REPO R T T O WOR K AN D L E AR N I N G K N O W LE D GE C E N TR E R E P O R T T O W O R K A N D LE A R N I N G K N O W LE D G E C E N T R E Prepared by: Research Assistants: Christine Wihak Thompson Rivers University Lyra Warkentin, Lauren Wihak Gail Hall CAPLA Coordinator, recognitionforlearning.ca Seonaigh MacPherson Editor: Submitted by: Project Consultant: The Canadian Association for Prior Learning Assessment (CAPLA) Validation Meeting Draft October, 2008 John Bratton Thompson Rivers University This publication was prepared by Christine Wihak of Thompson Rivers University and Gail Hall, CAPLA Coordinator for recognitionforlearning.ca for the Canadian Council on Learning's Work and Learning Knowledge Centre. Financial support was provided by the Canadian Council on Learning. This publication is issued by the Centre for Workplace Skills as a reference source on the topic of work-related informal learning. The opinions and interpretations in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Canadian Council on Learning, the Centre for Workplace Skills or the Government of Canada. The Centre for Workplace Skills is an independent, national organization that brings together business, labour and other groups with an interest in workplace skills development in order to promote effective practices in workplace learning. The Centre is co-led by the Canadian Labour Congress and Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters. A copy of this publication is available on the Centre for Workplace Skills' website at www.workplaceskills.ca. For information regarding this publication please contact info@workplaceskills.ca. 2011 Centre for Workplace Skills All rights reserved. This publication can be reproduced in whole or in part with the written permission of the Centre for Workplace Skills. These materials are to be used solely for non-commercial purposes. ISBN # 978-0-9868998-0-5 Ce rapport est aussi disponible en franais sous le titre Apprentissage informel li au travail : Recherche et pratique dans le contexte canadien au site web www.competencesmilieutravail.ca. This project is funded in part by the Government of Canada's Sector Council Program. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 INTRODUCTION 5 DEFINING INFORMAL LEARNING 5 6 7 9 WHY THE INTEREST IN INFORMAL LEARNING? WORKING DEFINITION OF \"INFORMAL LEARNING\" The Continuum Approach: Balancing Informality and Formality in Learning Stakeholder Response to Continuum Approach 10 TYPOLOGY OF INFORMAL LEARNING AND LEARNERS 10 14 14 17 HOW DO PEOPLE LEARN? WHAT DO PEOPLE LEARN? WHO IS LEARNING? WHERE ARE PEOPLE LEARNING: WORKPLACE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 18 Incidence and Characteristics of Work-Related Informal Learning in Canada 18 19 26 28 LARGE SCALE SURVEY FINDINGS CANADIAN CASE STUDIES OF INFORMAL LEARNING RELATIONSHIP OF INFORMAL LEARNING TO OTHER WORKPLACE LEARNING Informal Learning and Performance 29 Informal learning: from Theory to Practice 29 30 32 32 33 33 SUPPORTIVE PRACTICES ASSESSMENT TOOLS INFORMAL LEARNING AND NETWORKS INFORMAL LEARNING KEY BUSINESS AND LABOUR APPROACHES TO WORK-RELATED INFORMAL LEARNING GOVERNMENT POLICIES, PROGRAMS OR MEASURES TO ADDRESS/SUPPORT WORK-RELATED INFORMAL LEARNING 35 MAPPING THE FIELD OF PRACTICE 35 35 35 36 37 37 37 38 EMPLOYERS LABOUR UNIONS PRIOR LEARNING ASSESSMENT & RECOGNITION (PLAR) GROUPS; CAREER & EMPLOYMENT COUNSELLORS; HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTITIONERS ACADEMIC AND OTHER RESEARCHERS WORKPLACE OR COMMUNITY-BASED TRAINERS AND PRACTITIONERS GOVERNMENTS E-LEARNING PROVIDERS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 39\tKNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE PLAN 40 41 41 43 45 46 46 KEY MESSAGES AND TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION KEY AUDIENCES & STAKEHOLDERS STAKEHOLDER ROLES KEY MESSENGERS BEST METHODS FOR REACHING TARGET AUDIENCES POSSIBLE IMPACT, VALUE, OR BENEFITS OF KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER TO VARIOUS AUDIENCES KEY KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION GAPS 49 REFERENCES 54 APPENDIX A - RESEARCH METHOD 3 Introduction The promotion of lifelong learning has become a major economic policy issue around the world as a response to globalizing forces as well as demographic and technological changes. Increasingly, educators, employers and policy makers are recognizing that informal learning in the workplace is a significant contributor to lifelong learning. At this time, however, approaches to promoting and supporting work-related informal learning are just being developed. //// The Canadian Council on Learning's Work and Learning Knowledge Centre (WLKC) issued a call for proposals to its members to conduct a synthesis research project on \"Workrelated Informal Learning\" in order to develop an evidence base about work-related informal learning to help illuminate stakeholders' approach and response to the challenges it raises. The purpose of the research was to inform and guide WLKC's subsequent knowledge exchange initiatives designed to communicate with and engage a broad audience of key workplace and work-related learning stakeholders on the importance of informal learning and the practices that support it. Since the WLKC's mandate is knowledge exchange, the focus on this project was to examine and collate existing research and expert opinion on the topic, rather than conducting original research. The findings of this research project will contribute to knowledge exchange in the area by identifying challenges or gaps in the research, interested audiences, and useful knowledge exchange activities. Develop a Knowledge Exchange plan for WLKC with respect to work-related informal learning. //// Under each of these topics, WLKC provided a detailed set of questions to be answered by the research. The study method included a focus on synthesis research that had already been published, a search of primarily Canadian literature on the topic of informal learning, and a consultation process with key stakeholders from academia, business, community groups, government, organized labour, and trainers. A Project Advisory Committee of Stakeholders was involved in development of the research approach. The research method is described in detail in Appendix A. //// The Canadian Association for Prior Learning Assessment (CAPLA) was chosen to lead this project. CAPLA is Canada's only membership-based association for prior learning assessment. It focuses on all types of learning (informal, nonformal and formal), and how they connect to one another for recognition of many forms. The project team consisted of Dr Christine Wihak of Thompson Rivers University as principal researcher; Dr John Bratton of Thompson Rivers University as an expert advisor; Gail Hall, Coordinator of CAPLA's www.recognitionforlearning.ca community of practice; and Bonnie Kennedy, Executive Director of CAPLA. The specified objectives of the research were to: Contribute to the development of a working definition of \"informal learning\"; Describe the incidence and characteristics of work-related informal learning in Canada; Discuss practices being used in Canada to support and/or assess work-related informal learning; The report that follows was prepared in response to the requirements of the RFP, with incorporation of suggestions from stakeholders who reviewed an interim draft at a Validation Meeting. Map the field of practice in terms of key actors involved in providing, recognizing or otherwise supporting work-related informal learning; 4 D EFINING INFORMAL LEARNING Work-related informal learning is neither well defined nor well understood by key stakeholders, including employers, labour unions, policy makers, education and training organizations, human resource practitioners and career/employment advisors and counsellors. Furthermore the terminology used to describe work-related and informal learning is often unclear and overlapping. Indeed, as Fenwick (2006) has pointed out, the meanings of the terms \"work\" and \"learning\" are themselves highly contested. Few studies in the area of work-related informal learning provide clear definitions on any of these terms, and there is no consensus on meaning amongst the studies that do define the terms. Nevertheless, as interest in this area is increasing, it is timely to conduct synthesis research on informal learning to direct further cooperative research and common applications. Why the Interest in Informal Learning? Global Influences //// Concern with lifelong learning in the workplace has grown worldwide in response to globalizing forces and rapid technological change (Bratton, Mills, Pyrch, & Sawchuk, 2004). In early conceptualizations of lifelong learning, learning was presented as something that people needed to be encouraged to do. Later it came to be viewed as natural, pervasive, and part of an on-going process. This shift in the understanding of the nature of lifelong learning has brought informal learning to the foreground of lifelong learning discussions (Rogers, 2008). //// Specific interest in informal learning within the workplace is relatively new (Skule, 2004). White (2008) described workplace learning practitioners who were actively interested in the topic as being in \"the bubble of early adopters.\" Within the world of academic research, Sawchuk (2008) has noted that research focussed explicitly on informal learning and work is just over 15 years old, \"a birthday marked...by the accumulation of a critical mass of theoretically coherent, basic and applied research\" (p. 4). //// The increased interest in informal learning stems from multiple, interacting causes and sources. A major factor is the growing awareness of the frequency and importance of informal learning in the working lives of most adults. In the United States, research has suggested that informal learning represents 70% or more of work-related learning (Lowenstein & Spletzer, 1999). Similarly, in 1998 and 2004 Livingstone and his colleagues at OISE (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education) conducted national surveys focussed on adults' informal learning and work (Livingstone, 2008). These surveys indicated high rates of participation in workrelated informal learning. //// The development of lifelong learning policies is another reason for the increased interest in lifelong learning research and practice. For example, in the European Union (EU), lifelong learning policies were developed to maintain competitiveness and labour mobility. These policies led to the need to identify work-related informal learning in certifiable forms recognized by the National Vocational Frameworks, which specify required competencies for a wide range of occupations (Colley, Hodkinson, & Malcolm, 2002). //// Growing dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of the formal education system and off-the-job training has also been a factor in making on-the-job informal learning emerge as a field of interest (Beckett & Hager, 2002; Cross, 2007; Rothwell, 2002). Rapid change in the workplace is another reason that on-going informal learning is critical. As Cross (2006) has pointed out, \"It's impractical to try to learn in advance when what you need to know won't stand still.\" //// Finally, the Web has transformed informal learning, offering over a billion people ready access to information and ideas on a vast array of topics. According to Cross (2006), \"Google is the world's largest learning provider, answering thousands of inquiries every second.\" The rapid growth of Web 2.0 has made it possible for individuals and organizations to have readily accessible and highly interactive internal information networks. Furthermore, informal learning is highly visible in the form of recorded interchanges taking place in wikis, blogs, and other interactive websites (N. White, 2008). Such visible tracks may make informal learning more amenable to being studied and measured than it has been in the past. 5 DEF IN ING INFORMAL LEARNING Stakeholder Responses research on the topic has been complicated by the competing definitions of what comprises \"informal\" learning in the workplace context. Several synthesis papers have discussed the different theoretical definitions of the concept (Billett, 2002: Cole, 2005; Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002, 2003a; Livingstone, 2001, 2005; Marsick & Watkins, 2001; Sawchuk, 2008). No clear consensus has yet emerged from these efforts. The synthesis approach taken by Colley and her colleagues at the University of Leeds (Colley, Hodkinson, & Malcolm, 2002, 2003a, b) has, however, received notable approval from other scholars in this area (Butterwick, Jubas, & Liptrot, 2008; Cole, 2005; Gairey, Ng, Martin, & Jackson, 2006; Sawchuk, 2008; Straka, 2004.) //// The Colley research team (Colley et al., 2002, 2003 a, b) was commissioned by the Learning and Skills Development Agency in the UK to conduct a comprehensive literature review, original research, extensive consultation with researchers and other stakeholders, and analysis on the topic of non-formality and informality in learning. They were to use their findings to clarify the meaning of these terms. The authors' final report compared and contrasted ten major theoretical pieces in the field of informal learning, looking at how different authors defined informal learning so as to make it distinct from formal learning and/or nonformal learning1. //// What the researchers (Colley et al., 2003a; 2003a, b) found was a dismaying lack of consensus on the definitions of informal and non-formal learning. Although Colley et al. (2002, 2003a, b) tried to create ideal definitions from the ten competing conceptualizations, they were dissatisfied with the results. \"[T]hese models use so many criteria in so many different ways, and with such utter lack of agreement, that there could be no way of imposing a once-and-for-all definition that would have any credibility across all sectors\" (Colley et al., 2003b, p. 8). //// In our consultation with workplace stakeholders, interest in informal learning varied. Although we received no responses that indicated that stakeholders had only some or no interest in this topic, we did not see uniform agreement that it was very important either. Not surprisingly researchers and facilitators indicated the highest level of interest. The issue was also of great interest to Occupational Groups. Respondents in the business category attached less importance to the issue of informal learning than the other categories of stakeholders, as did labour respondents. Working Definition of \"Informal Learning\" Definitional Issues //// The term informal learning is often used to refer to learning that is neither formal learning (occurring in the context of the formal education system) nor non-formal learning (occurring through planned, structured training or education outside of the formal education system). That is, the type of learning has been defined historically by the context in which it occurs (Billett, 2002). In this perspective, informal learning occurs somewhere other than a classroom or training venue. The Centre for Education and Work (2004) used the following definition in research on 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 nonintentional, incidental or random.\" (p. 3) //// While a consensus exists that informal learning is important in the workplace (Solomon, Boud, & Rooney, 2006), 1 Theoretical positions considered included those of Beckett and Hager (2002); Billet (2002); European Commission's Communication on Lifelong Learning (2001); Eraut (2000); Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2001); Hunt (1986); La Valle and Blake's (2001) report on U.K. National Adult Learning Survey; Livingstone (2001); Simkins (1977); Stern and Sommerlad (1999). The interested reader is referred to Colley et al. (2002) for descriptions of each of these theoretical approaches, which are too complex to summarize here. 6 DEF IN ING INFORMAL LEARNING The Continuum Approach: Balancing Informality and Formality in Learning Purpose: This aspect relates to whether learning is the primary focus of the activity (more formal) or whether it is a sideline (more informal). It also introduces the impact of power relations on the learning process, whereby the learning purpose could be set by an external authority such as an employer (more formal) or by the learner (more informal). //// Instead of trying to create a synthesized definition of informal learning, Colley et al. (2002, 2003a, b) decided to take a completely different approach. They took the position that informality and formality can be considered attributes of learning that are found in varying degrees in every learning situation. \"The challenge is not to combine formal and informal learning, but to recognize that they are always combined, and to then understand the implications of their particular balance in any learning situation.\" (Colley et al., 2003b, p. 8). As an analytic method to investigate learning in any context, they proposed four aspects of learning, each of which can range along a continuum from formal to informal in any particular situation: Content: This aspect focuses on what is being learned and the expected results of learning. Acquisition of an existing body of theoretical knowledge or a high level of technical skill would be considered more formal. Acquisition of everyday practices would be considered more informal. If the learning outcomes are highly specified as in a professional licensing exam, the situation would be considered more formal, while if the learning outcomes are left unstated, as in much web browsing, the situation would be more informal. Process: This aspect is concerned with control of the learning process, the provision of pedagogic support, and assessment. In more formal learning, an instructor or trainer controls the learning, provides pedagogic support and conducts summative assessments of learning. In more informal learning, the worker controls the learning, receives pedagogic support from a colleague or friend, and engages in self-assessment based on the satisfaction derived from his/her own learning. //// Colley et al (2003b) have described their framework as a \"practical tool\" to use in analyzing the complexities of any given learning and for investigating what happens to learning when it is made more or less formal by varying one of the four attributes. For example, when an organization introduces a planned mentoring scheme, both the process and purpose aspect of the learning has become more formal than in a spontaneous or voluntary mentoring situation. The introduction of such formality may or may not improve the quality or quantity of learning. //// In another example, the Canadian system of training apprentices is a combination of formal and informal Location and setting: This aspect addresses the physical location of the learning, with a college classroom being more formal and an office coffee room being less formal. To illustrate the flexibility of the approach, however, a workplace training room would be considered more formal than the hallway of a university. 7 DEF IN ING INFORMAL LEARNING learning. The in-class technical training through endorsed training institutions is at the formal end of the continuum with regard to all aspects of learning. The on-the-job training is more informal with regard to location and setting and to purpose, in that it takes place at a job site where the primary focus is productive activity. The content aspect, on the other hand, lies between formal and informal, in that an external authority (i.e. the qualified tradesperson who is supervising the apprentice) controls the learning, but the sequencing of on-the-job lessons is less structured than in a classroom. The fact that the supervising tradesperson, however, has authority to assess the apprentice makes the on-the-job portion of apprenticeship system more formal with regard to the process aspect than in a DIY (do-ityourself) situation where the person self-assesses how well a job was done. The process aspect is often also more informal than in a classroom setting, in that the use of log books and systematic assessment of the apprentice's work varies greatly in many trades and jurisdictions during the on-the-job portion of their training. //// One important attribute of learning that is not addressed in the Colley et al. (2003a) framework is that of consciousness. Neuroscience research is demonstrating that the vast majority of human brain activity is unconscious. These unconscious processes have significant influences on what appears to be conscious behaviour, such as learning (Davou, 2002; Goleman, 2008). Eraut (2004) has used the term implicit learning to describe learning that was acquired unconsciously, without explicit awareness of what was learned, while Polanyi (1966) coined the phrase \"tacit knowledge\" to describe a similar phenomenon. Implicit learning is considered essential to development of intuitive expertise, and indeed, the greater a person's level of expertise, the more difficult it can be to share it with novices (Kercel, Reber, & Manges, 2005). While some unconscious learning can be made conscious through reflection, much expert knowledge cannot be articulated. \"We can know more than we can tell\" (Polanyi 1983, p.4). Recent research in cognitive science lends support to Polanyi's insight (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002). Highly reflective practitioners engaged in work-related learning have reported awareness that unconscious learning has occurred, even if they cannot specify exactly what they learned (Wihak, 2006). Jarvis (2004), Illeris (2004), and Schugurensky (2006) have also recognized the importance of unconscious learning in their theoretical discussions of informal learning. //// Focussing on the consciousness aspect of learning might be an important addition to the Colley et al (2003a, b) framework. Consciousness has important implications for the assessment of learning and the design of interventions meant to increase learning. With regard to the assessment of learning, unconscious learning is often unarticulated and may in fact be impossible for the learner to articulate since it is hidden from the learner's conscious awareness (Goleman, 2008). This hidden aspect of unconscious learning can be just as true for experts in a field as it is for novices (Kercel, Reber & Manges, 2005). To assess this unconscious learning, methods other than surveys, interviews and questionnaires would need to be employed (Livingstone, 2005). With regard to interventions to enhance work-related learning, a focus on unconscious learning would lead to changes directed at the learning environment rather than the individual learner. For example, changing the art displayed in an office environment could convey important motivational messages to employees without their conscious awareness of this as \"learning\" (Bratton & Garrett-Petts, 2008). //// Although the Colley et al. (2002, 2003a, b) approach was validated through extensive consultation in the U.K. and has received favourable comments from a number of researchers (Butterwick, Jubas, & Liptrot, 2008; Cole, 2005; Gairey, Ng, Martin, & Jackson, 2006; Sawchuk, 2008; Straka, 2004), it would be nave to expect uniform consensus in a field as highly contested as workplace learning (Fenwick, 2006). For example, Sawchuck (2008) confirmed the continuum approach of Colley et al. (2003a) but nevertheless recommended that different theoretical conceptualizations could be used to investigate distinctive features of workrelated informal learning. For example, Livingstone's (2001) model highlighted issues of power and control of the learning process, while Eraut's (2004) conceptualization focussed on unconscious/conscious information processing involved in problem-solving and Illeris (2004) offered a model that recognized the complex factors that mediate work-related learning. Therefore, while the recommendations of Colley et al. (2002, 2003a, b) deserve serious consideration, it is premature and presumptive to expect complete and widespread acceptance of their work. 8 DEF IN ING INFORMAL LEARNING Stakeholder Response to Continuum Approach //// Many practitioners and researchers in the field have not fully articulated their understandings of key basic terms like \"work\" and \"learning\" (Fenwick, 2006), making it difficult to clearly define a term like \"informal learning.\" In this respect, just as consensus on the meaning of the term \"informal learning\" may be an unrealistic and ill-advised goal, reaching an articulated and committed stance with regard to informal learning is something that relatively few people can be expected to achieve. //// Our stakeholder consultations revealed that even the term informal learning is not used consistently. Because academics and practitioners in the area of work-related learning tend to use different vocabularies, we asked stakeholders, \"What other terms do you use or do you see used to describe workrelated informal learning?\" We got a host of responses: //// One respondent preferred not to name informal learning, pointing out that workers helping each other learn the job was just \"the way we do things around here.\" //// The lack of consensus on what to call informal learning points to the difficulty in trying to reach agreement on how to conceptualize the term as well as the challenge of arriving at a working definition. When we proposed the continuum model of formality/informality in learning in the stakeholder survey, the majority of responses indicated it would be \"somewhat useful\" or \"very useful.\" Additional comments ranged from highly enthusiastic to very dubious about the value of the approach. One leading academic researcher in this field described the continuum approach as a \"paradigm shift\" that would be challenging to convey. Action learning Industry training Observation Project learning Experiential learning Job shadowing On-the-job training (OJT) Reflection Hands-on learning Lifelong learning Partnering Researching Incidental learning Mentoring Peer learning Self-directed learning Independent study Non-formal learning Professional development Service learning 9 Typology of Informal Learning an d Lear ner s Three important questions that Eraut (2004) posed with regard to work-related learning that are helpful in establishing a typology of informal learning, are: How do people learn? //// What do they learn? //// What factors affect the quality of learning? The first two questions form the basis for a typological framework of work-related informal learning activities, while the third question is concerned, at least in part, with how learner characteristics relate to informal learning. This question also suggests that factors in the workplace environment that affect learning need to be identified. How do People Learn? Informal learning strategies //// Early theorists in the field of work-related informal learning Marsick and Watkins (2001) have identified the following types of informal learning activities: Attending \"brown-bag\" or informal presentations; Attending conferences or conventions; Reading professional journals or magazines. Task accomplishment; //// Apart from the first item in the list, these activities are also elaborations on self-directed learning (Marsick and Watkins, 2001). //// In Canada, the National Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (Rubenson, Desjardin, & Yoon, 2007) included a similar but more expansive list of informal learning activities: Trial and error; Self-directed learning; Networking; Coaching; Mentoring; Performance planning. Visiting fairs, conferences or congresses; Reading manuals, reference or other materials; //// The listing of informal learning activities in the 2003 Canadian Adult Education and Training Survey (Peters, 2004) offered respondents a choice of informal learning activities, including: seeking advice from someone knowledgeable, using the Internet or other software, observing someone performing a task, consulting books or manuals, or teaching themselves different ways of doing certain tasks. This list involves more detail concerning what Marsick and Watkins (2001) termed \"self-directed learning.\" //// Two major US surveys concerned with adults' participation in learning (Kim, Collins Hagedorn, Willaimson, & Chapman, 2004; Kleiner, Carver, Hagedorn, & Chapman, 2005) identified these work-related informal learning activities: Learning through assignments in different parts of an organization; Attending lectures, seminars or special talks; Going on guided tours (museums, galleries, etc.); Using computers or the Internet to learn; Using video, television, tapes to learn; Learning by watching, getting help from others; Learning by yourself, trying different ways. While the Canadian list is clearly very similar to that used in the US survey (Kim et al, 2004), the addition of observational learning activities, such as being sent around an organization or learning by watching; seeking help from others; and trial-and-error learning contributes other important components of work-related informal learning. Supervised training or mentoring; Self-paced study using books or video tapes; Self-paced study using computers; 10 Typology of Informal Learning and L ea rner s //// The lists of informal learning activities on the previous page are all focussed on individual learning, rather than team or group learning. Billett (2002), Fenwick (2001), and Taylor, Evans and Mohamed (2008) have argued strongly that workplace learning is a social phenomenon rather than an individual one, stressing the social nature of informal learning (e.g. spontaneous conversational interchanges in the workplace.) Yet this type of informal learning activity is not addressed in detail in any of the existing major survey instruments. //// In the workplace context, the individual focus of the survey research is problematic since teams and team learning are considered more fundamental than individual learning (Senge, 1990). Bratton et al. (2004), however, have described the research evidence with regard to team learning as \"rudimentary\" (p. 61), noting that most of the existing research on team learning has been carried out by consultants employed by management rather than by academics. Furthermore, the authors point out that from the labour perspective, an emphasis on team learning \"shifts the focus away from the hierarchical nature of organizations, hierarchical control processes, inherent conflicts of interest between managers and workers, and dominant power relationships, and mechanisms of self control...\" (p. 66). //// Bratton et al. (2004) have also stressed the importance of \"group learning\" with regard to the labour movement. Groups of workers can learn through labour activities such as strikes and union campaigns on broader social issues (e.g. hospital closures). These experiences can provide lessons in areas such as the economic effects of globalization, as well as practical training on skills such as how to write letters to politicians or the press or manage a strike fund. adult learning (1992, 2004). Jarvis claims that learning can occur through multiple, interacting routes, which include both non-reflective and reflective learning, while acknowledging that non-learning can be the response to new situations or information. //// Non-reflective learning results in non-innovative reproduction of knowledge. Jarvis (1992, 2004) considered nonreflective learning to be the primary way that people learn their place in a society or workplace. Such non-reflective learning, a task faced by anyone taking on unfamiliar tasks or working in an unfamiliar organizational context, has several different forms: preconscious learning, memorization, and non-reflective skills learning. Preconscious learning takes place on the periphery of consciousness, which in workplaces is often the way people learn about organizational culture; Memorization, another form of non-reflective learning, has a broader meaning in Jarvis' theory than the rote memory work done in school. Rather, it encompasses any learning from authoritative communication, which could involve listening to an expert, consulting with a more knowledgeable colleague, or reading material in a book or on a web page; Non-reflective skills learning involves imitation (observational learning) and repetitive practice. //// In contrast, reflective learning offers the opportunity for innovations in knowledge to occur, though it can also be used to acquire a pre-existing knowledge base (Jarvis, 1992. 2004). Reflective learning encompasses contemplation, reflective skills learning, and experimental learning. Contemplation, a common form of learning, involves thinking about an experience and reaching a conclusion about it; Jarvis' model of adult learning: Putting the strategies together Reflective skills learning occurs when a professional learns not only how to perform a skill, but also discerns the principles underlying it; //// A striking resemblance exists between the lists of individual informal learning activities used in survey research and the learning process described in Jarvis' proposed model of Experimental learning refers to testing theory (one's own informal theory or an existing public theory) in practice. 11 Typology of Informal Learning and L ea rner s //// Another important feature of Jarvis' (1992, 2004) model is that he recognizes that non-learning may be the outcome in a given learning situation. That is, although a learning opportunity may be presented or available, the person may not learn. Primary reasons for non-learning are: of harmony between the person's interest and/or knowledge and her/his socio-cultural world. The best conditions for learning occur when harmony is disturbed and the resultant disjuncture makes unthinking action impossible. The disturbance can be positive, such as when someone wonders if there is a safer way to operate a machine, or negative, such as when a crisis occurs in a routine procedure. //// Jarvis' model (1992, 2004) indicated that qualities of the person, the social milieu and a particular learning situation will affect what route a learning episode will follow. According to Jarvis (2004, p. 107), what makes a person willing to persist with learning rather than ending a sequence with non-learning \"is a crucial question\". Jarvis suggested that understanding when and how people encounter disjuncture is important to understanding how learning will occur. //// While theoretically derived from the work of other adult learning theorists such as Knowles, Merriam, and Mezirow, Jarvis' (1992, 2004) model is empirically grounded in adult learning experiences and illustrates the complexities of informal learning, as well as indicating how informal learning activities can intersect with formal. He developed his model of learning by asking groups of adult learners to describe learning episodes they had actually experienced and then relate their learning experiences to Kolb's (1984) learning cycle model. The results showed that adult learning is much more complex than Kolb's circular model suggests, displaying spirals, loops, and backtracks rather than a straightforward progression through a simple learning cycle. Presuming that you already know everything that you need to know about a particular situation; Non-consideration of a learning opportunity because you are too busy or fearful of learning something new; Rejection of a learning opportunity because you do not want to change your firmly held opinions or attitudes. //// As shown in his \"Model of the Learning Process\" (Jarvis, 1992, p. 71) figured below, any particular \"learning episode\" can follow multiple routes through the various types of learning. That is, rather than learning always following an established sequence through the boxes labelled 3-9 in the figure, a particular learning opportunity might result in nonlearning, with the sequence stopping at box 4. Alternatively, a learning sequence might involve several loops between boxes 5 and 6 or 5, 6, and 7, before the sequence ends at box 9. Jarvis used the arrows pointing outwards from boxes 4 and 9 to indicate that the termination of a particular learning sequence is open-ended and will lead on to other learning opportunities. Jarvis has stressed that even though complex, the diagram is an oversimplification of how an adult learner experiences the learning process. //// Jarvis (1992, 2004) suggested that a given learning episode is initiated by disjuncture. Disjuncture represents a lack 12 Typology of Informal Learning and L ea rner s Figure III-1. Jarvis' Model of Adult Learning (Jarvis, 1992, p. 70) //// Jarvis was also clear, however, that his model will continue to evolve and change, rather than being set in stone. //// Wihak (2006) used Jarvis' model to analyze the workrelated informal learning of cross-cultural counsellors in Nunavut and found it very useful for finding commonalities in their individual experiences. Their non-reflective learning activities included seeking immersion in Inuit culture (preconscious learning), learning from cultural authorities by listening to stories told by Inuit Elders as well as seeking cultural knowledge from Inuit and non-Inuit mentors (memorization), and learning traditional land skills through imitation and practice (non-reflective skills learning). Their reflective learning activities included journaling or having discussions with colleagues (contemplation), adapting their professional counselling practice in culturally appropriate ways (reflective skills learning), and developing new ideas and theories of counselling through testing them in practice (experimental learning). This research illustrates how useful Jarvis' theory (1992, 2004) could be in the informal learning field as a starting point for the \"how people learn\" dimension of a work-related informal learning framework. 13 Typology of Informal Learning and L ea rner s What do People Learn? Who is Learning? //// The 2004 WALL Survey explored what Canadian adults learned on the job (Livingstone & Scholtz, 2006), unlike other large scale surveys of work-related informal learning. The survey questionnaire offered respondents a list of 11 possible topics, which covered broad areas of possible work-related learning: Demographic characteristics of learners //// The National Adult Education and Training Survey (Peters, 2004), the National Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (Rubenson, Desjardin, & Yoon, 2007) and the WALL survey (Livingstone & Scholtz, 2006) collected information on a variety of different learner characteristics. The WALL survey collected the most extensive information, including the following characteristics: New general knowledge; Teamwork, problem-solving or communication skills; New job tasks; Gender; Computers; Age; Health and safety; Ethnicity; New equipment; Educational level; Employment conditions or workers' rights; Social class; Organizational or managerial skills; Political affiliation; Politics in the workplace; Parental education level: Budgeting or financial management; Employment status; Language and literacy. Occupational class large employers, small employers, self-employed, managers, supervisors, professionals, service workers, industrial workers; //// Since respondents were not offered an open-ended option to identify other learning topics, it can only speculate whether the list is exhaustive. Nevertheless, it does appear to be sufficiently encompassing to serve as an initial and provisional typology of what people learn through informal learning activities. //// Carliner (S. Carliner, personal communication, Oct. 6, 2008) has also suggested that what people learn might be distinguished in terms of \"durable versus perishable skills\" and \"transferable versus context-specific skills\". Such a distinction would assist in determining who should take responsibility for development of the different types of skills. The employer would seem to benefit most from perishable and context-specific skills and hence should be expected to support their development. //// Canadian research studies of informal learning discussed in the following chapter present context-specific information on what people are learning informally in various workplaces and occupations. Union membership. The ALL survey (Rubenson et al., 2007) reported on a more limited set of personal characteristics: literacy level, education, age, and gender. The categories of \"immigration status\" and \"parent's education\" were, however, added. The AETS report (Peters, 2004) contained information on an even more restrictive set of learner characteristics: age, gender, educational attainment, and country of origin (Canada or other). Analyses of survey data indicated which learner characteristics affected informal learning significantly. The most important finding from the ALL and WALL surveys is that a high proportion (more than 80%) of all respondents were active in some type of informal learning, regardless of any differences in personal characteristics. The AETS questionnaire imposed a very restrictive time frame for informal learning (i.e. the four week period preceding 14 Typology of Informal Learning and L ea rner s the survey), and hence the findings of a much lower participation rate of 35% are not comparable to the other two surveys, which queried informal learning activity in the year preceding the survey. //// From the data shown on page 46 of the report on the WALL survey (Livingstone & Scholtz, 2006), it appears that Occupational Status may have some effect on participation in informal learning. In 2004, managers and professionals reported the highest levels of informal learning, exceeding 90%. The absolute difference from levels of other Occupational Classes, whose participation rates ranged from 84% to 88%, is relatively small, and the authors have not indicated whether this difference is statistically significant. //// Data presented on p. 48 of the WALL survey report (Livingstone & Scholtz, 2006) suggested that Educational Attainment may affect participation in informal learning. Reported participation rates for employed adults lacking a high school diploma were lower at 78% than the rates for those who have completed high school or higher (rates ranging from 86% to 91%). Again, no indication was given as to the statistical significance of this difference. //// The WALL report (Livingstone & Scholtz, 2006) provided no other information with regard to how the learner characteristics listed earlier affected participation in informal learning. It was also mute with respect to whether such analyses will be forthcoming. //// In the ALL report (Rubenson, Desjardin, & Yoon, 2007), the data showed that participation rates in different kinds of informal learning activities were affected by some learner characteristics, although overall participation rates in informal learning were not. The report specifically noted that age and gender were not strongly related to rates of participation in informal learning. In contrast, both Literacy Level and Educational Attainment showed: s/he uses. With the exception of very general activities like learning by watching or by doing, those who are low skilled and in low engagement jobs are the least active in informal learning. In contrast, those who are high skilled and in high engagement jobs report the highest participation rate. Finally, those who are underqualified (whose skill level is below what is needed for the job) are more often engaged in informal learning than people classified as adequately or overqualified (whose skill level meets or exceeds what is needed for the job). //// In reporting on the AET survey, Peters (2004) noted that women had somewhat higher participation rates in selfdirected training than men and that younger workers' participation rate was higher than older workers'. In addition, educational level had a marked effect on participation. Because this study used such a restricted definition of informal learning, however, it is not possible to directly compare these findings to those of the surveys discussed earlier. //// Taken together, the findings of the WALL and ALL surveys suggest that while informal learning may be \"ubiquitous\\f