Content uploaded by Jeltsen Peeters
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jeltsen Peeters on Mar 14, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Adult Learners’ Informal Learning Experiences in Formal
Education Setting
Jeltsen Peeters •Free De Backer •Tine Buffel •
Ankelien Kindekens •Katrien Struyven •
Chang Zhu •Koen Lombaerts
Published online: 29 July 2014
!Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Schools typically ignore an enormous part of
students’ learning, i.e. informal learning. Such informal
processes include intentional, incidental, and tacit learning
and tend to be unnoticed because of their taken-for-granted
nature. By conducting in-depth interviews with 15 students,
two teachers, and two program coordinators of an adult
education program, this study examines informal learning
outcomes, processes, and personal informal learning
experiences within formal education. The study aimed to
reveal the interaction between formal and informal learning
as well as the respondents’ experiences in this matter.
Respondents report a diverse array of informal learning
results. Respondents describe informal learning to occur
through self-directed learning projects, daily conversations
and experiences, and the program’s informal and hidden
curriculum. According to respondents, informal learning
has the potential to enrich and complement formal learn-
ing. Moreover, the findings point to potential personal,
educational, and societal benefits of revealing informal
learning within formal education. Implications for practice
and future research are discussed.
Keywords Informal learning !Adult education !Lifelong
learning !Learning outcomes !Learning processes !Formal
learning
Introduction
Lifelong learning involves both formal and informal
learning processes that overlap as well as interact
(Schugurensky and Myers 2003). However, in 1986
already, Reischmann (1986, p. 2) denounced the dominant
research emphasis on the intentional, doable, producible
part of learning. At present too, many recommendations
concerning the promotion of lifelong learning focus on
encouraging and facilitating participation in formal edu-
cation, e.g. by the validation of non- and informal learning
and by decreasing registration fees. Several researchers and
policymakers, however, appeal for the promotion of more
inclusive methods involving the full array of both formal
and informal learning (e.g. Gouthro 2002; Jarvis 2008;
Jarvis et al. 2009; Livingstone 1999; Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development 2010). In spite of
some first efforts to design such inclusive methods (e.g.
Eaton 2010), a lack of insight into informal learning pro-
cesses impedes such development. The current study
therefore aims at complementing current research by
J. Peeters (&)!F. De Backer !A. Kindekens !K. Struyven !
C. Zhu !K. Lombaerts
Department of Educational Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
e-mail: jeltsen.peeters@vub.ac.be
F. De Backer
e-mail: free.de.backer@vub.ac.be
A. Kindekens
e-mail: ankelien.kindekens@vub.ac.be
K. Struyven
e-mail: katrien.struyven@vub.ac.be
C. Zhu
e-mail: chang.zhu@vub.ac.be
K. Lombaerts
e-mail: koen.lombaerts@vub.ac.be
J. Peeters
Research Foundation Flanders, Brussels, Belgium
T. Buffel
Department of Sociology, University of Manchester,
Manchester, UK
e-mail: tine.buffel@manchester.uk.ac
123
J Adult Dev (2014) 21:181–192
DOI 10.1007/s10804-014-9190-1
enlarging the insights in informal learning and its rela-
tionship with formal learning. Ultimately, increased
insights in adult students’ informal learning processes
while participating an educational program will contribute
to the development of strategies and methods that reckon
with a broader spectrum of human learning within formal
education settings.
Theoretical Background
Adult Learning
Adult learning is understood beyond the acquisition of
knowledge and behavioural change. Adult learning addi-
tionally includes processes that revise or rearrange prior
knowledge, or increase self-knowledge and other individ-
ual abilities (Hoare 2009). Epistemological beliefs, i.e.
views on the nature of knowledge and its acquisition,
impact the process of meaning-making and, hence, influ-
ence adult learning (Hofer 2000; Schraw and Olafson
2002). Adults’ meaning systems or cognitive structures
direct their understanding of personal experiences and
reality (Mezirow 1990,2000; van Rossum and Hamer
2010). More specifically, epistemological premises will
inevitably impact educational experiences (Baxter Ma-
golda 1992). Most researchers assume a developmental
model and argue that adults can grow in the way they think
about knowledge and learning. Most theoretical models
describe different stages that are hierarchically inclusive
(Hofer 2000; van Rossum and Hamer 2010). Generally,
growth in epistemological beliefs reflects the shift from
perceiving learning as the acquisition of absolute knowl-
edge to considering learning as active knowledge con-
struction (Baxter Magolda 1992; Belenky et al. 1997;
Olafson and Schraw 2006; van Rossum and Hamer 2010).
For example, Olafson and Schraw (2006) describe this
development in three stages of epistemological worldviews
converging into three groups: realists, contextualists, and
relativists. Baxter Magolda (1992) differentiates between
four types of knowledge reflecting the same kind of
developmental stages: absolute knowing, transitional
knowing, independent knowing, and contextual knowing.
Van Rossum and Hamer (2010) describe the first devel-
opmental stages as ‘‘learning how to know’’. The final
stages are associated with ‘‘learning how to be’’, resulting
in a stage characterized by growing self-awareness (van
Rossum and Hamer 2010). In line with such learning shift,
Belenkey et al. (1997) described different developmental
stages in women’s world perceptions relative to their own
position both in and out formal education settings.
Respondents evolved from an initial stage of feeling
voiceless (silence), over starting to listen to others
(received knowledge), towards discovering their own inner
voice (subjective knowledge). Next, they started general-
izing their skills across disciplines (procedural knowledge)
to ultimately learn how to integrate a multitude of opinions
and become active agents of their own life (Belenky et al.
1997).
Informal Learning
Increasingly, adult educators start to embrace the concept
of informal learning and acknowledge the role of public
pedagogies, or informal learning spaces, for identity
building (Sandlin et al. 2011). The distinction between
formal and informal learning processes is commonly
applied by many official organizations. Formal learning
processes take place in ‘‘education and training institutions,
leading to recognized diplomas and qualifications’’ (Euro-
pean Commission 2000, p. 8). Learners intentionally par-
ticipate in formal learning and are conscious of their
learning during the learning activity. Informal learning is
regarded as ‘‘the natural accompaniment to everyday life’’
(European Commission 2000, p. 8) and is described as a
‘‘very normal, very natural human activity’’ which is ‘‘so
invisible that people just don’t seem to be aware of their
own learning’’ (Tough 2002, p. 2). Both types of learning
are considered to interact and overlap (Schugurensky and
Myers 2003). Some authors therefore prefer (in)formality
stressing a continuum rather than distinct categories with
each its own characteristics (Colley et al. 2003; Reder and
Strawn 2006). Informal learning processes are conceptu-
alized into three categories, i.e. self-directed, incidental,
and tacit learning (Table 1). First, self-directed learning is
a conscious process that follows a prior intention to learn.
Mostly, self-directed learning trajectories do not include
actual educators, though other persons may be perceived as
valuable resources for learning (Schugurensky 2000).
Second, incidental learning takes place unintentionally
from the part of the learner but becomes visible during or
straight after the learning activity (Schugurensky 2007).
Incidental learning mainly occurs as a by-product of some
other activity and generally starts while people are not
aware (Marsick et al. 2006). Third, in contrast to self-
directed and incidental learning, tacit learning remains
mostly intangible. It is also referred to as socialization and
involves the internalization of values, attitudes, behaviour,
and knowledge occurring in daily life (Schugurensky
2000). Polanyi (1996, in Schugurensky and Myers 2003,
p. 326) describes tacit learning as ‘‘those things that we
know but we cannot tell’’. Despite its implicit nature,
learners can become aware of their tacit learning after a
process of retrospective recognition. This refers to the
conscious identification of both the new significant form of
knowledge or skill and the recognition of the process of
182 J. Peeters et al.
123
acquisition itself (Eraut 1999; Livingstone 1999,2001). As
shown in Table 1, this moment of awareness, i.e. retro-
spective recognition, differentiates incidental from tacit
learning (Schugurensky 2000).
The three informal learning subcategories are positioned
on a continuum: as intention, reflection, awareness, and
accessibility increase, the focus moves from the uncon-
scious forms of informal learning to self-directed learning
(Marsick et al. 2006).
Significance of Informal Learning
Informal learning outcomes affect different life domains.
First, on economic and professional level, adult education
can contribute to an increase in employability (Cullen et al.
2000). The validation of non-formal and informal learning
results in shortened study trajectories, reducing costs, and
training students more quickly for work (Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development 2010). Second,
on educational level, the recognition of informal learning
can be the key to lifelong learning: learners are encouraged
to appreciate more one’s own and each other’s learning
capabilities, are more able to identify the connections
between the diverse learning activities, can better under-
stand the use of informal learning as a lifelong endeavour,
and may improve self-understanding and awareness of
personal learning preferences (Ainsworth and Eaton 2010;
Cullen et al. 2000; Livingstone 1999; Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development 2010; Smith and
Smith 2008). Third, on a personal level, examining one’s
own informal learning is considered an empowering,
helpful, and supportive exercise (Tough 2002) and pro-
vides a psychological boost when becoming aware of one’s
own capabilities (Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development 2010). Informal learning may support
well-being and happiness as adults learn to set and achieve
their own goals that are personally meaningful (Field
2009). Fourth, since an increase in self-esteem and confi-
dence building are considered important facilitators of
social inclusion, active citizenship, human capital,
democracy, and social care, such personal gains may
impact the broader community (Cullen et al. 2000; Gouthro
2002; Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development 2010; Taber 2011). Finally, formal education
is often criticized for the reproduction of prior differences
in educational accomplishments, induced by, for example,
social segregation into different school types or tracks
(Livingstone 2008; Verschelde et al. 2010). Informal
learning, however, does not show such an association with
the initial level of schooling (Livingstone 2008; Tough
1978). In fact, socially disadvantaged adults in particular
engage in and rely on informal learning activities to (fur-
ther) develop their skills (Livingstone 2008; Smith and
Smith 2008). Adult education aims to contribute to all of
these domains (European Commission 2008). As informal
learning has been shown to affect these areas, close
examination of the contribution of these types of informal
learning to formal adult education could be worthwhile.
Informal Learning and Formal Education
Informal learning experiences can lead to participation in
formal education and the other way around. Informal and
formal learning processes sustain one another and should
therefore be considered as complementary (Reder and
Strawn 2006; Reischmann 1986,2008; Smith and Smith
2008). Informal learning is assumed to take place within
formal educational institutions but outside their formal
curricula (Jarvis 2008; Schugurensky 2007). Whereas for-
mal learning refers to the fixed, intended, and formally
provided curriculum (Ozolins et al. 2008), informal learn-
ing is related to the informal and hidden curriculum
(Marsick et al. 2009). The informal curriculum refers to the
intentional transfer of information from the teacher to the
learner. It occurs through personal interaction, mostly in a
personalized and unstructured way (Wade and Regehr
2006). Within the hidden curriculum, students learn from
teachers’ unintentional behaviours, beliefs, and attitudes
and from implicit social and cultural rules (Ozolins et al.
2008). Therefore, one way to uncover informal learning
within a formal education program is to reveal the pro-
gram’s informal and hidden curriculum. This exploration
becomes especially interesting when informal and formal
learning, for example, counteract (Schugurensky 2000) due
to differences between the hidden and formal curriculum.
Moreover, students can develop unconstructive strategies
Table 1 Informal learning
Type Initiator Structure Intention Awareness
Self-directed
a
Learner Preset goals Yes Yes
Incidental
b
Not the learner Unstructured, embedded in daily life No Yes
Tacit
c
Not the learner Unstructured, embedded in daily life No No
a
Example: Contacting mum to ask her how to make your dessert
b
Example: Watching television and learning about the newest pastry
c
Example: A child imitating how to eat with knife and fork
Adult Learners’ Informal Learning Experiences 183
123
such as self-handicapping or a fear of failure. Although
informal learning may affect formal student learning, it is
also merely left to chance. Hence, there is no guarantee that
informal learning will meet individual or formal curricu-
lum needs, and positive as well as negative skills and
beliefs may be acquired through informal learning (Arm-
strong 2009). Therefore, we argue the importance of
examining students’ informal learning within formal set-
tings, both because of its benefits and drawbacks. In line
with findings of previous research, the present study
stresses the need for more qualitative research that explores
the depth of informal learning (Brandstetter and Kellner
2000; Colley et al. 2003; Hager and Halliday 2006). In
particular, unintentional types of informal learning will be
included as such learning types are often overlooked
(Livingstone et al. 2008; Schugurensky and Myers 2003;
Schugurensky 2007). The present study focuses on inves-
tigating informal learning within formal education settings
in order to explore the synergy between both types of
learning (Hager and Halliday 2006; Livingstone et al.
2008; Smith and Smith 2008). It is assumed that blending
both learning types results in more significant learning
experiences (Colley et al. 2003). Finally, the present study
examines not only the context of informal learning, but
also learners’ actual informal learning experiences.
The Study
Research Aim and Questions
The central aim of this study was to examine informal
learning processes within a formal education setting to
reveal the connection between formal and informal learn-
ing as well as the learners’ experiences in this matter. The
following research questions have been addressed:
1. What kind of knowledge, skills, and attitudes are
learned informally? Through which processes do
different types of informal learning take place in
formal education?
2. How are reported informal and formal learning activ-
ities connected with each other?
3. How do adult students, teachers, and school coordinators
perceive and experience informal learning outcomes?
Context of the Adult Education Program
The study was conducted in an adult education program in
Flanders, the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium (Europe).
The selected program aims to prepare students as logistic
assistants in social care institutions. As logistic assistants,
they support other professional caregivers by executing
tasks for which no nursing qualification is required. The
program’s curriculum is built upon attainment targets
(national minimum goals of knowledge, insight, skills, and
attitudes) divided into five domains: general competences,
housekeeping, health, communication, and logic work in
hospitals and care institutions. Tasks are diverse and may
include domestic activities, animation, transport of
patients, and conversations. As a caregiver’s main instru-
ment is its own person, the program pays considerable
attention to personal development. Therefore, practical
experience and program content are always linked to one
another, and permanent self-reflection is highlighted
(Flemish Parliament 2007).
The program is unique in the national context as it tar-
gets adults who are low schooled and live in or are at risk
for poverty. The cooperation with a non-profit organization
refers potential students to the program, financially sup-
ports them, and facilitates a professional non-patronizing
approach. Typical of this program is the conscious estab-
lishment and application of an informal curriculum. In
addition to the official formal curriculum, school admin-
istration, teachers, and the non-profit organization set more
informal goals aimed at empowering participants who live
in poverty. Nevertheless, the formal curriculum remains
the primary objective of participation. The program covers
one academic year and involved 15 female students
between the age of 19 and 55 during the research period.
Table 2gives a short description of the participants.
Methods
Data Collection
The study applied a qualitative in-depth research method-
ology. The core of this research consisted of semi-struc-
tured interviews with all participants from the 2010–2011
class ranging from 50 min to 2 h with an average length of
1 h and a half. Interviews were carried out 1 year later,
since informal learning’s recognition frequently occurs a
certain time after the actual learning experience (Eraut
1999, Reischmann 2008). All respondents were contacted
by telephone first. After a short introduction about the aim
of the interview, all respondents agreed to participate. All
interviews took place in the participants’ home environ-
ment. Careful attention was paid to the interviewer’s role
from the first contacts on. The interviewees were explicitly
approached as experts of the program and their own
learning experiences. The interviewer was introduced as a
layperson eager to learn anything about the learning that
occurred during the program. This approach facilitated the
external recognition that was needed to uncover informal
learning since it encouraged interviewees to explain
184 J. Peeters et al.
123
everything, including obvious or at first sight less important
learning experiences.
In addition, interviews were conducted with the two
program teachers as well as with the two program coor-
dinators. Table 3provides some demographic information.
These additional interviews provided insight in the pro-
gram’s formal, informal, and hidden curriculum. Their
observations of students’ informal learning were scruti-
nized in addition to students’ self-reports. As in general it
is not easy to recognize own learning processes and out-
comes, it was reasoned that others might be more capable
of observing and verbalizing informal learning outcomes
(Bolhuis 2009). This triangulation procedure enabled
cross-examination of the results obtained from the partic-
ipant interviews.
Instrument
Instead of introducing informal learning by its conceptual
definition, topics were addressed in a more indirect way in
order to prevent imposing our formal knowledge of infor-
mal learning to the respondents. Informal learning was
therefore addressed through four general questions, each
induced by theoretical insights:
1. Apart from what you learned from the lectures and
textbooks, did you somehow learn or apprehend
anything else? Informal learning was approached as
different from formal learning, which enabled us to
inquire beyond the formal curriculum. The word
‘‘learning’’ was avoided and replaced by different
synonyms, such as understand, apprehend, and realize
as well as the corresponding words used by the
respondent.
2. Did you somehow notice any minor or major changes
in your life that can be related to your participation in
the program? As all learning encompasses change that
can emerge in all life domains, respondents were asked
about any visible change in any of their life domains
(Bolhuis 2009; Brandstetter and Kellner 2000; Jarvis
2008).
3. During the participation in the program, did you
somehow learn from others that were of particular
interest to you? We explored informal learning through
the social nature of informal learning (Livingstone and
Scholtz 2006) and explored attempts to share knowl-
edge with peers or the extent to which respondents,
consciously or not, learned from each other.
4. Finally, informal learning was examined through what
students learned from the informal and hidden curric-
ulum. Questions investigated the way in which
students informally learned from the teachers and the
school. Next, students’ informal learning outcomes
Table 2 Background of student respondents
Name Age Employment before program* Family situation Employment
after program
Continued
education**
An 38 No
3
, during 1 year Reconstituted family, 2 children Yes No
Brenda 36 No
3
, during !year Married, 1 child No Yes
Caroline 22 No
4
Student, lives with parents No Yes
Aida 42 Yes Married, 2 children Yes No
Nancy 36 No
2
, during 9 years Married, 3 children Yes No
Mary 44 No
2
, during 20 years Married, 2 children Yes Yes
Ingrid 52 No
1
, during 5 years Single, took care of parents Yes No
Yena 39 No
1
Political refugee, widow, 4 children No No
Laura 19 No
4
Student, lives with parents No Yes
Alice 40 No
3
, during 2 years Divorced, 2 children Yes No
Nadia 40 No
3
, during 6 years Divorced, 1 child No No
Petra 45 No
2
, during 17 years Divorced, 4 children Yes No
Rose 50 Yes Married, 2 children Yes No
Samira 29 No
1
Single, immigrant Yes No
Marta 56 No
1
, during 2 years Single, took care of parents No No
*1
unemployed,
2
house wife,
3
unemployed due to medical reasons,
4
secondary education
**
Participated another program after finishing the current one
Table 3 Background of teachers and program directors
Name Age Gender Role
Isabel 34 Female Program coordinator
Jacob 64 Male Program coordinator, director
of non-profit organization
Addison 39 Female Teacher
Daisy 46 Female Teacher
Adult Learners’ Informal Learning Experiences 185
123
were compared to experiences of fellow students and
characteristics of the informal and hidden curriculum
as described by the teachers and the program
coordinators.
Importantly, merely speaking about informal learning is
already challenging because of the general initial reluc-
tance to consider learning outside schools as legitimate
learning. Moreover, it tends to remain tacit until the
interviewer makes it explicit (Livingstone 2008; Schugu-
rensky and Myers 2003). The interviewer therefore needs
to engage in some probing to facilitate reflection (Living-
stone 2001; Tough 1978). This process was examined
critically during both data collection and analysis. For
example, the probing process was shaped by using the four
different approaches described above to question the same
topic—i.e. informal learning. When respondents did not
refer to any informal learning activities subsequently, no
further probing was applied (Livingstone 1999).
Data Analysis
All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed ver-
batim. The data analysis was carried out using an inductive
research approach. Themes and categories of analysis
emerged from the data rather than being enforced prior to
data collection and analysis (Patton 2002). The concept of
informal learning was applied as a sensitizing concept
guiding the inductive analysis process (cf. Table 1). The
interviews were subdivided into fragments and labelled
through an open-coding system staying close to respon-
dents’ words. The coding frames and strategies were sub-
ject to systematic review by the principal investigators and
refined through a process of consensus. The coding process
followed different steps. In a first step, reported learning
outcomes resulting from the program participation were
identified. It was carefully explored if and how the learning
was induced by the program to avoid baselessly assigning
all informal learning to the participation of the program.
Secondly, based on Schugurensky’s framework (2000), it
was examined whether the outcome was learned formally
or informally. As a third step, the type of informal learning
was determined. Fourthly, we verified the areas the learn-
ing outcome was used for. In sum, the intentionality of
learning, level of consciousness, subjects of interest,
experiences, possible implications on different life
domains, and interaction with formal learning were
examined for each informal learning outcome reported by
the respondent.
The quality of the study was closely monitored
according to Lincoln and Guba’s criteria for qualitative
research (1985). Regarding credibility, member checking
was performed with both teachers and program directors.
Furthermore, data triangulation was realized by gathering
information on participants’ informal learning from the
individual, her peers, teachers, and program directors. By
elucidating our central assumptions (cf. ‘‘Theoretical
background’’ section) and providing thick descriptions of
contextual conditions (cf. ‘‘Considerations for further
research’’ section), we intend to increase transferability
across settings. Investigator triangulation and the associ-
ated iterative process of critical reflection enhance the
study’s dependability. Finally, investigator triangulation
also contributes to the confirmability of study results,
which was also increased as we actively searched for,
found, and analysed negative cases that challenged previ-
ous results (cf. ‘‘Perceptions about informal learning’’
section).
Findings
Informal Learning Outcomes
The knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs learned
informally can be subsumed under diverse life domains
such as the personal, societal, professional, and educational
spheres. Compared with formal learning outcomes, infor-
mal learning results are associated with more diverse and
personal learning gains. Table 4offers some examples.
Naturally, all respondents refer to formal learning as the
main source of learning gains when reporting on learning
outcomes for professional matters. Informal learning out-
comes in this area mainly complement learning processes
associated with the formal curriculum. Next to the acqui-
sition of new knowledge (e.g. from watching a medical
documentary), informal learning outcomes also involve the
development of skills of which respondents feel a shortage
and that personally hinder them in their professional
activities (e.g. lack of patience). Though these skills are not
explicitly addressed by the program’s formal curriculum,
Table 4 Examples of informal learning per life domain
Domain Examples
Professional level More positive attitudes towards the professional
field; first-aid skills learned from documentary
in addition to the formal course offered by the
school
Educational level New educational beliefs (learning could be
interesting and even fun); alternative study
methods
Personal and
societal level
Competences such as decisiveness, courage,
respect and higher levels of self-confidence;
learning about other cultures through
immigrant students; learning to drive a car
(again) by driving to the school and back
186 J. Peeters et al.
123
participants start finding their own ways to develop these
skills in addition to the program and, for instance, train
these skills in other life domains (e.g. through interactions
with family members). From an educational perspective,
most reported outcomes relate to new methods of learning
and adjusted attitudes towards education. Informal learning
outcomes related to students’ personal life mostly relate to
respondents’ personal learning needs and are therefore very
diverse. Several students, such as Petra and Rose below,
underscore the importance of quality rather than quantity of
informal learning outcomes. Often, very small personal
victories are highly valued.
But this ‘stretching the envelope’ should be seen as
something very small, you know. It’s not that all of a
sudden I’ll be bungee jumping and things like that.
No, really. For me, those things (I learned) could be
very small. (Petra)
Now, I can express myself better with a couple of
more decent words. Words I didn’t use before. (…)
Petra, she could really use words that almost made us
split our sides with laughter. Words we didn’t use, but
that are very common though! (Rose)
Informal Learning Processes
Data provide examples of each type of informal learning.
First, about one-third of the participants engage in new
self-directed learning processes due to their participation in
the program. Participants discover new interests and ways
of learning, e.g. starting to do research on a computer,
consulting books and creating a documentation folder
based on magazines. This often leads to a separate self-
directed informal learning path. One respondent set such a
personal learning goal even before the start of the program.
She used the classes to deal with her stutter problems of
which she had suffered her entire life already.
I really used the classes to read in front of the class. If
the teacher asked who wanted to read out his work, I
was the first to volunteer because I wanted to use it as
a speaking exercise. (Nadia)
At the end of the year we found that she (Nadia)
could talk better, she stuttered less. If teachers asked:
‘Who would like to read it out loud?’ And then Nadia
would say ‘Yes, I would, so I can learn.’ (Caroline)
Second, stories and small talk prove to be very impor-
tant resources for incidental learning. As one respondent
explains: ‘‘It is about listening, watching, and TALKING’’.
Often, conversations are driven by what other participants
had informally learned before. These subjects then became
sources for others to learn from. For this reason, especially
the younger students, i.e. Laura and Caroline, pointed to
older participants as a major resource for informal learning:
‘‘If you are in class with older students you hear things here
and there, things you didn’t know before.’’ (Laura). Some
participants learned from informal peer-teaching processes
in which students, planned or not, ‘‘taught’’ each other
diverse things. Mostly, these learning opportunities
occurred spontaneously.
Third, respondents reported tacit-learning processes that
were not visible during participation. While looking back
at the program, participants, for example, recognized how
they at the time adopted new words used by others (Rose)
or observed and applied new learning strategies (Ann and
Petra). Data triangulation helped to uncover these forms of
learning, as the following example illustrates:
Sometimes I appear to be rather rude. Then people
say: be a bit quieter please. So then you pay attention
to it again and you think ‘oh, yes, that might have
been a little too harsh’ or ‘I shouldn’t have said it that
way.’. (Brenda)
For example, when teachers posed a question, she
(Brenda) could be quite rude. Then we would say like
‘Brenda’ – whispering – ‘no, that’s not the way to say
it, try to say it in another way’. (Caroline)
For example, there is Brenda, who learned to com-
municate better about her financial problems and
learned how to contact and get the right professional
assistance. (…) These communication skills also
apply to personal relationships. Brenda, for example,
also learned to communicate differently with her
mother in law. (Addison & Daisy, teachers)
Finally, a considerable proportion of the students’ tacit
learning is influenced by the program’s informal and hid-
den curriculum. Whereas the formal curriculum ends after
each lesson, teachers remain loyal to the informal curric-
ulum in which they determined several attitudes, which are
indispensable for both good professionals and active citi-
zens. In every student–teacher interaction, teachers con-
tinue to stress these attitudes, even outside their classes.
Such attitudes (e.g. being tolerant, showing respect and not
to condemn) match or extend those of the formal curricu-
lum. In addition, the program addresses the hidden cur-
riculum by recruiting teachers based on the informal
curriculum’s core attitudes and competences necessary for
professional and community life. According to the program
coordinators, the selected teachers naturally show high
levels of these competences, which increases the odds that
the participants would also learn these skills through
informal learning processes enclosed in the hidden
curriculum.
Informal learning of these students has a lot to do
with the way these teachers are. (…) They have the
Adult Learners’ Informal Learning Experiences 187
123
feelers to detect what students need for their job and
life in general. They know how to transfer these skills
without being patronizing or judging. They manage
to do so with lots of respect. Actually, it all seems to
happen automatically with them. (Isabel, program
coordinator)
Due to the congruence between the formal program
(formal curriculum), the teachers’ informal teaching
intentions (informal curriculum) and their unintentional
communications embedded in their personality (hidden
curriculum), integration of the three curricula is observed
to some degree. Several participants reported to have
learned what the teachers indicated to have encouraged
through the informal and hidden curriculum. Several
respondents, for example, learned from the way the
teachers communicated and approached problems. The
following statements illustrate the parallel between the
teachers’ description of the informal curriculum and an
example of a students’ informal learning:
[I learned to] show more respect by letting other
people express their opinion without intervening and
then also respect their opinion. Everyone has his own
beliefs. Each opinion is right, because an opinion
can’t possibly be wrong. (Laura)
We try to emphasize the importance to ‘tolerate and
respect others’, ‘tolerate being different’. We
explicitly tell them, but we also show it through our
presence, for example during breaks. (Addison,
teacher)
Due to the correspondence between the informal and
hidden curriculum at the one hand and participants’
reported informal learning outcomes on the other hand, it is
argued that both curricula indeed guide participants’
informal learning.
The Association Between Informal and Formal
Learning
The data revealed several reported associations between
formal and informal learning. First, formal and informal
learning were often considered complementary. On the one
hand, informal learning leads some participants to enrol in
formal education to extend what they had informally
learned before. On the other hand, participation in the
(formal) program itself leads to (self-directed) informal
learning in some cases. Once recognized, informal learning
becomes an additional and suddenly more tangible way of
learning for many participants. This insight facilitates
lifelong learning as participants realize that learning can
differ from traditional scholastic learning processes and
find themselves able to learn continuously. As Livingstone
(1999) stated: respondents start identifying connections
between various formal as well as informal learning
activities and lifelong learning becomes more concrete.
Second, informal learning processes induced by the
program are occasionally reported to increase both informal
and formal learning of for instance participants’ acquain-
tances. In some cases, formal learning outcomes (e.g. lifting
techniques) were informally taught to others, mainly family
members, and therefore led to informal learning by these
third parties. Respondents with children, for example,
reported that their positive experience with the program
equipped them with the skills and conviction to stimulate
their own children to perform better at school. They infor-
mally acquired a more positive view on formal education.
Through informal parent–child learning processes, they
convinced their children of the importance of learning.
Perceptions About Informal Learning
The majority of participants especially appreciate the
spontaneity of informal learning. Although formal learning
remains the primary and most important objective of
enrolment, some respondents describe how informal
learning can make formal learning more interesting and
effective because of the matching relationship between
both within the program. Informal learning regularly pro-
vides participants with more illustrations and explanations,
which contributes to a better understanding of the formal
curriculum. Finally, more variety is added when more
different topics are learned in addition to the formal cur-
riculum. As one respondent indicated:
I now look differently towards other cultures and
learned more about them, because people of different
origins were in my class as well and I actually believe
that was interesting. It also made the courses a bit
more stimulating. (Laura)
Participants do not expect to learn in any other way than
formally. Short reflection is often needed in order to
become aware of informal learning. In line with the find-
ings of Schugurensky and Myers (2003), once respondents
recognize their informal learning, they are able to trace,
describe, and evaluate it.
But…it seems like I learned much more in school
than I realized before. I mean, not only about taking
care of patients and things like that (…) That’s why I
didn’t tell it at the beginning of the interview.
(Caroline)
Most respondents hold positive attitudes towards their
informal learning processes and outcomes and are often
surprised by these hidden forms of learning. However, two
(Ann and Martha) out of the fifteen respondents presented
188 J. Peeters et al.
123
more modest reports both on the quantity (i.e. amount of
informal learning examples) and quality (i.e. enthusiasm
about informal learning). Further comparative data analysis
was applied to search for possible explanations.
Similar to their peers, both respondents showed high
degrees of motivation and willingness to learn. Compared
with other participants, however, both Ann and Martha
could be described as more down to earth women tending
to display more criticism towards their own achievements.
This trend was reflected in their reports on both formal and
informal learning outcomes.
When I had the highest scores, they said ‘Betty is the
class’s primus’. That’s nice of course. It’s pleasant
for a while. But you know, outsiders know that it isn’t
a difficult program. I did not break any records or
anything like that. (Ann)
It’s not that I returned home with all the wisdom of
the world, but rather something of which you thought
‘well, that’s interesting to hear’. But it did not change
my character or something like that, that would be
huge. (Martha)
Although respondents’ definitions of learning were not
explicitly questioned, Martha and Ann seemed to perceive
learning principally as the acquisition of new bits of
knowledge and skills through formal learning. Compared
with the other respondents, both respondents barely
reported learning outcomes related to other life domains
than the professional and educational spheres. They did not
consider it likely to have learned for personal or societal
purposes. Whereas Alice and Samira consider everyday
learning as learning, Martha would not call it learning:
You learn each day. It’s true, each day you learn from
your mistakes. Sometimes it’s positive, but it might
as well be negative. (Alice)
You can always learn. From each day, from each
situation you can learn. You can learn the language or
dialect or different traditions or…(Samira)
At my age, I have seen enough already. I’m not going
to learn from others that much anymore. (…)
Learning is huge; it’s a big word, right. Sometimes
you think ‘ah, you would do it that way’. But that’s
not learning. (Martha)
In sum, the participants’ interpretation of learning is
identified as possible determinant of informal learning
experiences and its recognition.
Conclusion and Discussion
The present study first examined informal learning out-
comes and processes. Data showed that informal learning
covers a patchwork of learning outcomes and processes
within formal education programs. This is in line with
Tough (2002) who observed a quite extraordinary range of
informal learning outcomes outside schools. In addition to
Livingstone (2001), Schugurensky (2000), and Reisch-
mann (1986), our data show that in formal education
environments as well, learners appeal on a variety of ways
to learn informally (e.g. hidden curriculum, peers, and
books). Whereas formal learning outcomes are generally
equal for all participants, informal learning outcomes
portray a greater diversity, as they are more individual in
nature. Such differences in perceived informal learning
outcomes are evident as they are steered by previous
learning experiences (Reischmann 1986). Moreover,
informal learning outcomes are not confined to the pro-
fessional or educational life domain. Respondents descri-
bed the use of informally acquired competences for both
personal and societal life. So-called soft skills are often
learned rather than taught (Holford and van der Veen
2003). Hence, formal education should reckon with the
potential strength of the hidden and informal curriculum in
attaining curricular goals related to such skills and
attitudes.
The second objective of the study was to examine the
connection between formal and informal learning pro-
cesses. Our results support the general idea that both formal
learning and informal learning may pave the way for more
formal education. Additionally, the results provided evi-
dence for Smiths and Smiths’ (2008) suggestion that formal
education can encourage students to engage in more self-
directed informal learning. Remarkably, in some cases, we
found evidence that respondents’ participation and infor-
mal learning processes initiate informal and formal learn-
ing of non-participants, such as, for example, participants’
family members.
The final objective of the study concerned participants’
experiences with informal learning. The study showed that
students do not expect to learn in any other way than for-
mally and need time to reflect upon their learning experi-
ences in order for them to become conscious (Livingstone
2001; Tough 2002). Informal learning is much more
invisible as it occurs every day: people cannot but learn
(Bolhuis 2009) and informal learning is therefore regarded
as evident (Brandstetter and Kellner 2000; Jarvis 2008;
Livingstone 2008), a by-product, of in this case formal
education (Marsick and Watkins 1990), and not worth
mentioning (Brandstetter and Kellner 2000). Once recog-
nized, most respondents report positive attitudes towards
their informal learning processes and outcomes and are
often surprised by these hidden forms of learning. In this
regard, Tough (2002) considered the recognition of infor-
mal learning a very empowering exercise. Self-directed
learning is especially appreciated as respondents consider
Adult Learners’ Informal Learning Experiences 189
123
themselves to be able to achieve their own learning goals.
Adults start identifying connections between diverse for-
mal as well as informal learning activities and likewise
stress the life-wide and lifelong endeavour (Livingstone
1999). Second, the spontaneous peer teaching and the
associated awareness of their capability to informally
‘‘teach’’ others based on their own knowledge positively
influences participants’ self-esteem. This finding corre-
sponds to what is described as women’s ‘‘subjective
knowledge’’ (Belenky et al. 1997) or ‘‘transitional know-
ing’’ (Baxter Magolda 1992). When displaying such levels
of epistemological development, the personal day-to-day
knowledge may be experienced as valuable to others. Peer
interactions in informal settings seem to encourage par-
ticipants to find their ‘‘inner voice’’. However, in the pre-
vious studies of Baxter Magolda (1992) and Belenky et al.
(1997), women at this stage remained hesitant about con-
sidering themselves as constant knowledge constructers
and perceived the teacher as the principle actor in the
process of learning. As such, teachers’ mere presence may
at first hinder students’ growth in epistemological beliefs,
regardless of their capacities to facilitate such develop-
ment. In contrast, informal learning settings may encourage
students to rely upon their own knowledge exactly because
of the teacher’s absence as learning supplier. Third, in our
study, two cases were found more modest in describing
informal learning experiences and were more closely
associated with ‘‘absolute knowing’’ rather than ‘‘transi-
tional knowing’’. Learning was interpreted as the acquisi-
tion and reproduction of knowledge and therefore
principally defined as formal. Absolute knowers are con-
sidered rather passive and non-reflective. As critical
reflection is considered an important enhancer of informal
learning (Marsick et al. 2009), transitional knowers may be
more susceptible to perceiving informal learning as a way
of learning. Although we did not explicitly apply the model
of Baxter Magolda (1992) as a framework for data col-
lection and analysis, participants’ epistemological premises
did help us to explain differences in reported informal
learning experiences. The results in our study suggest that
epistemological beliefs may underpin students’ informal
learning experiences as well as their recognition.
Considerations for Further Research
Although the present study brings about important findings,
it is important to point to the main methodological and
theoretical challenges when studying informal learning.
First, the exploration of self-reports on informal learning
relies on the respondents’ reflection and recognition abili-
ties, and on the interviewer’s ability to facilitate such
processes. One suggestion could be to include the respon-
dents’ direct network in the process of recognition, as
others might be more capable of verbalizing informal
learning processes (Bolhuis 2009).
Second, informal learning should not be over romanti-
cized. Informal learning outcomes may as well be negative
(Jarvis 2005). It is recommended to remain sensitive to
cases that are more critical to informal learning. Further
investigation in programs, where informal and formal
learning counteract, is recommended. It can be assumed
that learning becomes rather ineffective in case of opposing
formal and informal learning outcomes or curricula.
Third, we plead for environmental triangulation in
which the present study would be replicated in other con-
texts to further validate the results and gain more insights
in the conditions fostering or hindering informal learning in
a formal education context (Guion et al. 2011). The target
group in this study was rather specific, i.e. low educated,
socially disadvantaged female students. Being all female
students may therefore have biased the results. For exam-
ple, female students favour cooperative forms of learning
more as compared to men (Vermunt 2005). As an impor-
tant informal learning situation, male experiences with
informal learning through peer learning may be different.
Since teachers proved to be important sources for informal
learning, the impact of their characteristics—such as gen-
der and background—should also be taken into account in
further research. Students’ development of epistemological
beliefs, and hence, informal learning experiences, are
enhanced by teacher–student relationships based on mutual
trust and authenticity and by teachers who students can
identify with (Belenky et al. 1997; van Rossum and Hamer
2010). Programs lacking strong professional relationships
between students and teachers may show less evidence of
teachers as important sources for informal learning.
Finally, several program attributes—i.e. the formal cur-
riculum, program discipline, and hidden curriculum—may
have played a role in participants’ informal learning
experiences and recognition and could be altered in sub-
sequent studies. The selected program prepared students
for a job in social care and therefore focused on training
self-reflection and meta-cognition skills, both important
competences for the recognition process of informal
learning (Livingstone 2001; Marsick et al. 2009). Altering
the above factors will increase our insights in important
determinants of informal learning processes in formal
education.
Finally, future research within this domain should also
involve epistemological beliefs and their development in
relation to informal learning settings. Whereas the devel-
opment of active self-directed learners and knowledge
constructors is mostly part of the targets of formal educa-
tion, subsequent stages in epistemological development,
such as growing self-awareness, may be beyond the scope
of formal education (Baxter Magolda 1992; van Rossum
190 J. Peeters et al.
123
and Hamer 2010). Furthermore, it might be interesting to
compare epistemological beliefs in both formal and infor-
mal learning environments. Increasingly, researchers doubt
that epistemological development is domain general (Hofer
2000; Olafson and Schraw 2006). Similarly, adults may
hold different epistemological beliefs in informal versus
formal learning environments. Clearly, further research
that tracks learners’ informal learning experiences as well
as their epistemological beliefs is needed to further validate
and extend current results.
Considerations for Policy and Practice
Some practical recommendations can be formulated. Since
respondents exactly valued the spontaneity of both infor-
mal learning and its recognition, it is recommended that
policy and practice include more subtle and spontaneous
ways of recognizing informal learning in addition to the
validation of non-formal and informal learning initiatives.
Handling the hidden curriculum through thoughtful staff
recruitment and continual staff reflection on the three types
of curriculum is possible strategies for a more subtle
approach to informal learning. Another suggestion is to
enhance student reflection on informal learning that par-
allels the formal curriculum in and outside the classroom in
order to stimulate positive use of incidental learning (Re-
ischmann 2008; Smith and Smith 2008). Since informal
learning is highly individual and cannot be planned, it can
only be recognized after active reflection (Marsick et al.
2009; Reischmann 2008). In addition, teachers can help
students recognize informal learning when it takes place.
However, teachers should then dispose of sound knowledge
of informal learning processes as it differs from the formal
curriculum in content and form and, hence, may prove
difficult to detect (Reischmann 2008). Besides the large
amount of well-established formal education methods,
increased attention to informal learning in formal education
offers schools an additional way of, indirectly, guiding
student learning. Finally, an increased emphasis on self-
directed learning strategies in classroom practice (e.g.
Zimmerman and Schunk 2011) may eventually be benefi-
cial for students’ formal as well as informal learning
processes.
Conclusively, a greater acknowledgement of the value
of informality in learning in policy would encourage edu-
cational practice to bring informal learning out of the
inferiority to formal learning (Coffield 2000). We follow
Coffield (2000) who stresses that informal learning needs
to be regarded as fundamental, necessary and valuable in
its own right, at times directly relevant (…) at other times
not relevant at all. More insight in informal learning will
reveal its own characteristics and will therefore no longer
have to be approached by formal learning’s criteria.
Acknowledgments The authors are especially grateful to the
Research Foundation Flanders for their financial support enabling the
research presented in the present paper.
References
Ainsworth, H. L., & Eaton, S. E. (2010). Formal, non-formal and
informal learning in the sciences. Calgary: Eaton International
Consulting Inc.
Armstrong, M. (2009). Armstrong’s handbook of human resource
management practice. London: Kogan Page.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M.
(1997). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self,
voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Bolhuis, S. (2009). Leren en veranderen [Learning and changing].
Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho.
Brandstetter, G., & Kellner, W. (2000). Voluntary commitment,
learning and democracy. Contributions to citizenship in Europe:
Examples from six European Countries. Wien: Ring O
¨sterrei-
chischer Bildungswerke.
Coffield, F. (2000). The necessity of informal learning. Bristol: The
Policy Press.
Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcom, J. (2003). Informality and
formality in learning: A report for the Learning and Skills
Research Centre. London: Learning and Skills Research.
Cullen, J., Batterbury, S., Foresti, M., & Lyons, C. (2000). Informal
learning and widening participation.DfEE Research Report No.
191. Retrieved February 4, 2014, from https://www.education.
gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RR191.pdf.
Eaton, S. E. (2010). Formal, non-formal and informal learning: The
case of literacy, essential skills and language learning in
Canada. Calgary: Eaton International Consulting Inc.
Eraut, M. (1999). Non-formal learning in the workplace. The hidden
dimension of lifelong learning: a framework for analysis and the
problems it poses for the researcher. In Plenary paper presented
at the first international conference on researching work and
learning. Leeds University, September 10–12.
European Commission. (2000). A memorandum on lifelong learning.
Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2008). Council conclusions of 22 May 2008
on adult learning.Official journal of the European Union,
51(C140), 10–13. Retrieved February 4, 2014, from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:140:
0010:0013:EN:PDF.
Field, J. (2009). Well-being and happiness. IFLL Thematic Paper 4.
Leicester: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.
Gouthro, P. A. (2002). Education for sale: At what cost? Lifelong
learning and the marketplace. International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 21(4), 334–346.
Guion, L. A., Diehl, D. C., & McDonald, D. (2011). Triangulation:
Establishing the validity of qualitative studies. Gainesville, FL:
University of Florida.
Hager, P., & Halliday, J. (2006). Recovering informal learning.
Wisdom, judgment and community. Lifelong learning book series
(Vol. 7). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hoare, C. (2009). Models of adult development in Bronfenbrenner’s
bioecological theory and Erikson’s biopsychosocial life state
theory: Moving to a more complete three-model view. In M.
C. Smith & N. DeFrates-Densch (Eds.), Handbook of research on
adult learning and development (pp. 68–102). Oxon: Routledge.
Hofer, B. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in
personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
25(4), 378–405.
Adult Learners’ Informal Learning Experiences 191
123
Holford, J., & van der Veen, R. (2003). Lifelong learning, governance
and active citizenship in Europe. Guildford: ETGACE. (Elec-
tronic version).
Jarvis, C. (2005). Real stakeholder education? Lifelong learning in the
Buffy verse. Studies in the Education of Adults, 37, 31–46.
Jarvis, P. (2008). The lifelong learning and the learning society
trilogy: Democracy, lifelong learning and the learning society
(Vol. 3). London: Routledge.
Jarvis, P., Holford, J., & Gouthro, P. (2009). Informal learning: New
tune or siren call? International Journal of Lifelong Education,
28(4), 419–421.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic enquiry. Beverley
Hills, CA: Sage.
Livingstone, D. W. (1999). Exploring the icebergs of adult learning:
Findings of the first Canadian survey of informal learning
practices.WALL Working Paper, 10. Toronto: WALL.
Livingstone, D. W. (2001). Adults’ informal learning: Definitions,
findings, gaps and future research.NALL Working Paper, 21.
Toronto: The research network for New Approaches to Lifelong
Learning.
Livingstone, D. W. (2008). Mapping the field of lifelong (formal and
informal) learning and (paid and unpaid) work. In D. W. Liv-
ingstone, K. Mirchandani, & P. H. Sawchuk (Eds.), The future of
lifelong learning and work: Critical perspectives. Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Livingstone, D. W., Mirchandani, K., & Sawchuk, P. H. (2008). The
future of lifelong learning and work: Critical perspectives.
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Livingstone, D. W., & Scholtz, A. (2006). Work and lifelong learning
in Canada: Basic findings of the 2004 WALL Survey. Toronto:
WALL.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. (1990). Informal and incidental
learning in the workplace. London: Routledge.
Marsick, V., Watkins, K., Callahan, M. W., & Volpe, M. (2006).
Reviewing theory and research on informal and incidental
learning. In Paper presented at academy of human resource
development international conference, Columbus, OH. Retrieved
February 4, 2014, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED492754.
pdf.
Marsick, V. J., Watkins, K. E., Callahan, W. M., & Volpe, M. (2009).
Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. In M.
C. Smith & N. DeFrates-Densch (Eds.), Handbook of research
on adult learning and development (pp. 570–600). Oxon:
Routledge.
Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative
learning. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Ed.), Fostering critical
reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emanci-
patory learning (pp. 1–20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of
transformation theory. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Ed.),
Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory
in progress (pp. 3–33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Olafson, L., & Schraw, G. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs and practices
within and across domains. International Journal of Educational
Research, 45(1–2), 71–84.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2010).
Recognising non-formal and informal learning: Outcomes,
policies and practices. Paris: Author.
Ozolins, I., Hall, H., & Peterson, R. (2008). The student voice:
Recognizing the hidden and informal curriculum in medicine.
Medical Teacher, 30(6), 606–611.
Parliament, Flemish. (2007). Decree concerning adult education.
Brussels: Flemish Parliament. (Electronic version).
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods.
Beverly Hills: Sage.
Reder, S., & Strawn, C. (2006). Self-study: Broadening the concepts
of self-study and program support. Focus on Basics, 8(C).
Retrieved February 4, 2014, from http://www.ncsall.net/?id=
1152.
Reischmann, J. (1986). Learning ‘‘en passant’’: The forgotten
dimension. Hollywood, Florida. Retrieved January 15, 2014,
from from http://www.uni-bamberg.de/fileadmin/andragogik/08/
andragogik/aktuelles/86AAACE-Hollywood.pdf.
Reischmann, J. (2008). Learning to the power of ten: Who is offering
more? In Study on the move, for everyone, anytime, anywhere! A
source book for informal learning (pp. 22–30). Parita
¨tisches
Bildungswerk.
Sandlin, J. A., Wright, R. R., & Clark, C. (2011). Re-examining
theories of adult learning and adult development through the
lenses of public pedagogy. Adult Education Quarterly, 6(1),
3–23.
Schraw, G., & Olafson, L. (2002). Teachers’ epistemological world
views and educational practices. Issues in Education, 8(2),
99–149.
Schugurensky, D. (2000). The forms of informal learning: Towards a
conceptualization of the field.NALL Working Paper, 19.
Toronto: The research network for New Approaches to Lifelong
Learning.
Schugurensky, D. (2007). This is our school of citizenship. Informal
learning in local democracy. In Z. Bekerman, N. C. Burbules, &
D. Silberman-Keller (Eds.), Learning in places. The informal
education reader (pp. 163–182). New York: Peter Lang
Publishing.
Schugurensky, D., & Myers, J. P. (2003). A framework to explore
lifelong learning: The case of the civic education of civics
teachers. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(4),
325–352.
Smith, M. C., & Smith, T. J. (2008). Low-educated adults’
participation in informal learning activities: Relationships with
selected demographic characteristics. Adult Basic Education and
Literacy Journal, 2(2), 67–73.
Taber, N. (2011). Social care in adult education: Resisting a
marketplace agenda. Adult Education Quarterly, 61(4), 376–393.
Tough, A. (1978). Major learning efforts: Recent research and future
directions. Adult Education Quarterly, 28(4), 250–263.
Tough, A. (2002). The iceberg of informal adult learning.NALL
Working Paper, 49, Toronto: The research network for New
Approaches to Lifelong Learning. (Electronic Version).
Retrieved February 4, 2014, from http://nall.oise.utoronto.ca/
res/49AllenTough.pdf.
Van Rossum, E. J., & Hamer, R. (2010). The meaning of learning and
knowing. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Vermunt, J. D. (2005). Relations between student learning patterns
and personal and contextual factors and academic performance.
Higher Education, 49, 205–234.
Verschelde, M., Hindriks, J., Rayp, G., & Schoors, K. (2010).
Explaining social segregation in Belgium: an index decompo-
sition approach. Retrieved February 4, 2014, from http://www.
econ.kuleuven.be/eng/ew/papers_edupol/Verschelde-Hindriks-
Rayp-Schoors.pdf.
Wade, G., & Regehr, G. (2006). What we don’t know we are
teaching. Unveiling the hidden curriculum. Clinical Orthopae-
dics and Related Research, 449, 20–27.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Self-regulated learning
and performance: An introduction and an overview. In B.
J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-
regulation of learning and performance (pp. 1–12). New York:
Routledge.
192 J. Peeters et al.
123
