types

Learning Type	Description
Formal Learning	Learning typically provided by an education or training institution, structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support) and leading to certification. Formal learning is intentional from the learner’s perspective [my italics].
Non-formal Learning	Learning that is not provided by an education or training institution and typically does not lead to formalized certification. It is, however, structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support). Non-formal learning is intentional from the learner’s perspective [my italics].
Informal Learning	Learning resulting from daily life activities related to work, family or leisure. It is not structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support) and typically does not lead to certification. Informal learning may be intentional but in most cases it is non-intentional (or “incidental”/ random) [my italics].

 

More next time...

___________

References:

Cross, J. (2004) An informal history of eLearning. On the Horizon [Internet] 12(3). pp.103-110. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/2740120301.pdf (Subscription required) Accessed 20th February, 2007

Holford, J. Patulny, R. & Sturgis, P. (2005) Indicators of Non-formal & Informal Educational Contributions to Active Citizenship. A Paper Prepared for the European Commission by the University of Surrey. [Internet]. Available from: http://farmweb.jrc.cec.eu.int/CRELL/active_citizenship.htm Accessed 25th October, 2006

Kruse, K. (2002) The State of e-Learning: Looking at History with the Technology Hype Cycle. [Internet] Available from: http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/hype1_1.htm [Accessed 12th February 2008]

--