Session Review (Angela's): Evaluating Informal Learning

(May 3)

Summary: This was an energetic session that discussed informal learning and evaluation of said. They contrasted informal learning with formal, non-formal, and self-directed learning, stressed the importance of evaluating informal learning (which apparently is up to 80% of the learning that goes on in the workplace), and fundamentals for evaluating informal learning. They also looked at how other domains are evaluating informal learning (museums, marketing, web design).

The two presenters, Saul and Adnan, offered an interesting dichotomy of perspectives, one able to speak from only the academic research perspective, while the other could take that and merge it into practical experience and situations.

Ang’s thoughts: I must admit that this session left me more confused at the end than I was at the beginning – but I’ll take comfort in the fact that cognitive dissonance is one of those things that helps to move me forward.

The presenters defined informal learning as having the locus of control within the individual, with objectives and evaluation set by the individual, and having exploration and experiences as the means of learning. I cannot seem to get my head around evaluating this. I may not even know it’s going on! And by its very definition, doesn’t that seem true – does one advertise their informal learning? I absolutely agree that informal learning is important in the workplace – how can it not be when it covers off the majority of the learning that takes place.

From the audience, I sensed a real desire to formalize informal learning, to capture it somehow. I think the desire was more to facilitate the informal learning. That is, if I knew what people chose to learn, how they wanted to learn it, etc., I could create resources for self-service that could facilitate their learning – makes sense.

The presenters tried to debunk the myth that if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it. I remain unconvinced. Roger Kauffman has the same perspective, that he can measure anything – still not happening for me.

Other statements that confused me – “realities about measuring informal learning is that it encourages people to do more learning.” What? Isn’t informal learning people doing the learning they need? What does more mean? Okay – I’m hanging my ignorance out there and perhaps I am not the only one with these sorts of questions in my head.

One example of a domain of informal learning evaluation came from marketing communications and the impact of ads and press releases – direct marketing measures and brand recognition studies. Could you argue that the bombardment of advertising/marketing propaganda that sticks in my head is a form of informal learning? I suppose. Did I seek this out this information? Did I set the objectives and evaluation? Am I not understanding informal learning?

How about the web designer example which seems to me to be more of a usability assessment than learning. Are we equating learn-ability of an interface, or site navigability with informal learning? I don’t know. Can one extrapolate learning from usage statistics? OY! Well, the easier an interface is to learn and use, the more likely it will be used. But what about what sits behind the interface – content? Reference materials?

Perhaps having a structure for informal learning (which seems counterintuitive to me), like development plans, coaches and mentors moves us toward facilitating informal learning.

Seriously, if anyone has any comments on this – either to clarify things for me or to commiserate, I am all ears!

Submitted by: Angela van Barneveld