Talk:Informal learning

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education Mid‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A summary of this article appears in learning.

Informal Learning is not as well-defined in the literature as this article suggests (nor does it typically go by the definition this article uses). According to this article, learning in museums, for example, would be formal, yet much of the research on informal learning is directed at museum learning. A group of us (who do research on informal learning) will be working to improve this article in the near future. Porcupine8 16:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the main contributors,
"This has come to be widely known as the 75/25 Rule of Learning. Learners get only about 25 percent or less of what is used at work through formal learning." Could we know a little bit more about this rule? Maybe the source would be enough. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.6.25.120 (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page reads like someones (poorly researched) term paper on informal learning. It needs a rewrite to be up to wiki standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.10.251.62 (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is atrocious. It confuses self directed learning with informal learning and does not even approach incidental and tacit learning. The statistics are ridiculous. Considering this is one of the most heavily published areas of educational research you would think at least some of the major writers would be mentioned, instead of a few not very reliable blogs. It needs to be completely rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.254.170 (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find an original source for the Sally Anne Moore graphic - and believe that while interesting, it implies more precision in share/impact than might be warranted. Can the original source be located and made available for review? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canderson617 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed S. Moore graphic! Not a valid resource. Time to check your references people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:180:8000:6194:9869:3F22:248D:9885 (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding in a subsection discussing nonverbal communication as an informal learning tool in Indigenous American communities. This will serve as a light discussion of cultural variation and examples of effective nonverbal communication.Suhtran (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed J. Cross from Additional reads... The entire book is built around the 80/20 rule, but Cross never bothered to do his own research about the 80/20 rule; nearly all of his references are indirect.For example, Cross references Marcia Conner, who references work done in the EDC in the 90s (a paper I cannot find anywhere!). When Cross references her again (using only her first name this time--Marcia ...), she in turn is referencing the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS). The BLS paper that Conner and Cross (indirectly) cited is not research; it is a literature review written sixteen years ago,based on work done in a pre-digital age when you had to remember facts, one as early as the 70s. The lit review was of four studies of self-report surveys, where NO ONE came up with an 80/20 ratio. To top it off, Cross then references Dobbs, who, like Marcia Conner earlier, again referenced the EDC (which I believe no longer exists, dead website, anyway). Jay Cross likes to say, "study after study", but, this is just one study.He is using the same (ghost) information twice, as if they are two separate pieces that confirm the other. There are many more instances of weak references, but this one is my favorite :).Cross cites Vader (1998) for research on informal learning. I wonder if she knows about this? Vader actually wrote a review-- of a review --of a review --about research done in Canada. Vaders' writing was a blogpost on a blog for parents who homeschool their children. I could go out and read blogs all day too, they are free, and some are exceptional. What I expect when I buy a book,however, is reliability, professionalism, and expertise. Opinions are fine, but please back them up with credible, well-researched references! The sad part for me is that I agree with most of what "Jay" posits, I just wish he didn't falsely position himself as an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:180:8000:6194:9869:3F22:248D:9885 (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linking manual labor and informal learning[edit]

This page is missing a concise definition of informal learning as it pertains to the labor force. I think to separate the concepts of manual labor and informal learning is a disservice to both pages. This page neglects to discuss the importance of informal learning, how it is perceived, rates of participation, and common applications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel.vilandre (talk • contribs) 13:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph[edit]

We want to change the first paragraph explaining informal learning because it does not come from self directed experiences, but rather something that is never conscious. We are also going to eliminate the "kitchen table science" page because when you click the link it leads to nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auest7 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion, December 2019[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, on the grounds of distinct scope with sufficient content to warrant separate discussion. Klbrain (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed merging Informal education into Informal learning, because they are the same topic (notice how the first inline citation in Informal education is to an article with the title "The organization of informal learning"!). The resulting redirect would mirror how Formal education redirects to Formal learning. Biogeographist (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biogeographist. I agree. One approach of doing the merge is to create a section Informal education, which would focus more on theoretical underpinnings of the article. Darwin Naz (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there: I oppose. Education is not the same as learning and learning can come in many forms (tacit, embodied, sensory) that exceed institutional or structured 'domains' (much less 'pedagogies') particularly those that involve solitary routes of self-directed inquiry and ways of knowing that are not taught but practiced over time and highly situated in the environment and interests and needs of the learner. Indeed as many eminent anti-cognitivists, such as James Gibson, have argued for a more extra-social and ecological understanding of learning and perception that is not 'socially' or culturally mediated and, even more radically, not an outcome of mind, brain, body [see Gibson's An Ecological Approach to Visual Perception]. Conflating education with learning is problematic. So I 100% disagree with a change to the existing definition of informal learning. That the field of psychology has continued to attempt to own and define what learning is another facet of this very political battle for definition and to distinguish social, cultural, ecological, material and many other 'ways of knowing' from disciplinary claims of authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.232.202.201 (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the unsigned comment. I oppose. Educational institutions have no place in forcing informal learning under its banner or trying to appropriate informal learning to its own end. Education is the purview of educational institutions. The learning that takes place outside of educational institutions (workplace learning, on the job informal learning, learning about how to engage in social situations, learning how to engage in sporting events, concert halls, learning how to canoe or camp... these are not education, but learning. Jasonnolan (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Spring 2023[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 April 2023 and 17 July 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joshpalpsychology101 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Joshpalpsychology101 (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]