What is Informal Learning

By Clark Quinn

Recently, I was asked if coaching was informal learning, and just what is informal learning? I had to extend my usual definition a bit, and thought a bit more. So I thought I’d share some of the thoughts I had.

So, as I’ve stated in an earlier post, informal learning is the case where: “there isn’t an answer when you begin, or you’d bring in that person”. I frequently talk about research, design, and trouble-shooting as situations where you don’t know the answer. This is in opposition to the situation of formal learning where someone’s observing and providing feedback to guide you to the right answer.

So what about coaching? (And mentoring, and…) I’ve been led to think of coaching as specific guidance, as opposed to mentoring. Thus, coaching can be an extension of formal learning, where an experienced person provides feedback. This is, to be clear, absolutely valuable! It’s also formal.

However, in this case, their methodology is such that it’s domain-independent. Is that mentoring? Maybe, in my book, but that’s semantic quibbling. What we’re talking about here is moving from a focus on the domain to the process to be followed.

Coaching, like in executive coaching, isn’t always specific. Sometimes they’re teaching you valuable skills, like better communication. (Also, sometimes, it’s BS!) Other times, however, it’s facilitating you as a learner in determining what you need, and how to obtain it. That is, there isn’t a right answer to your search, but there are ways to be more and less effective in your searching. To be clear, it seems like it’s a continuum.

Importantly, however, there are principles about how to be more, and less, effective in your informal learning. So, coaching to facilitate individual learning would qualify if it’s not tied to a particular curriculum, such as Weber’s Coach M. So, too, using a process like Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery for personal learning. This is true for social learning also, as we see in Britz & Tyer’s Social By Design, Koppett’s Story Circles, and so on. It’s not providing the right answer, it’s helping choose goals and use systematic processes. We have evidence, for instance, that certain practices facilitate brainstorming better. We also know practices that can provide barriers to innovation, such as not tolerating risk.

Informal learning remains, to me, a situation where there isn’t an obvious right answer, but instead where the process will result in testable hypotheses. Like science, really. Experimentation will yield answers that weren’t previously known. There’s a role in there for L&D, in my mind, facilitating the processes to get the best outcomes, and then supporting the sharing the outcomes. I argue that L&D should be the ones taking ownership of informal learning (read: innovation) in the organization. To do so, you have to understand it. Hopefully, this helps.

The LDA is hosting a four half-day workshop on informal & social learning in June where we’ll be bringing in these top people and more, and look to explore evidence-based approaches.