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]

--