Non-formal Workplace Learning 1

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.

Next time: Michael Eraut’s typology of non-formal learning

_________

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 March 2010]

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

–

Related Posts with Thumbnails

April 26 2010 03:30 pm | e-learning

4 Responses to “Non-formal Workplace Learning 1”

  1. Jay Cross on 27 Apr 2010 at 6:53 pm #

    Assume two people take the same course. One takes the course for credit. The other audits the course and receives no credit.

    So the first learning is formal and the second non-formal?

    It’s not black and white.

    jay

  2. Non-formal Workplace Learning 2 | E-Learning Curve Blog on 28 Apr 2010 at 3:32 pm #

    [...] discussed in a previous blog entry, one of the central components of the impact of learning (and specifically the development of [...]

  3. Non-Formal Learning - Evaluation Considerations | E-Learning Curve Blog on 02 Jun 2010 at 3:32 pm #

    [...] previous posts, I’ve suggested that knowledge workers under time-pressure and with high demands on their [...]

  4. Top 10 E-Learning Curve Blog posts for 2010 | E-Learning Curve Blog on 14 Dec 2010 at 3:04 pm #

    [...] Non-formal Workplace Learning [...]