This chapter explains why informal learning matters, covering its key benefits for education systems, individuals, organisations, and society, and highlighting the key trends shaping informal learning. It examines who participates, the different types of informal learning, and variations across socio-demographic groups. The chapter also explores the factors that drive informal learning and how governments support and promote it. Drawing on the latest literature and data, it provides essential context for the in-depth discussion of definitions and measurement presented in Chapters 3 and 4.
Giving Informal Learning the Recognition it Deserves
Abstract
Benefits of informal learning
Informal learning generates multiple advantages across individual, organisational, educational, and societal levels.
For individuals, it fosters lifelong learning attitudes, enhances accessibility for underrepresented groups, strengthens job-specific and transferable skills, and supports career progression.
Organisations benefit from improved productivity, adaptability, and innovation, while education systems gain by complementing formal learning for youth and adults, bridging theory and practice, and reinforcing structured education.
At the societal level, informal learning contributes to social cohesion, civic engagement, and overall human capital development, supporting economic resilience and collective well-being.
Emerging forms of informal learning
Remote and hybrid work, flexible schedules, and digital collaboration tools enhance informal learning by fostering autonomy, reflection, experimentation, and faster access to organisational knowledge.
AI tools, social media platforms, and interactive games provide personalised, self-paced, and engaging learning experiences, supporting professional development, skills acquisition, and collaborative knowledge sharing.
Limited quality assurance, digital skill gaps, misinformation, cognitive and social impacts, mental health risks, and data privacy concerns call for structured support, digital upskilling, and responsible technology use.
Patterns of participation
Participation in informal learning varies widely across countries, types of learning, and demographic groups.
Engagement is highest in digital, print-based, and workplace learning, but declines with age and is shaped by education, socio‑economic status, employment status, and urban residence. Gender differences are modest, though women tend to favour social forms of learning.
Informal learning also complements formal and non-formal education and training: adults engaged in informal learning are significantly more likely to participate in structured courses, highlighting its role as a reinforcing and enabling learning pathway.
Drivers of informal learning
Informal learning is shaped by factors at the individual, workplace, organisational, social, and system level.
Motivation, self-efficacy, openness, and socio‑emotional traits encourage self-directed learning, while job autonomy, collaborative work, and role complexity stimulate learning on the job.
Organisational culture, leadership, and learner-centred approaches enhance knowledge sharing, while feedback, trust, and professional networks sustain continuous learning.
System-level influences including national cultural norms, labour market structures, and infrastructure determine the extent and effectiveness of informal learning, accounting for substantial cross-country variation in engagement.
Policy approaches to promote informal learning
Governments can promote informal learning through three complementary strategies.
1. Integrating informal learning into education and lifelong learning systems. Effective integration requires embedding self-directed projects and extracurricular activities into educational frameworks, alongside robust access to digital resources. Policies should explicitly recognise skills acquired outside formal settings, establish mechanisms for their validation, and foster cross-sector collaboration to align informal learning with broader education and workforce goals.
2. Promoting learning-conducive workplaces. Employers play a central role in embedding informal learning into daily operations. Policy levers include leadership development programmes, awareness-raising initiatives that build the business case for informal learning, practical toolkits for managers, and incentive structures that reward high-performance work practices – such as peer mentoring, job rotation, and reflective practice.
3. Expanding access to infrastructure and resources. Ensuring broad and equitable participation demands investment in enabling conditions: universal digital connectivity, affordable devices, and targeted digital literacy training. Libraries and community centres should be strengthened and repositioned as accessible, trusted hubs for lifelong learning – particularly for groups at risk of exclusion.
Recognising the benefits of informal learning is essential for understanding its contribution to individual development, organisational performance, and broader societal outcomes. Although often less visible, informal learning plays a significant role in building skills throughout life.
This section explores the benefits of informal learning through nine key benefits (see Figure 2.1) organised into four areas: education system benefits; individual benefits; organisational benefits; and, societal benefits.
Education system benefits
Complementing formal education for youth
Informal learning plays an important, though often under-recognised, role in supporting the education of young people during their initial education (Batsleer, 2008[1]; Souto-Otero, 2021[2]). As a complement to formal schooling, it constitutes a substantial part of how young people learn, taking place in diverse settings and driven learners’ intrinsic interests and curiosity. Its voluntary and flexible nature enables young people to explore topics at a depth and pace aligned with their individual needs.
Environments beyond home and school are often described as a “third space” where young people can further develop themselves, including through informal learning opportunities (de St Croix and Doherty, 2023[3]). By engaging in real-life projects or hobbies – individually or in groups – young people can reinforce, contextualise, and deepen their understanding of classroom content as well as broader social norms and values, resulting in more durable and transferable learning outcomes.
Beyond the classroom, informal learning takes many forms. Young people often extend their formal learning through practical, hands-on activities – for example, practising a language by conversing with native speakers online (Azzolini, Campregher and Madia, 2020[4]; Godwin‐Jones, 2019[5]), or applying science and technology concepts in creative or community-based projects (Habig and Gupta, 2021[6]). Participation in student and youth clubs, volunteering, sports, the arts, or independent study provides further opportunities to consolidate and apply school-based knowledge in new contexts, enriching personal development and soft skills (Batsleer, 2008[1]; Corney et al., 2023[7]). For example, Pittaway et al. (2024[8]) found that engagement with student clubs can develop entrepreneurship skills through informal learning.
Libraries are also widely recognised as important spaces for informal learning (Cox, 2018[9]; Tawfik et al., 2023[10]). Whether in schools or higher education institutions, they provide environments in which students can interact beyond structured instruction, building knowledge collaboratively through informal dialogue and exploration, or engaging in self-study.
Peer collaboration is particularly significant. As Souto-Otero (2021[2]) notes, young people frequently acquire knowledge and skills informally through social interaction at school, but outside the boundaries of the formal curriculum. In schools, colleges, and universities, students regularly participate in group projects, peer tutoring, and spontaneous exchanges – often outside formal schedules, such as during lunch breaks – that reinforce course material and foster independent thinking. Such informal learning opportunities, which are not formally documented, are sometimes referred to as the “hidden curriculum”.
As described above, intergenerational learning also enriches young people’s knowledge, skills, and attitudes. This may occur at home, through interactions with parents, or during joint activities with grandparents (de Guzman et al., 2023[11]). Such learning benefits not only young people but also adults. Powell et al. (2025[12]), for instance, found that educators facilitating residential environmental education programmes developed socio‑emotional competencies, enhanced leadership skills, and a better understanding of young people’s values and lifestyles through informal interactions. Similarly, Rosales and Blanche (2021[13]) documented how grandchildren contributed to their grandmothers’ acquisition of digital skills.
Digital technologies further blur the boundaries between formal and informal learning. Recent research increasingly examines how young people acquire knowledge and skills in digital spaces (Badgy, 2022[14]; Kumar and Nanda, 2024[15]; Pires et al., 2022[16]; Kumar and Nanda, 2024[17]) (Badgy, 2022[14]; Kumar and Nanda, 2024[15]; Pires et al., 2022[16]). Online forums, open educational resources, and social media platforms enable access to and engagement with content beyond the classroom. These spaces promote self-directed inquiry and allow learners to revisit and deepen their understanding of academic topics at their own pace. When effectively integrated, such tools can complement formal teaching and expand educational opportunities.
Complementing adult learning in formal and non-formal settings
Evidence indicates that adults who engage in informal learning are significantly more likely to also participate in formal and non-formal education and training, pointing to a mutually reinforcing relationship rather than a substitution effect. Across the European Union (EU), 16.7% of adults who report engaging in informal learning also participate in formal education and training, compared to just 7.5% among those who do not. Similarly, 49.2% of informal learners take part in non-formal education and training, compared to 28.7% of non-informal learners (AES, 2022[18]) (see Figure 1.2 in Chapter 1). These patterns highlight the complementary nature of different learning forms and underscore the importance of recognising their interplay when designing inclusive and effective lifelong learning policies and systems.
Typically, informal learning serves to deepen and reinforce skills acquired through formal or non-formal education and training. In this way, it bridges the gap between theoretical knowledge and its practical application, enhancing individuals’ ability to navigate the complexities of everyday life and meet the demands of the workplace.
For adults, informal learning complements formal and non-formal education and training, including by offering a practical means of developing and applying skills. Evidence suggests that a substantial share of professional knowledge is acquired through informal learning rather than through formal or non-formal training interventions (Fialho, Quintini and Vandeweyer, 2019[19]). While formal and non-formal courses provide credentials, informal learning enhances the practical applicability of skills by embedding them in real-world tasks (Becker and Bish, 2017[20]; De Grip, 2024[21]; Manuti et al., 2015[22]; Herrmann and Kühn, 2024[23]). In practice, adults may acquire theoretical knowledge in formal settings, but their skills are often consolidated and refined informally through on-the‑job experience and through everyday activities in personal and social life.
Learning through formal, non-formal, and informal modes often occurs sequentially – with informal learning typically following participation in more structured education and training. A specific example of this is when structured training takes place over an extended period, allowing time in between sessions for reflection, exploration, or seeking additional information through informal means (Watkins and Marsick, 1992[24]). However, these modes of learning can also operate simultaneously. For instance, in work-based learning contexts, individuals often combine structured instruction with experiential, informal learning gained through everyday tasks, observation, and interaction with colleagues.
The relationship between formal and informal learning can also be reciprocal (Eraut, 2004[25]) (see Figure 2.2). Engagement in informal learning activities, such as performing new tasks or addressing work-related challenges, can reveal skill gaps and inform future learning needs. This is particularly important in rapidly evolving work environments, where new developments can urge the need for upskilling. The literature concludes that the complementarities of different learning modes can be strategically used by employers in the design of their training infrastructure and workplace culture as a natural learning environment.
Individual benefits
Fostering lifelong learning attitudes
Evidence shows that participation in learning enhances individuals’ intentions to continue learning (Boeren, 2016[26]). Informal learning plays a key role in fostering lifelong learning by cultivating openness to continuous skills development throughout the life course in formal, non-formal and informal settings, whether in a work or non-work context (Smet et al., 2022[27]; Baldan Babayiğit et al., 2025[28]). Attitudes towards learning in adulthood emerge early on in life and can influence subsequent engagement with learning opportunities (Lavrijsen and Nicaise, 2018[29]) (Lavrijsen and Nicaise, 2018[29]).
In workplaces, informal learning raises awareness among employees of the need to learn in order to remain effective in dynamic work environments and helps them better understand their strengths, limitations, and future learning needs (Doyle, Findlay and Young, 2012[30]) (Doyle, Findlay and Young, 2012[30]). Since it is typically grounded in practical, job-relevant experiences, informal learning can motivate further learning – particularly when workers successfully learn from mistakes. Recognition of positive learning outcomes can strengthen individuals’ sense of ownership over their own learning trajectories (Manuti et al., 2015[31]).
Informal learning in non-work contexts can foster positive attitudes towards lifelong learning across formal, non-formal, and informal settings. It can accelerate the development of digital and problem-solving skills, while strengthening intrinsic motivation. These benefits may act as catalysts for sustained and cumulative engagement in learning throughout life.
Research on volunteering further demonstrates how such experiences can underpin lifelong learning. Volunteers often build resilience through observing how increased knowledge and understanding of their tasks enable tangible contributions, whether in supporting strangers or assisting family and friends (Gordon and Gordon, 2017[32]; Oliveira and Pinheiro, 2020[33]; Schugurensky, 2015[34]). Studies with young people also show that volunteering contributes not only to life‑wide skills but also to employability skills, including openness to continuous development across the lifespan (Giancaspro and Manuti, 2021[35]).
The benefits of informal learning can reinforce themselves over time. As individuals develop higher-level knowledge, skills, and attitudes, their performance improves – benefiting both personal growth and organisational outcomes. This, in turn, contributes to a workplace culture that values learning, or family dynamics that recognise the value of learning at home. Such environments foster job and life satisfaction, commitment, and engagement, all of which further motivate individuals to continue developing their competencies over time. This positive cycle – where learning leads to more learning – is illustrated in Figure 2.3.
Enhancing accessibility for underrepresented learners
Despite ongoing efforts to promote lifelong learning, adult learning participation remains persistently unequal across OECD countries. Data from the OECD Skills Outlook and Education at a Glance indicate that adults with lower levels of formal education and those from disadvantaged socio‑economic backgrounds are significantly underrepresented in adult learning opportunities (OECD, 2019[36]; OECD, 2020[37]). This is particularly problematic, as these groups stand to benefit most from upskilling and reskilling initiatives (Grotlüschen et al., 2016[38]). The challenge is particularly pronounced among workers in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), where time constraints, limited financial resources, and the absence of dedicated human resources structures often limit access to formal and non-formal learning opportunities (OECD, 2021[39]).
In this context, informal learning presents both opportunities and challenges for developing inclusive lifelong learning systems. Compared to formal and non-formal education and training, informal learning is generally more accessible, enabling individuals to learn at their own pace and within familiar environments. This is especially important for workers who lack time or access to structured training, and for disengaged learners – such as those with negative experiences in formal education – who may be reluctant to return to classroom settings.
Informal learning allows individuals to acquire skills in ways that are relevant, immediate, and integrated into daily routines. Its low-cost nature eliminates financial barriers often associated with formal and non-formal education and training. Consequently, informal learning is likely to engage a broader proportion of the adult population than more resource‑intensive learning modes.
However, informal learning may disproportionately benefit adults with higher education levels and knowledge‑intensive jobs who are already engaged in formal or non-formal education and training, thereby reinforcing existing inequalities linked to unequal access to education. Since informal learning often builds on prior knowledge and experiences acquired through structured education and training, individuals with higher educational attainment are generally better positioned to benefit. Furthermore, jobs held by highly educated adults typically involve more non-routine tasks, offering greater opportunities for informal learning. These dynamic risks perpetuating disparities, as those with limited access to structured learning may be less able to engage in or capitalise on informal learning. Consequently, informal learning may inadvertently contribute to persistent inequalities in skills development.
Strengthening job-specific skills
Skills and knowledge developed through informal workplace learning may be either job-specific or transferrable (Koopmans, 2023[40]; Smet et al., 2022[41]). In addition to expanding knowledge about a particular occupation, informal learning enhances the ability to apply these skills and knowledge in practice and to foster positive attitudes towards specific tasks and the broader work environment.
With regard to job-specific outcomes, the literature recognises that the carrying out of tasks in the workplace enhances employees’ job-specific knowledge of the sector they work in (Doyle, Findlay and Young, 2012[30]). This encompasses not only factual or academic knowledge, but also tacit knowledge regarding how to function effectively within specific organisational settings (Lee and Lee, 2023[42]; Smith, 2001[43]; Eraut, 2004[25]).
Beyond knowledge, informal learning supports the development of job-specific skills (Manuti et al., 2015[22]; Wolfson et al., 2018[44]; Herrmann and Kühn, 2024[23]).These skills are typically acquired through everyday engagement in work-related activities and enhance workers’ capacity to carry out tasks efficiently, make informed decisions, and respond appropriately to complex job demands. Typically, these skills can enhance the accuracy of work and allow employees to tackle increasingly complex job-tasks (Eraut, 2004[25]).
Informal learning also influences employees’ job-specific attitudes (Crans, 2023[45]; Smet et al., 2022[27]; Van Der Klink, Boon and Schlusmans, 2012[46]). Changes in the workplace context can shape employees’ perceptions and dispositions towards their roles. Examples from the literature include potential changes in teachers’ attitudes in case of an educational reform (Scribner, 1999[47]). Informal learning can enhance workers’ openness to listen to colleagues’ perspectives and develop the ability to better understand the values and cultures of the workplace. This will allow them to make professional judgements with confidence and to handle ethical issues when needed (Eraut, 2004[25]).
Professional achievement can be accelerated when employees learn to navigate organisational structures effectively (Smet et al., 2022[27]). Informal learning supports knowledge of internal politics, cultural norms, communication styles, and alignment with organisational goals (Doyle, Findlay and Young, 2012[30]; Manuti et al., 2015[31]; Tannenbaum and Wolfson, 2022[48]). Such insights – often embedded in “unwritten rules” – are rarely acquired through formal training and exemplify tacit knowledge (Aruleba, Adeosun and Adebowale, 2022[49]). Understanding workplace culture enhances employees’ capacity to anticipate challenges and design effective solutions. A sense of cultural alignment is also linked to greater employee retention and lower turnover (Suherman, Arminarahmah and Martini, 2024[50]). Related findings in the literature on volunteering and informal learning suggest that such engagement can contribute to the development of organisational and managerial skills (Chum et al., 2015[51]; Schugurensky, 2015[34]) (Chum et al., 2015[51]).
Strengthening transferrable and inter-personal skills
In addition to job-specific skills, informal learning fosters broad improvements in transferrable and inter-personal skills. Commonly acquired skills through informal learning include communication, leadership, adaptability, critical thinking, teamwork, initiative, and interpersonal abilities. These skills are highly transferable across jobs and sectors, thereby enhancing employability (Collins-Nelsen et al., 2022[52]; Fleming, Rowe and Jackson, 2021[53]; Nägele and Stalder, 2017[54]; Zia et al., 2022[55]). They also promote resilience and adaptability in both professional and everyday contexts, for example at home or in the community.
Informal learning further supports socio‑emotional outcomes. It can increase self-confidence, well-being, and the ability to manage high-stress tasks, whether in paid employment, through volunteering or through undertaking activities in practically every context (Schugurensky, 2015[34]). Positive team or group dynamics, mutual respect, and psychological safety contribute to effective collaboration and thereby facilitate informal learning. These outcomes reduce barriers to seeking support, acknowledging difficulties, and sharing concerns without stigma. Relational skills and empathy are particularly vital in people‑centred professions or in non-work context that are characterised by human interactions, such as those between friends or family members. International literature underscores the value of interpersonal skills (Beenen et al., 2023[56]), with informal learning playing a key role in their development (Eraut, 2004[25]).
Empirical evidence from PIAAC confirms these findings. Informal learning at work – defined as learning new things, learning by doing, and staying updated on products or services – is associated with higher self-reported job satisfaction. Even after controlling for individual, job, and workplace characteristics, participation in informal learning is associated with a statistically significant increase in job satisfaction, according to an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model and consistent across model specifications (see Annex A).
Evidence from research on volunteering, museums, and science centres further underscores the breadth of skills gained through informal learning. Volunteers acquire knowledge relevant to societal issues and build organisational, communication, and management skills (Schugurensky, 2015[34]). Interactive learning environments have been shown to improve subject knowledge and collaboration, including listening and conflict resolution (Degner, Moser and Lewalter, 2022[57]; Mikalef et al., 2013[58]). Again, such skills are valuable across practically every context, either at work, in school, at home or in leisure‑oriented or community spaces. Such outcomes are valuable across the lifespan, including for young people and older adults.
Enhancing individual task performance and career progression
One of the most frequently reported outcomes of informal learning is its positive impact on task and role performance, driven by the development of relevant skills (Eraut, 2004[25]; Smet et al., 2022[41]; Cerasoli et al., 2018[59]; De Grip, 2024[21]; Park and Choi, 2016[60]; Koopmans, 2023[40]). (Eraut, 2004[25]; Smet et al., 2022[41]; Cerasoli et al., 2018[59]; De Grip, 2024[21]; Park and Choi, 2016[60]; Koopmans, 2023[40])Through everyday activities – such as observation, personal reflection, and peer interaction – employees can enhance the quality of their work and reduce errors (Panagiotakopoulos, 2011[61]). Informal learning also supports improved prioritisation, workload management, help-seeking behaviour, and problem-solving, all of which contribute to greater workplace efficiency and effectiveness.
Beyond performance, informal learning can drive behavioural change (Smet et al., 2022[27]). When new practices or procedures are introduced and space is provided for reflection, employees may feel empowered to experiment and adopt new approaches. This process can foster curiosity, innovation, and a greater sense of involvement – particularly when individuals are trusted with complex tasks (Lecat, Beausaert and Raemdonck, 2018[62]; De Grip, 2024[21]) (Lecat, Beausaert and Raemdonck, 2018[62]; De Grip, 2024[21]). However, such transitions may also encounter resistance, requiring openness and adaptability on the part of employees (De Clercq, 2022[63]; Drejeris and Drejeriene, 2022[64]; Warrick, 2023[65]).
A study in the Netherlands provides evidence of the positive impact of informal learning on job performance and behavioural change. Koopmans et al. (2023[40]) examined how workers who experienced favourable informal learning conditions between 2016 and 2018 performed on various outcomes three years later, in 2021. The study demonstrated a clear positive effect on job satisfaction, among other factors (see Figure 2.4, Panel A), while correcting for individual characteristics (e.g. age, gender, education level) and work characteristics (e.g. size of company, sector). Eighty-four per cent of workers with high levels of informal learning reported high job satisfaction, compared to 74% for workers with low levels of informal learning.
Informal learning also plays a critical role in broader career development (Ali Abadi et al., 2023[66]; Crans et al., 2021[67]; Decius, Knappstein and Klug, 2024[68]). It equips individuals with coping strategies for navigating evolving labour markets and enables the acquisition of transferrable skills that support intersectoral mobility (Han et al., 2022[69]). While some benefits – such as solving immediate, task-specific problems – are short term, others, including the development of tacit knowledge related to sectoral norms and workplace culture, emerge over time (Smet et al., 2022[27]).
Importantly, the contribution of informal learning to employability extends beyond external labour market mobility. Within organisations, it enhances internal marketability by preparing employees to assume new roles or responsibilities (Federman, 2020[70]; Kortsch, Schulte and Kauffeld, 2019[71]). In this way, informal learning supports both short-term job performance and long-term workforce sustainability (De Vos, Van der Heijden and Akkermans, 2020[72]; Quendler, Lamb and Driouech, 2020[73]; Sharma and Goyal, 2021[74]). The ability to navigate workplace challenges, sustain strong performance, and maintain well-being is frequently grounded in skills acquired informally (van der Heijde and van der Heijden, 2005[75]). Research by Koopmans (2023[40]) (2023[40]) demonstrates the increased likelihood of promotion when adults engage in informal learning (see Figure 2.4, Panel B).
Source: Koopmans, L. (2023[40]), Long term effects of lifelong learning [Lange termijn effecten van leven lang ontwikkelen (LLO)], www.tno.nl/nl/newsroom/2023/12/tno-onderzoek-informeel-leren-loont/.
Organisational benefits
Strengthening organisational effectiveness and innovation
There is evidence that informal learning can positively affect productivity, which benefits both employees and employers (De Grip and Sauermann, 2012[76]). While the returns from informal learning are harder to quantify than those from formal or non-formal education (e.g. in terms of course completions or qualifications), some evidence supports its value. An OECD study (Fialho, Quintini and Vandeweyer, 2019[19]) found positive wage effects linked to informal learning, using PIAAC data. Similarly, knowledge and skills developed through informal learning in non-work contexts can result in a wide range of transferrable skills that can be applied to work environments and conversely, work-based skills may also enhance informal learning in other contexts.
Evidence also indicates that informal knowledge sharing can improve team performance. For example, when some workers receive formal training, informal spillovers to untrained colleagues can raise overall productivity. One field experiment found a 2.5% productivity gain among untrained teammates after half of a team received training, compared to a 10% increase among trained staff (De Grip and Sauermann, 2012[76]).
For employers, these lifelong learning outcomes support organisational resilience. Employees who engage regularly in informal learning are more likely to stay current with evolving skill demands. Retaining such “lifelong learners” reduces the risk of stagnation and contributes to continuous innovation and productivity (Crouse et al., 2021[77]).Furthermore, when individuals engage in informal learning that enhances their performance and attitudes towards work, employers also benefit through higher employee retention and lower staff turnover.
Finally, informal learning can more rapidly respond to evolving skill demands. The design and accreditation of formal and non-formal training programmes often entail delays, limiting their immediate relevance for upskilling and reskilling – particularly in the face of technological change. Informal learning offers a more agile approach, enabling firms to maintain competitiveness and realise short-term financial benefits (De Grip and Sauermann, 2012[76]).
Societal benefits
Contributing to societal well-being
The preceding sections have outlined the outcomes of informal learning, primarily at the individual level. However, the benefits of informal learning can also extend to the macro level (Green, Preston and Janmaat, 2006[78]; OECD, 2021[79]) (Green, Preston and Janmaat, 2006[78]). Skills development – regardless of whether it is acquired formally or informally – strengthens social cohesion and civic engagement, helping to build stronger communities and contributing positively to societal well-being (Hoggan-Kloubert et al., 2023[80]; Holford et al., 2023[81]; Kapoor, Weerakkody and Schroeder, 2018[82]).
Informal learning in community settings fosters social cohesion by building social capital – the networks of trust and reciprocity that bind people together (de Carteret, 2008[83]). For example, volunteering and community organisations involve significant informal learning (as volunteers pick up new skills while doing unpaid work), which directly contributes to community improvement and connectedness connectiveness (Mündel and Schugurensky, 2008[84]; Patrick, Henderson‐Wilson and Ebden, 2022[85]). Such shared learning activities create bonds of co‑operation across diverse groups (Liu, 2021[86]). Researchers note that informal learning is important to the structures of civil society and democratic governance (Caldana et al., 2023[87]; Haren Conely and Cordie, 2023[88]; National Research Council, 2012[89]), because it encourages citizens to participate in collective problem-solving and civic life. By learning together in everyday contexts, people gain awareness and skills for civic engagement, which strengthens societal solidarity and collective well-being (Von Kotze and Walters, 2017[90]; Cripps Clark, Jacobs and MacCallum, 2021[91]; OECD, 2010[92]; National Research Council, 2012[89]).
At the societal level, informal learning also bolsters both economic productivity and civic resilience. Skills developed through everyday practice (on the job or in the community) add to human capital and innovation capacity, and workplace studies find that such learning is more important for workers’ human capital development than formal training courses (Manuti et al., 2015[31]; De Grip, 2024[21]) (Manuti et al., 2015[31]). As described above, by complementing formal education, informal learning helps fill skill gaps and provides flexibility in rapidly changing contexts. Overall, the combination of formal, non-formal and informal learning contributes positively to societal well-being: a more educated and experienced populace tends to be healthier, more trusting and more civically active (OECD, 2010[92]).
Informal learning is undergoing rapid transformation, driven by technological innovation, the proliferation of digital platforms, and evolving patterns of work and knowledge exchange. These developments are expanding access to learning beyond formal institutions and enabling more flexible, individualised pathways. As a result, informal learning is poised to increase in both absolute terms and in relation to formal and non-formal education and training.
While such changes offer new opportunities, they also raise important challenges related to quality assurance, equity, cognitive engagement, and data privacy. Furthermore, this trend underscores the need for nuanced measurement approaches that reflect how, where, and why adults engage in learning across diverse contexts.
Informal learning in the context of new ways of working
The concept of “new ways of working” refers to evolving work practices characterised by increased flexibility in time and location, supported by digital technologies, task-based performance models and more autonomous work arrangements (Gerards, de Grip and Weustink, 2021[93]; Renard et al., 2021[94]) (Gerards, de Grip and Weustink, 2020[95]; Renard et al., 2021[94]). The expansion of telework accelerated by the COVID‑19 pandemic (Waldrep, Fritz and Glass, 2024[96]). Lockdowns meant that the vast majority of employees had to stay at home, while only frontline workers such as nurses went to the workplace, often with social distancing rules in place. Such remote working has mainstreamed the use of digital collaboration platforms such as Microsoft Teams. These tools facilitate real-time communication, knowledge exchange and social interaction, all of which are critical enablers of informal learning.
Research highlights that new ways of working can enhance informal learning by promoting job autonomy – a key driver of self-directed learning. When employees have greater autonomy, they are more likely to reflect, experiment and adapt, behaviours closely associated with informal learning processes. Furthermore, digital tools can increase access to organisational knowledge and make interactions with peers and supervisors more immediate and flexible, contributing to a more responsive and learner-centred work environment.
Nevertheless, the shift to digital workspaces and learning environments introduces challenges (as also described in more detail below). Informal learning often relies on spontaneous, in-person encounters – such as ad hoc conversations, observational learning or impromptu feedback – which are more difficult to replicate in virtual settings (Eraut, 2004[25]). Without these informal interactions, opportunities for shared learning and knowledge transfer may be diminished.
To mitigate these effects, organisations must invest in cultivating strong remote work and learning cultures that prioritise openness, collaboration and ongoing feedback. Embedding informal learning into digital work and activity routines may involve normalising peer interaction through virtual channels, integrating learning prompts into workflows and ensuring that digital learning resources are easily accessible. Such strategies can help sustain the social foundations of informal learning in remote or hybrid work environments (Camp, Young and Bushardt, 2022[97]).
It is also important to recognise that the impact of new ways of working on informal learning varies by sector (Garrote Sanchez et al., 2021[98]). Occupations that require physical presence – such as those in healthcare, manufacturing or logistics – are generally less adaptable to remote models. In these contexts, maintaining access to informal learning opportunities requires targeted investment in communication infrastructure and digital skill development.
Emerging research suggests that new ways of working may not only facilitate informal learning but also catalyse broader organisational transformation (Lake, 2023[99]; Pagnozzi et al., 2024[100]; Gerards, de Grip and Weustink, 2021[93]) (Gerards, de Grip and Weustink, 2020[95]; Lake, 2023[99]; Pagnozzi et al., 2024[100]). As digital practices become embedded in everyday work, the online workspace itself may evolve into a dynamic environment for continuous, informal learning across diverse roles and contexts.
Informal learning through social media platforms
Social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook and LinkedIn are increasingly recognised as informal learning environments, offering access to diverse content formats including videos, written materials and podcasts (Kumar and Nanda, 2024[17]). Adults and young people engage with these platforms for learning in both intentional and incidental ways. Their self-paced and flexible nature helps to overcome place‑ and time‑related barriers, which are a major reason for non-participation in learning. According to the Adult Education Survey (AES) 2022, across the EU, 24% of adults who wished to participate but could not cited family responsibilities, and a further 40% pointed to busy schedules.
Although often associated with individual learning, social media platforms can also foster collaborative learning and community engagement. They enable users to share knowledge widely and to benefit from content generated by peers and experts. For example, YouTube hosts extensive instructional video content that can support formal education or aid in completing complex tasks. Recommendation algorithms further personalise the learning experience by suggesting related content based on users’ search history and browsing behaviour (Fyfield, Henderson and Phillips, 2021[101]). This “snowball” effect can enhance learner engagement by aligning content with individual interests. However, these algorithms may also prioritise commercial or high-traffic content over educational value, introducing potential bias (Bishop, 2020[102]).
To strengthen the role of social media in inclusive informal learning, platform developers can implement accessibility features such as video captions, translated subtitles, chapter markers and interactive chat functions (Stanley, 2023[103]). These tools can support broader participation, especially among adults who are underrepresented in education and training. At the same time, the effectiveness of such platforms depends on users’ digital literacy skills, particularly their ability to evaluate the quality and relevance of information.
In professional contexts, LinkedIn has emerged as a key platform for informal learning and career development. It facilitates network expansion, access to expert insights and the sharing of professional updates (Genden, 2023[104]). Features such as digital badges, skill endorsements and public reviews promote social learning and signal credibility. LinkedIn Learning further enhances this offering by providing skills-based courses, blogs and personalised consultancy services (Franc, Stampfl and Geyer, 2024[105]).
Nonetheless, as with other social media platforms, LinkedIn is shaped by commercial incentives, which might affect quality (as described in more detail below). To sustain user engagement, content may be presented in attention-grabbing formats, sometimes at the expense of depth or educational rigour. As such, the value users derive from these platforms depends heavily on their ability to critically assess and navigate digital content (Munger et al., 2021[106]; Polanco-Levicán and Salvo-Garrido, 2022[107]).
Informal learning with interactive games
Video tools can be made interactive and include game components for the purpose of learning. The literature refers to “serious games” when such interactive spaces were intentionally designed for skills development purposes (Ravyse et al., 2016[108]). Such serious games often tend to mimic real world environments, for example through the use of flight simulators in the aviation sector (Wang and Hung, 2024[109]), or to facilitate health and safety training in the construction sector (Guimarães, Cavalcanti and Vasconcelos, 2024[110]). This often includes virtual or augmented reality contexts that integrate digital content in real world contexts, or entirely replaces them. Reviews on the use of virtual reality and gamifications for educational purposes hint at positive influences on learning experiences and motivation (Lampropoulos and Kinshuk, 2024[111]).
Serious games can also facilitate the learning of young people in schools. However, for it to be effective, games need a strong pedagogical design, with clear learning objectives and feedback opportunities that enhance people’s motivation to continue learning. Ullah et al. (2022[112]) found that there is an increasing volume of research on its use in science education but that it will be needed to evaluate its effectiveness more thoroughly in the coming years. Makinen et al. (2023[113]) explored the potential of serious games to combat social exclusion among young people. While such games approaches are still “emerging” rather than “established”, such interventions could help young people to increase their learning motivation and engagement. Zheng et al. (2021[114]) also recommended more follow-up studies on the effectiveness of serious game approaches that aim to develop social skills among young people.
Personalised learning through AI tools
Emerging evidence suggests that adults are increasingly using AI models such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini as tools for informal learning (Bai, Liu and Su, 2023[115]; Cardon et al., 2023[116]; Fahad et al., 2025[117]; Jo and Park, 2024[118]; Lin, 2024[119]). These models offer convenient, on-demand access to information and may function as substitutes for traditional tutors. Through prompt-based interaction, users can pose context-specific questions and receive tailored responses in a conversational and generally non-judgemental format. This dynamic creates opportunities for regular, personalised feedback that is responsive to individual learning needs.
The flexibility of AI platforms – available at any time and from any location – closely aligns with the self-directed and goal-oriented nature of informal learning. Studies indicate that adults frequently integrate AI tools into broader learning strategies, using them in combination with other resources to support activities such as homework, professional development or workplace learning (Krecar, Kolega and Jurcec, 2024[120]). These tools serve multiple functions, including providing detailed explanations, clarifying complex concepts and reinforcing prior knowledge.
One area receiving growing attention is the use of AI for second language learning. Early research highlights their potential to support vocabulary acquisition, grammar correction and conversational practice (Barrot, 2024[121]; Kim, Shim and Shim, 2023[122]; Xiao and Zhi, 2023[123]). These findings suggest that AI can play a complementary role in both structured and informal language learning contexts.
However, learning through AI tools also presents several challenges. As described below, these range from the need for adequate digital skills as a foundation for inclusive and effective learning, to potential negative cognitive effects of AI-supported learning. Additional concerns relate to its impact on social interaction and collaborative learning, as well as data privacy and broader ethical risks associated with the use of AI in education.
Personalised learning through learning analytics
The increasing use of learning analytics is gaining recognition as a means to optimise learning and instruction in a data-driven, evidence‑based manner (Hall, Mattox and Parskey, 2020[124]). Learning analytics refers to the collection, analysis and interpretation of data generated by learners and learning environments to improve educational outcomes. Unlike AI, which involves algorithms that simulate human reasoning or language processing, learning analytics typically relies on statistical analysis, pattern recognition and performance tracking to inform educational design and decision making.
In structured learning environments, learning analytics can be used to enhance the design and delivery of training programmes, monitor attendance and track learner engagement. When integrated into digital platforms, these tools also enable the creation of personalised learning pathways that respond to individual needs, progress and behaviours (Chatti et al., 2013[125]; Wong, Li and Cheung, 2023[126]).
Beyond content curation, learning analytics supports interactive features that promote deeper engagement. For example, data may be used to pair learners with peers of similar skill levels, enabling collaborative learning and peer support. In contexts requiring practical task completion, analytics can track the time spent on activities and provide feedback on performance, allowing for timely adjustments to instructional content and strategies.
A range of analytical techniques are employed to support these functions, including statistical testing, content and text analysis, data mining and social network analysis. These tools help educators and platforms gain insight into learner behaviour and outcomes. However, the literature also notes important limitations, such as the need for large, high-quality datasets to ensure the reliability and validity of analytic outputs (Flanagan, Majumdar and Ogata, 2022[127]; Tao, Cukurova and Song, 2025[128]).
A widely cited example of the integration of learning analytics and AI is Duolingo. This language‑learning application continuously monitors user performance to adapt instruction in real time, supporting personalised and efficient language acquisition (Handini, Nurhasanah and Panly, 2022[129]; Shortt et al., 2023[130]). Through such dynamic feedback mechanisms, learners receive instruction that is responsive to their individual progress, reinforcing a learner-centred educational experience.
Cross-cutting challenges and considerations in emerging forms of informal learning
Emerging forms of informal learning, particularly those enabled by digital technologies and AI, present new opportunities for skill development but also raise important challenges. Ensuring quality, safeguarding equity through digital skills, and addressing cognitive, social, and ethical implications are central to maximising their benefits. This section examines key considerations, from maintaining collaborative learning and social interaction to managing data privacy and the responsible use of AI in learning environments.
Quality assurance challenges in emerging forms of informal learning
In contrast to formal education, which is governed by systems of quality assurance and accreditation, informal learning typically lacks such oversight. Digital platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn allow users to share and access educational content with minimal regulation. While these platforms enforce basic community standards – such as prohibitions against illegal content – they do not systematically verify the accuracy or educational quality of materials. This raises concerns about the spread of misinformation, particularly when inaccurate content appears credible or authoritative. The rise of generative AI further complicates this landscape, as it enables the rapid creation of educational content that may appear convincing but can contain factual inaccuracies or reinforce bias, making quality assurance even more challenging.
The risks associated with misinformation in informal learning are well documented. In health contexts, for instance, individuals have used misleading online sources for self-diagnosis, sometimes compromising their well-being (Joshi et al., 2024[131]). Similarly, political science research links exposure to social media with the dissemination of disinformation and “fake news” (Muhammed T and Mathew, 2022[132]). These examples illustrate how informal learning, when based on unreliable sources, can undermine knowledge acquisition and contribute to suboptimal or harmful decisions.
The accessibility of content creation on online platforms means that educational materials are often produced by individuals without pedagogical training or expertise in communication. However, research highlights the importance of well-structured and intentionally designed resources for effective learning (Castro and Tumibay, 2021[133]; Ferrari and Fabbri, 2022[134]). On platforms such as YouTube, many instructional videos – particularly in fields like medical education – have been found to lack quality and rigour. Although content produced by academic institutions tends to be of higher quality, overall consistency remains limited (Gorgy et al., 2022[135]; Helming et al., 2021[136]).
To mitigate quality concerns, learners frequently complement tools like ChatGPT or YouTube with other resources, either to enhance formal education or to obtain additional feedback (Moghavvemi et al., 2018[137]; Hoi and Hang, 2021[138]). Triangulating multiple resources can improve reliability and reduce overreliance on any single tool. In fields like medicine, the literature stresses the importance of consulting qualified professionals, while in the context of AI use, maintaining critical thinking and independent judgement remains essential (Armbruster et al., 2024[139]).
More structured online learning platforms – such as Coursera, Udemy and FutureLearn – offer an alternative approach. Their courses are typically developed by recognised experts, often in collaboration with universities, and are delivered through the Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) model (Draffan E.A. et al., 2015[140]; Stracke and Trisolini, 2021[141]). These platforms combine aspects of formal education with the flexibility of informal learning, offering more trustworthy and structured learning experiences.
Digital skills as a foundation for inclusive and effective learning
The increasing reliance on online learning tools highlights the growing importance of digital competencies, particularly the ability to assess the reliability and relevance of online content. These skills are essential not only for navigating informal learning environments but also for maintaining employability in an evolving digital labour market (Weritz, 2022[142]; Vallo Hult and Byström, 2022[143]).
Despite the growing need, digital literacy remains unevenly distributed. On average across the EU, 55% of adults possess at least basic digital skills (Eurostat, 2024[144]). However, this varies sharply by age: only 28% of adults aged 65‑74 have basic digital skills, compared with 70% of those aged 16‑24. There are also significant differences by education level: just 33% of adults with low educational attainment have at least basic digital skills, compared with 80% of adults with high educational attainment in the EU (Eurostat, 2024[144]). In general, older adults and individuals underrepresented in education and employment are particularly at risk of exclusion, as limited digital skills may constrain their access to informal learning opportunities (Hargittai, 2021[145]; van Deursen et al., 2021[146]). Without targeted support, the expansion of digital learning risks reinforcing existing social inequalities and further marginalising vulnerable groups. Sustained investment in digital upskilling is therefore critical.
In addition, informal learning often lacks embedded feedback mechanisms, especially when undertaken independently. This increases the responsibility on learners to self-monitor progress and apply critical thinking skills.
AI tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini can offer support, but their effectiveness depends on how they are used. The literature warns that poorly formulated prompts can produce vague, inaccurate or misleading outputs (Nazari and Saadi, 2024[147]; Mnguni et al., 2024[148]). Effective use requires learners to define their objectives clearly, provide sufficient context and express instructions precisely. Without these elements, the potential of such tools as learning aids may not be fully realised or even result in negative consequences.
Cognitive implications of AI-supported learning
Recent literature has highlighted the potential of AI tools to support learning, while also raising important concerns about possible negative effects (Bai, Liu and Su, 2023[115]). Learners may become overly reliant on AI tools, which could result in the underuse of their own cognitive capacities and a reduced inclination to engage deeply with new information (Buçinca, Malaya and Gajos, 2021[149]). For some, the availability of such tools might decrease their motivation to actively engage with learning.
This overreliance may also affect the development of critical thinking skills – abilities that are essential for adaptability and for managing tasks that require swift decision making. Looking ahead, further empirical evidence will be needed to assess the long-term effects of AI on learning processes and cognitive development.
Implications for social interaction and collaborative learning
An overreliance on AI and other digital tools or platforms may reduce opportunities for human-to-human interaction, which is central to many forms of informal learning (Bai, Liu and Su, 2023[115]) (Bai, Liu and Su, 2023[115]). Informal learning often relies on extended engagement with tasks and is shaped by social exchanges with peers, colleagues, or mentors. If these interactions diminish, the quality and depth of learning experiences could be affected.
Greater use of AI tools for learning could lead adults to favour automated feedback over interpersonal dialogue when facing complex situations. While AI can enhance individual learning, it may also slow the exchange of knowledge and weaken collaborative problem-solving. This increased reliance on human – machine interaction could alter the nature of informal learning, with trade‑offs in co-creation and social learning dynamics.
Evidence on the social effects of digital interaction is mixed. For example, Scott et al. (2022[150]) found that young people perceive online interactions with friends as less meaningful and intimate, yet also recognise their value in maintaining accessible connections, including with distant peers. The implications for informal learning remain underexplored.
Emerging research points to possible mental health risks linked to digital engagement. Shin et al. (2022[150]) found a correlation between media consumption and depression among young people, while a review by Macrynikola et al. (2021[151]) reported small to medium effect sizes for the link between social media use, mobile phone addiction, and suicidal thoughts or behaviours. Most of this evidence concerns young people, underscoring the need for further research to assess relevance for adult informal learning.
Data privacy and ethical risks in AI-supported learning
The integration of AI tools and online learning platforms raises important concerns about data privacy and the ethical use of personal information. Users have expressed apprehension regarding the security of their personal data and the ownership of content shared through digital platforms and social networks (Jain, Sahoo and Kaubiyal, 2021[152]; Suryadevara, 2024[153]). Such concerns can discourage engagement, particularly when individuals fear that their data may be used for unrelated or commercial purposes, or be exposed to risks such as identity theft or data breaches.
These issues are especially pertinent when users are required to share sensitive information – such as payment details – to access certain educational resources or advanced AI functionalities. The literature highlights the need for robust, transparent and ethical data protection frameworks to ensure that learners can participate in digital environments with confidence and security (Dhiman, 2023[154]).
The most recent rounds of the Adult Education Survey (AES, 2022[18]) and the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC, 2023[155]) offer valuable insights into patterns of participation in informal learning across the life course and learning types.
Cross-country variation in engagement in informal learning
International comparative surveys reveal considerable cross-country variation in adult engagement in informal learning. This pattern is evident in both the AES and the PIAAC. For example, the latest AES data show participation rates ranging from 93% in Cyprus to just 29% in Greece – a very large disparity that exceeds the variation typically observed in formal or non-formal education and training (see Figure 2.5, Panel A) (Eurostat, 2022[156]).
When considering only job-related informal learning, the degree of variation across countries is somewhat less pronounced, and the country rankings shift considerably (see Figure 2.5, Panel B) (Eurostat, 2022[156]). While Cyprus continues to perform strongly, it no longer stands out as an outlier. Instead, Scandinavian countries – Finland, Denmark and Norway – occupy the top positions, reflecting their strong workplace learning cultures. This pattern suggests that job-related informal learning may be more systematically embedded in certain national labour market structures, a point further underscored by the marked cross-country variation in the share of informal learning that is job-related – for example, just 33% in Italy compared to 69% in Finland.
Cross-country variation in participation rates, as measured by the AES, can be attributed to multiple factors. Beyond the challenges related to the operationalisation of the AES in different countries and the varying response rates to national surveys (see also the assessment in Chapter 4), broader national-level factors also play a role. These include cultural norms around learning, the strength of institutional support systems, labour market structures, and the availability of enabling infrastructure.
Participation in different types of informal learning
Overall, international surveys highlight considerable cross-country variation in the ways adults engage with different types of informal learning. These instruments aim to capture the diverse pathways through which knowledge is acquired outside formal or non-formal settings. The AES distinguishes among various forms of informal learning based on the medium through which it occurs – such as electronic devices, printed materials, or visits to learning centres (see also the assessment in Chapter 4). The most recent AES data indicate that the most prevalent form of informal learning in the EU is through the use of electronic devices, reported by 55% of adults. This is followed by the use of printed materials (39%), and learning through interaction with family, friends or colleagues (33%) (see Figure 2.5, Panel A). However, engagement with these different types of learning varies markedly across countries. For instance, while more than 70% of adults in Cyprus report learning from family, friends or colleagues, this figure falls to just 7.5% in Greece.
Note: For PIAAC, respondents selected that their work involves different types of informal learning at least once per week.
Source: Eurostat (2022[156]), EU Adult Education Survey, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Adult_Education_Survey_(AES)_methodology; OECD (2025[157]), OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/.
The PIAAC adopts a different approach, focussing on the intention and context of learning, particularly in the workplace. Rather than categorising learning by medium, it measures the intensity of whether a job involves certain learning activities. Among participating countries, the most common form of informal learning is learning-by-doing – reported by 58% of adults (at least once per week – as for all other PIAAC informal learning measures) – followed by learning new things in one’s job (51%) and keeping up to date with new products or services (45%) (see Figure 2.5, Panel B). As with the AES, significant cross-country variation is observed in these indicators. For example, the proportion of adults reporting that their job involves regularly learning new things ranges from just 22% in Poland to 72% in Switzerland, reflecting differences in learning cultures, workplace environments and job design.
Differences in overall informal learning participation rates are often driven by high engagement in a limited number of specific learning activities (see Table 2.1). In Cyprus, for example, participation in learning through electronic devices and interaction with family members exceeds the EU average by 33 and 39%-points, respectively. Other forms of informal learning in Cyprus align more closely with the EU average, suggesting that a few highly prevalent practices may significantly influence overall participation levels. A similar pattern is observed in France, where elevated rates of informal learning are largely explained by above‑average engagement in electronic learning and participation in guided tours.
There is also marked variation across countries in the breadth of informal learning activities that individuals engage in. In countries such as Cyprus and Norway, adults on average report participating in more than two distinct types of informal learning. In contrast, in Greece, Belgium and Switzerland, the average number of activities reported is less than one, suggesting more limited or less diverse informal learning experiences.
Percentage-point differences in participation compared to EU average
Note: The green and red colours indicate the relative difference from the EU average, with green showing values above and red showing values below the average.
Source: OECD analysis based on Eurostat (2022[156]), EU Adult Education Survey, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Adult_Education_Survey_(AES)_methodology.
Age and participation in informal learning
Age is a strong predictor of adults’ participation in informal learning. Analysis of both AES and PIAAC data reveals a consistent decline in informal learning participation across age groups, with the lowest rates observed among the oldest cohort covered in the survey. This pattern remains robust even after controlling for other socio-demographic characteristics as well as country, industry, and occupation fixed effects in PIAAC (see Box 2.1 and Annex A for a full description of the methodology).
To complement evidence from the literature, the OECD analysed data from the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) and the Adult Education Survey (AES) to identify and compare drivers of informal learning at individual, group, and organisational levels. The analysis uses several models, including ordinary least squares (OLS) and logit, with the outcome variable measuring whether individuals engage in different forms of informal learning at work.
The explanatory framework builds on factors highlighted in the literature and organises a broad set of variables into thematic blocks. For the PIAAC analysis, these include: socio-demographic background (age, gender, migration status, parental education); cognitive skills (education level, literacy score); workplace practices (teamwork, autonomy, via factor analysis); learning behaviours (e.g. reading, information-seeking, motivation); skills use at work (reading, writing, numeracy, physical tasks); job context (company size, tenure, recent workplace changes); job complexity (problem-solving, qualification mismatch); and engagement in learning-supportive practices (teaching, information sharing, collaboration). Models also control for country, industry, and occupation fixed effects. Where available, personality traits (Big Five, via factor analysis) are added to capture motivational and attitudinal differences.
A detailed description of the methodology and results is provided in Annex A.
Lower engagement in informal learning among older adults may reflect a reduced perceived need to learn. In workplace settings, intentional learning efforts often decline as employees approach retirement, with reduced motivation from potential career gains. At the same time, extensive work experience can increase the efficiency of informal learning, allowing older adults to acquire new knowledge more rapidly. However, the cumulative nature of learning tends to benefit those who are already highly educated, as they possess a broader foundation of knowledge and skills (Boeren, 2016[26]; Kyndt, Dochy and Nijs, 2009[158]).
Looking at the types of informal learning measured by the AES (see Figure 2.6), younger adults are more likely to engage in all forms. The largest gap with the oldest age cohorts is for learning via electronic devices: 67% of people aged 18‑24 learn this way, compared to only 46% of adults aged 55‑64. This reflects younger generations’ greater exposure to and familiarity with online platforms, videos, and other digital learning tools. Younger adults also stand out for their higher participation in learning through visits to learning centres. The only type of informal learning where age‑related differences are minimal is learning via cultural activities such as guided museum tours, with similar participation across age groups. Despite these differences, the overall pattern is similar: learning via electronic devices is the most common for all age groups, followed by printed materials and learning from family, friends, and colleagues.
Source : Eurostat (2022[156]), EU Adult Education Survey, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Adult_Education_Survey_(AES)_methodology.
Patterns in different types of informal learning at work, as identified by PIAAC, are similar: younger generations engage more in all types. For example, 62% of people aged 16‑24 learn by doing at least once per week, compared to 49% of those aged 55‑64. This may reflect that older workers are less frequently exposed to entirely new tasks, and generally have more experience, even though they can still be relatively inexperienced in specific tasks or when using new technologies. The same applies to learning new things at work – 55% for the youngest group versus 43% for the oldest. By contrast, differences are smaller for keeping up to date with new products and services (46% for ages 16‑24; 40% for ages 55‑64), likely because it is a necessity for all workers, regardless of age.
Informal learning across socio-demographic groups
Socio-demographic disparities in participation are evident in both AES and PIAAC (see Figure 2.7). As described above, adults with higher education and more advantaged socio‑economic backgrounds have greater opportunities to engage in learning, contributing to a Matthew effect whereby existing advantages lead to further accumulation of skills and knowledge (Boeren, 2009[159]). AES and PIAAC data confirm that higher educational attainment is strongly associated with greater participation in informal learning: 78% of adults with a tertiary degree report learning informally, compared to 51% of those with less than upper secondary education. Differences are particularly marked in AES for learning through electronic devices and printed materials. In PIAAC, adults with higher education levels are more likely to learn in the workplace, especially by learning new things and learning by doing. The main exception is “keeping up with new products or services”, which shows little association with education.
Gender differences in overall participation are smaller but still notable in terms of how men and women learn. Women are more likely to learn through social interaction than self-instruction (de Grip and Smits, 2012[160]). PIAAC analysis (see Box 2.1 and Annex A) indicates that women participate in informal learning at similar or slightly higher rates than men overall. However, differences emerge by subgroup: for instance, informal learning declines more steeply with age for men, suggesting greater disengagement later in their careers.
Source : Eurostat (2022[156]), EU Adult Education Survey, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Adult_Education_Survey_(AES)_methodology.
Labour market status also matters. According to the AES, employed persons have the highest participation rate (67%), followed by inactive persons (64%) and unemployed persons (60%). This pattern may reflect both the greater exposure to learning opportunities in workplaces and the role of informal learning in sustaining employability.
Participation varies substantially across occupations. Managers, professionals, technicians and associate professionals report the highest levels (78%) in the AES, consistent with greater learning demands and access to resources in these roles. Rates are lower among clerical support workers and service and sales workers (64%), and lowest among skilled manual workers (54%) and those in elementary occupations (51%), reflecting more limited opportunities for skill development.
Finally, participation also varies by degree of urbanisation. Adults living in cities have the highest participation rate (69%) in the AES, followed by those in towns and suburbs (65%), with rural residents reporting the lowest rate (62%). These gaps likely reflect differences in access to infrastructure, learning resources and networks that facilitate informal learning.
Informal learning and participation in formal and non-formal education and training
As outlined above, informal learning can complement adult learning in formal and non-formal settings. Available data confirm that adults often engage in multiple forms of learning rather than in isolation.
Analyses of the OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) and the AES show a positive association between participation in informal and other forms of learning. As shown in Figure 2.8, there is a clear aggregate‑level correlation across countries. On average across the EU, 49% of adults who are participating in informal learning are also participating in non-formal education and training, compared to 29% of adults who are not learning informally.
These types of learning often occur at the same time. AES data indicate that, over a 12‑month period, 30% of adults reported participating in both informal and non-formal education and training, compared to 27% who engaged only in informal learning. A further 6% participated in all three modes – formal, non-formal, and informal – during the same period.
Source: Eurostat (2022[156]), EU Adult Education Survey, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Adult_Education_Survey_(AES)_methodology.
Although this overall pattern holds across countries, notable deviations exist. In Cyprus, for example, informal learning is relatively high despite lower participation in formal and non-formal education and training. These differences are explored further in the analysis of the drivers of informal learning presented below.
The positive association between informal learning and participation in formal and non-formal education and training holds across all types of informal learning activities. In other words, individuals who engage in informal learning – whether through family members, printed materials, or other sources, as measured by AES – also tend to participate more in a wide range of non-formal learning opportunities (see Figure 2.9). This relationship is particularly strong for individuals who report learning through visits to museums, guided tours, or learning centres, where participation is closely linked to higher engagement in non-formal courses, workshops, and seminars.
Several recent literature reviews have analysed the factors influencing participation in informal learning. While informal learning is typically unstructured and unplanned, it can also be shaped by structural features of the workplace and the organisational context, or other informal learning spaces such as libraries, museums or science centres, at home, or in case of young people, in school (Degner, Moser and Lewalter, 2022[57]; Kyndt and Baert, 2013[161]; Souto-Otero, 2021[162]).
In this section, the drivers identified in the literature are organised into five categories, as shown in Figure 2.10) Individual motivation and dispositions to learning; ii) Workplace practices and job demands; iii) Organisational culture and leadership; iv) Social and relational dynamics; and v) System-level and cross-country influences.
Note: Based on AES 2022 data for adults aged 16‑64, the figure shows the percentage points (p.p.) increase in participation in different types of non-formal education and training is associated with various forms of informal learning. For example, the first bar indicates that participation in non-formal education and training is 6.2 p.p. higher among those learning informally from a family member, friend, or colleague, compared with those not learning informally in this way. Data is for averages across the European Union.
Source: OECD analysis based on Eurostat (2022[156]), EU Adult Education Survey, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Adult_Education_Survey_(AES)_methodology.
1. Individual motivation and dispositions to learning
The literature highlights several dispositional traits – such as motivation, self-efficacy, and openness to experience – as key drivers of informal learning, shaping individuals’ willingness and capacity to engage in self-directed development (Jeong et al., 2018[163]; SER, 2024[164]).
The role of self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation in informal learning
Self-efficacy is a particularly influential driver of informal learning. Individuals with high self-efficacy tend to view challenges as opportunities to acquire new knowledge and skills (Doornbos, Simons and Denessen, 2008[165]; Noe, Tews and Marand, 2013[166]), demonstrating greater persistence, adaptability, and problem-solving capacity (Lim et al., 2020[167]; Rusk and Smith, 2022[168]) (Lim et al., 2020[167]). A proactive, outgoing approach further enhances readiness to initiate and invest in learning, rather than waiting for formal opportunities (Bakker, 2017[169]; Kalenda, Boeren and Kočvarová, 2024[170]; Susomrith and Coetzer, 2019[171]; Wu and Parker, 2017[172]). Over time, such engagement reinforces both confidence and competence, creating a virtuous cycle in which positive experiences stimulate higher learning intentions (Boeren, 2016[26]).
Intrinsic motivation also plays a central role. Adults are more likely to engage in informal learning when it is personally meaningful and linked to perceived benefits (Kyndt and Baert, 2013[161]; Johnson and Majewska, 2022[173]; Song and Bonk, 2016[174]; Taheri, Motealleh and Younesi, 2022[175]). Self-awareness supports this process by helping individuals identify learning needs and integrate intentional learning into daily life. While young people may engage in informal learning alongside compulsory schooling, adult participation is generally voluntary, increasing the importance of motivation in sustaining engagement. Literature on volunteering and informal learning also highlights the role of altruistic motivation – such as helping strangers or supporting family and friends – as a catalyst for engagement.
Emotional stability, compassion, and conscientiousness as enablers of informal learning
OECD analysis highlights the role of personal characteristics in informal learning (see Box 2.1 and Annex A). In countries where data are available, socio‑emotional traits are positively associated with participation. Regression results from PIAAC show significant links for three of the Big Five personality traits – emotional stability, compassion, and conscientiousness – indicating that emotionally resilient, co‑operative, and self-disciplined individuals are more likely to learn through day-to-day work tasks. This suggests that individuals who are emotionally resilient, co‑operative and self-disciplined are more likely to engage in learning through everyday work tasks.
2. Workplace practices and job demands
Workplace practices and job demands play a critical role in shaping opportunities for informal learning. High levels of job autonomy and effective teamwork can foster continuous learning, while changing job requirements and increased demands often act as catalysts for developing new skills.
Job autonomy and teamwork as drivers informal learning
A key factor influencing informal learning is job autonomy – that is, the degree of freedom employees have in planning and carrying out their work. Employees with greater autonomy are typically better positioned to engage in self-reflection and experimentation, which supports informal learning (Amenduni et al., 2022[176]; Birhanu, Warkineh and Gizaw, 2022[177]; Lucena Barbosa and Borges-Andrade, 2022[178]; Parker, 2014[179]; Lohman, 2009[180]). The concept of “job crafting” – especially the freedom to shape one’s own tasks – has been highlighted in international research as a driver of informal learning (Decius et al., 2023[181]; Cárdenas-Muñoz, Rubio-Andrada and Segovia-Pérez, 2024[182]). OECD analysis (see Box 2.1 and Annex A) also shows a positive relationship between work autonomy – defined as the ability to choose how and when to perform tasks, as identified by the individual – and informal learning, particularly when it comes to learning new things at work.
In addition, teamwork is another workplace practice strongly linked to informal learning (see Figure 2.11). Teamwork practices such as shared decision making, peer support, and collaborative goal setting are all associated with significantly higher levels of informal learning (Gerards, de Grip and Weustink, 2021[93]; ter Weel et al., 2025[183]). This indicates that learning is especially likely to flourish in team-based environments that foster interaction, collaboration, and mutual problem-solving. Teamwork is undertaken in the workplace but is equally present in informal learning activities undertaken as self-study between pupils and students in libraries, as collaborative problem-solving when engaging with interactive tasks in a museum or through volunteering (Souto-Otero, 2021[162]).
While such insights on teamwork and informal learning are more visible within the literature on learning in workplaces, studies undertaken in settings such as youth work also underline the role of collaborative learning amongst peers and interaction with adults (Batsleer, 2008[1]).
Note: Coefficient resulting from ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with participation in informal learning as the dependent variable (see Box 2.1). All findings are statistically significant.
Source: OECD analysis based on OECD (2025[157]), OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/.
The impact of job demands and organisational change on informal learning
Job complexity is another key factor influencing informal learning (Manuti et al., 2015[31]; ter Weel et al., 2025[183]). Workers in more demanding roles – particularly those requiring advanced skills or involving a wide range of tasks – are more likely to engage in informal learning at work. Jobs differ in the level of expertise they require, and roles with higher complexity often compel employees to acquire new knowledge and adapt to changing demands (Boeren, 2016[26]; Kittel, Kunz and Seufert, 2021[184]). Employees performing complex tasks are also more likely to pursue continuous learning to maintain effectiveness and avoid falling behind.
The job context, both in paid work and volunteering, is equally important for informal learning. OECD analysis on PIAAC data shows that workers who report recent changes in their work environment – such as the introduction of new technologies or processes – are significantly more likely to engage in informal learning (see Figure 2.11). This finding supports the view that informal learning is shaped not only by individual factors but also by how dynamic, demanding, or evolving a worker’s or volunteers’ job environment is (ter Weel et al., 2025[183]). Informal learning is driven by organisations’ need to be agile in rapidly changing economies and societies (Boerma, de Laat and Vermeulen, 2024[185]).
Informal learning is strongly shaped by its perceived utility in the workplace, particularly in solving problems and performing job-specific tasks (Gerards, de Grip and Weustink, 2021[93]; Jeon and Kim, 2012[186]; Maiorca et al., 2021[187]). Where certain skills are not required for daily performance, engagement in specialist informal learning tends to decline, as adults may not perceive its relevance or benefits (Warr and Allan, 1998[188]). Conversely, disruptive events or unanticipated changes that demand rapid problem-solving can stimulate such learning. OECD analysis indicates that employees whose roles frequently require reading, numeracy and hands-on physical skills are more likely to engage in informal learning (see Figure 2.11), underscoring the importance of direct skill application in driving learning-by-doing. More broadly, exposure to new or challenging situations – whether in the workplace or in non-work settings such as schools, homes or community spaces – remains a key catalyst for informal learning.
Finally, workers’ perceptions of lacking the skills required for their job appear to be closely linked to informal learning. OECD analysis based on PIAAC indicates that self-reported under-skilling is a strong predictor of such learning, suggesting that those who perceive a gap between their skills and job demands are more likely to engage in informal learning to bridge that gap (ter Weel et al., 2025[183]).
3. Organisational culture and leadership
Organisational culture plays a central role in enabling informal learning, with research highlighting the importance of a positive learning climate (Crans et al., 2021[67]; Fischer and O’Connor, 2014[189]; Lotfi et al., 2025[190]; Jeong et al., 2018[191]). Beyond physical infrastructure such as schools, offices or meeting spaces, culture encompasses shared norms, values, assumptions and expectations, with both tangible and intangible dimensions (Künn et al., 2022[192]).
Organisational strategies that promote informal learning in workplaces
Firms can actively foster a culture that supports informal learning. Strategies include ensuring access to relevant information, tools and expert knowledge; encouraging knowledge exchange and external networking; and providing dedicated learning resources (Kyndt, Dochy and Nijs, 2009[158]). In workplaces, a visible commitment to employee development supports individual growth and advances organisational objectives (Sambrook and Stewart, 2000[193]).
Targeted practices can trigger learning opportunities. Assigning new tasks and job rotation can broaden experience and prompt skill acquisition (Anselmann, 2022[194]; Moore and Klein, 2020[195]; Schürmann and Beausaert, 2016[196]; Jeong et al., 2018[191]). Allowing employees to “craft” their roles can enhance problem-solving and foster innovative responses to change (Cárdenas-Muñoz, Rubio-Andrada and Segovia-Pérez, 2024[182]; Decius, Knappstein and Klug, 2024[68]). These measures do not formalise learning but act as catalysts in both work and non-work contexts.
Equally important is a culture that values skills acquired informally. Recognition of skills in the workplace can take the form of performance appraisals, promotion opportunities or financial incentives (Skule, 2004[197]). This acknowledgement reinforces motivation, job satisfaction, collaboration and retention (Chapman and White, 2012[198]). While financial incentives can be effective, evidence suggests they disproportionately benefit higher-income groups (Vanderkooy, Regier and Lilly, 2019[199]).
Firm size and structure shape the effectiveness of these strategies. SMEs, despite limited training budgets, often benefit from close peer interaction and faster information flows (Coetzer, Kock and Wallo, 2017[200]). However, they may lack training staff, multi-domain expertise and opportunities for job rotation (Kortsch, Schulte and Kauffeld, 2019[71]). Larger organisations have greater capacity for structured initiatives but rigid hierarchies can restrict learning (María Martínez‐León and Martínez‐García, 2011[201]; Sitar and Škerlavaj, 2018[202]), while flatter structures foster open communication and managerial accessibility.
The role of leadership in promoting informal learning
Managers play a critical role in fostering informal learning by promoting peer interaction, encouraging job shadowing, directing staff to relevant learning resources, and providing space for experimentation and learning through trial and error (Pifer, Baker and Lunsford, 2015[203]; Sparr, Knipfer and Willems, 2017[204]; Zia et al., 2022[55]). They can also enhance an interest in learning by serving as role models. By actively reflecting on their own skills development, they can demonstrate a commitment to continuous learning and reinforce its value. Moreover, they can help normalise learning by publicly acknowledging its importance – for instance, by encouraging peer support and knowledge sharing (Rigolizzo, Zhu and Harvey, 2022[205]).
Leaders who foster empowerment, agency and autonomy among employees are more likely to encourage initiative for informal learning (Crans et al., 2021[67]; Eraut, 2004[25]). Those who value personal development and recognise the benefits of informal learning tend to be more attentive to incorporating it within employees’ daily job routines (Ellinger, 2005[206]). Leadership styles underpinned by mutual trust and open exchanges between employer and employees create psychologically safe environments, where informal interactions – such as asking for assistance – are normalised and encouraged (Edmondson, 1999[207]). Such environments enable their employees to view mistakes as learning opportunities rather than failures (Watkins and Marsick, 1992[24]). In short, leaders who demonstrate a commitment to learning and show genuine interest in their employees’ development are more likely to foster informal learning (Schürmann and Beausaert, 2016[196]).
Strategies for fostering informal learning in educational and community contexts
In settings outside the workplace, such as museums, community centres and libraries, organisational strategies can enhance informal learning by shaping how information is accessed, presented and experienced (Degner, Moser and Lewalter, 2022[57]). Interactive formats – whether physical (e.g. hands-on exhibits and guided workshops) or digital (e.g. virtual reality, and gamified learning tools) – support the development of skills including digital literacy, critical thinking, and problem-solving, while fostering engagement and intrinsic motivation (Dudzinska-Przesmitzki and Grenier, 2008[208]). These approaches can accommodate diverse learning styles, enabling self-directed or collaborative learning.
In schools, similar principles apply to extra-curricular or non-formal learning initiatives. Organisational strategies may include creating dedicated “learning corners” or makerspaces, which are physical or virtual spaces equipped with tools, materials, and technologies where students can experiment, prototype, and explore ideas hands-on. Moreover, schools could promote peer mentoring schemes, and encouraging student-led projects that link curriculum topics to real-world issues. Partnerships with external institutions – such as cultural organisations, science centres, or local businesses – can also provide students with opportunities to learn in authentic, applied contexts. By enabling students to take ownership of their learning, these strategies mirror effective workplace practices, such as role crafting and collaborative problem-solving, adapted to the needs of younger learners.
Furthermore, informal learning in these contexts benefits from deliberate facilitation. Staff or educators trained to guide reflection, encourage dialogue, and connect activities to broader knowledge frameworks can help participants consolidate and apply what they learn. In both youth-focussed and adult-oriented settings, a supportive organisational environment – characterised by openness, trust, and access to relevant resources – remains critical to sustaining engagement and promoting informal learning.
4. Social and relational dynamics
Culture of feedback and reflective dialogue as drivers of informal learning
Much informal learning occurs through reflection and feedback on tasks and activities, in both work and non-work contexts (Huo and Boxall, 2022[209]; Sparr, Knipfer and Willems, 2017[204]; Tannenbaum et al., 2009[210]; Wang and Zhang, 2022[211]; Zia et al., 2022[55]). Such learning is enhanced when team members engage in reflective dialogue, including feedback from peers and regular input from supervisors. Peer feedback, in particular, has been shown to be a strong driver of informal learning (Künn et al., 2022[192]).
Continuous feedback loops are critical for identifying potential issues early, enabling timely corrective action, and informing strategies for ongoing improvement. These processes often begin with the systematic collection of information and evidence from previous tasks, which provides a foundation for deeper analysis and learning. Regular feedback not only supports changes in future work practices and performance but also establishes a baseline for monitoring progress. When embedded in routine interactions, feedback fosters a culture that values learning, adaptation, and continuous development.
Feedback can be initiated by both employers and employees, but it also occurs in educational and non-work contexts, for example from teachers, mentors, or peers in classroom projects, extracurricular activities, or collaborative learning environments (Zia et al., 2022[55]). A strong feedback culture reduces barriers to seeking and receiving input, encouraging individuals to reflect and improve. However, research notes that the quality and credibility of feedback can vary significantly (Young, 2013[212]). Unfavourable feedback, in particular, must be delivered thoughtfully and constructively to preserve its developmental value and support continued learning.
Networks, trust, and reciprocity in enabling informal learning
Social and professional networks are key for informal learning. Those with extensive networks are exposed to a diverse range of knowledge and skills (Boud and Middleton, 2003[213]; Schürmann and Beausaert, 2016[196]). Engagement with these networks enables individuals to learn informally, making connectedness a key driver of learning. Such learning can take multiple forms, from asking direct questions and observing colleagues’ behaviour to participating in job rotation schemes. Employers can also promote this process by creating dedicated time and space for informal networking activities.
To foster effective informal learning in networks, organisations need to encourage open information sharing and avoid practices that exclude others. Effective collaborative learning depends on trust, openness, and a willingness to exchange information, insights, and experiences (Jeong et al., 2018[191]). Learning can be constrained when individuals withhold tacit knowledge about work practices or organisational culture, thereby limiting opportunities for others. Reciprocity is central in this context: social learning thrives on mutual “give and take” sustained by shared effort and trust (Cangialosi et al., 2023[214]; Manuti et al., 2015[31]).
Positive social interactions also rely on interpersonal skills such as empathy, active listening, teamwork, and effective non-verbal communication (le Clus, 2011[215]; Rastogi and Karatepe, 2022[216]). Open communication fosters psychological safety, enabling colleagues to discuss challenges without fear of judgement or excessive vulnerability. This can strengthen motivation and willingness to contribute positively to the group (Zainil et al., 2023[217]). Strong interpersonal relationships also underpin effective feedback loops – both giving and receiving – which are integral to sustaining informal learning (Cuyvers, Donche and Van den Bossche, 2016[218]; Prayson and Rowe, 2017[219]).
5. System-level and cross-country influences
Informal learning does not have a uniform set of drivers across countries. While certain factors are consistently associated with participation, their relative influence can differ substantially depending on national context. Moreover, broader cultural, institutional, and structural conditions often play a decisive role, shaping both the opportunities for and the value placed on informal learning.
Variation in the influence of specific factors
OECD analysis of PIAAC data reveals marked variation across countries in the factors associated with informal learning. While some relationships are broadly consistent – such as the positive link between high-performance work practices (HPWPs) or collaborative environments and informal learning – their strength differs considerably by country. Other relationships vary more substantially. For example, the negative association between age and informal learning is weaker in Finland, reflecting a strong cultural emphasis on lifelong learning. Firm size is positively associated with participation in Japan but shows weak or negative relationships elsewhere.
Analysis using AES 2022 data – although based on fewer workplace indicators – confirms these patterns (see Table 2.2). Certain factors, such as tertiary education and participation in non-formal education and training, are consistently positive predictors across countries, but their magnitude varies sharply. For instance, in Bulgaria, tertiary education increases participation likelihood by up to 58%-points, compared with 7‑21%-points in other countries with statistically significant relationships.
The role of broader cultural and structural differences between countries
A considerable share of cross-country variation in informal learning remains unexplained by individual, job or workplace characteristics, even after controlling for these factors. Persistent country-level differences point to the influence of broader national conditions, including cultural norms around learning, institutional support systems, labour market structures, and access to enabling infrastructure. These findings are consistent with literature on how the design and inclusiveness of adult learning systems shape participation (Desjardins, 2017[220]).
The Nordic Model, for example, is associated with high levels of participation. While there are some differences between Nordic countries, there is a general tendency to link education, labour and social policies to achieve high participation and equity across all modes of lifelong learning (Erstad et al., 2016[221]; Rubenson, 2006[222]). This integrated approach contributes to overall high levels of participation in formal and non-formal education and training – especially in Sweden and Norway – and, by extension, supports widespread engagement in informal learning (Rubenson, 2006[222]; Desjardins, 2017[220]).
The relative importance of these broader influences differs widely. With the analysis based on PIAAC data, models explain a substantial share of variation in Italy, Poland, Israel, and the Slovak Republic, indicating that individual and workplace factors are relatively strong predictors (see Figure 2.12). In contrast, in Finland, France, Switzerland, and the Flemish Region (Belgium), lower explanatory power suggests that structural and cultural conditions play a more decisive role.
R-squared from OLS regressions for individual countries
Note: The model has informal learning as the dependent variable and the following independent variables: socio-demographic characteristics (e.g. age, education level), job characteristics (e.g. tenure, company size, work environment), learning characteristics (e.g. participation in non-formal education and training), and workplace practices (e.g. work autonomy, team practices). A high R-squared means that the model explains a large share of the variation in participation.
Source: OECD (2024[223]), Survey of Adult Skills – Reader’s Companion: 2023, https://doi.org/10.1787/3639d1e2-en.
Analysis using AES 2022 data – although based on fewer workplace indicators – broadly confirms these patterns. In countries such as Lithuania, Sweden, and Ireland, model explanatory power is low, while in Bulgaria and Finland it is notably higher (see R2 in Table 2.2). Cyprus presents a distinctive case: informal learning rates are high, yet few modelled variables are significant, suggesting important unmeasured drivers.
It is important to note that low explanatory power may also reflect challenges in the operationalisation of surveys across countries (see the assessment in Chapter 4). For the AES, these challenges include variations in definitions, translations, and implementation, which continue to limit cross-country comparability.
Marginal effects resulting from logit model with informal learning as dependent variable
Note: Coefficients indicate the percentage-point increase in probability to learn informally, with green colours indicating a positive probability and red colours a negative probability. Only statistically significant values are presented.
Source: Calculations based on Eurostat (2022[156]), EU Adult Education Survey, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Adult_Education_Survey_(AES)_methodology.
In recent years, many governments have introduced financial incentives to encourage adult learning. These measures generally support formal and non-formal education and training through instruments such as training vouchers, individual learning accounts and paid educational leave (Cummins, Harrington and Yamashita, 2022[224]; Hidalgo, Oosterbeek and Webbink, 2014[225]; Doerr and Kruppe, 2015[226]; Oh, 2016[227]; Waite et al., 2020[228]).By contrast, relatively few policy initiatives explicitly target informal learning, despite its recognised contribution to skill development and adaptability.
Governments can foster informal learning among youth and adults, both within and beyond the workplace, in several ways. It highlights three complementary avenues: integrating informal learning into education and lifelong learning systems, promoting learning-conducive workplaces, and expanding access to the infrastructure and resources that support self-directed and community-based learning.
Integrating informal learning into education and lifelong learning systems
Integrating informal learning into education and lifelong learning systems requires a strategic, multi-level approach. This entails embedding informal learning practices in early education, incorporating them into broader lifelong learning policies, and recognising and validating skills acquired outside formal settings. Successful integration also relies on cross-sector collaboration, enabling governments, educators, employers, and civil society to bridge formal, non-formal, and informal learning environments and create coherent learning pathways that support learners at all stages.
Embed informal learning in early education
Policymakers can encourage schools and higher education institutions to foster a culture of peer learning, project work, and self-directed inquiry as a means to promote informal learning. As described above, this may involve promoting hands-on and after-school activities – such as science and arts clubs, vocational workshops, and community STEM projects – integrating library and digital resources into lessons, and creating safe online communities for student exploration (see an example from Korea in Box 2.2). Governments can also accredit relevant extracurricular activities, including coding clubs, language workshops, and volunteering projects, so that students recognise the value of learning beyond the formal curriculum.
Schools could be viewed as one component of a broader learning ecosystem. Advancing lifelong learning therefore requires stronger connections between the formal education and non-formal and informal learning environments (UNESCO, 2025[229]). Embedding such practices can help young people cultivate curiosity and habit of self-learning that support their development throughout life.
Include informal learning in lifelong learning strategies
Informal learning should be explicitly recognised as a core component of lifelong learning strategies (see Box 2.2. for an example from the Czech Republic (hereafter “Czechia”). International frameworks emphasise that lifelong learning spans all modalities and spaces (UNESCO, 2025[229]) and governments can reflect this by aligning education, labour, and innovation policies to include informal learning. For instance, lifelong learning strategies could stimulate informal learning in workplaces (see section below), mandate the recognition of volunteer or apprenticeship learning, or require career centres to advise on self-study opportunities. Overall, effective lifelong learning policies combine multiple providers and methods, and place learners at the centre (OECD, 2021[79]). Adopting a broad vision – viewing libraries, workplaces, and online forums as integral extensions of the education system – can help ensure consistency and avoid siloed efforts. This requires co‑ordinated action across ministries (such as education, employment, and more) to promote learning across formal, non-formal and informal systems.
Korea: Free Learning Semester / Free Learning Year (lower secondary)
Korea’s Ministry of Education introduced an exam-free “Free Learning Semester” in lower secondary schools, later extended as a “Free Learning Year.” The policy reallocates weekly timetable hours to project work, clubs, community engagement, and short workplace activities, with assessment focussed on progress and participation rather than high-stakes tests. Schools partner with public bodies and certified civil-society and employer “educational partners” to offer hands-on activities (e.g. arts, sports, career talks, workplace visits), while students choose from clubs and thematic modules that encourage peer learning and self-directed inquiry. This national framework explicitly legitimises non-formal and informal learning in school time and mobilises local organisations to co-deliver it.
Czechia: Lifelong Learning Strategy
Czechia’s Strategy for Lifelong Learning from 2007 places a strong emphasis on integrating formal, non-formal, and informal learning throughout individuals’ lives, framing learning as a seamless continuum that supports personal development, social inclusion, active citizenship, and employability. It establishes systems to enhance access to continuing education – especially vocational and digital skills training – through institutional strengthening, flexible educational offerings tailored to learner needs, and co‑ordination of public funding mechanisms.
The strategy also covers informal learning, and describes it as “a process of acquiring knowledge, skills and competences from everyday experiences and activities at work, in the family and in leisure time”. It also includes self-learning, where the learner does not have the opportunity to test the acquired knowledge (e.g. televised language courses). Unlike formal and non-formal education, it is unorganised, usually unsystematic and not institutionally co‑ordinated.
Sources: OECD (2016[230]), Education Policy Outlook Korea, www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-policy-outlook/418974-Education-Policy-Outlook-Korea.pdf; OECD (2026[231]), Korea: The Free Learning Semester Programme, www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/career-readiness/Korea-The-Free-Learning-Semester-Programme.pdf.
Recognise and validate learning acquired informally
Countries should establish robust recognition of prior learning (RPL) systems to ensure that skills developed through work or personal projects can contribute towards formal qualifications. Official validation – for example, exemptions or credits – makes informally acquired skills more visible and valuable, whether gained on the job, through online courses or in community settings (Werquin, 2010[232]; European Commission, 2020[233]). Certification frameworks can enable adults to fast-track formal education by recognising skills already mastered in non-formal contexts (Werquin, 2010[232]). In turn, RPL systems create a virtuous cycle, as individuals are more motivated to engage in self-directed learning when it can lead to recognised credentials.
In practice, governments can support this by developing national guidelines for portfolio assessment, establishing standardised examinations for self-taught learners, and partnering with industry to certify workplace skills. Such pathways legitimise diverse forms of learning and facilitate smoother transitions into further education and employment.
Foster cross-sector collaboration to bridge learning systems
Partnerships between governments, the private sector, and civil society are essential for embedding informal learning within broader education and training systems (OECD, 2020[234]). Collaboration helps connect formal and non-formal provision with the informal environments where much learning takes place. Governments can play a convening role by establishing multi-stakeholder councils or learning networks that connect employers, educators, sectoral organisations, and civil society actors, such as unions, non-governmental organisations. (NGOs), community-based organisations and more, to exchange good practice and develop joint initiatives (Reznikova, Labanino and McKee Mathews, 2024[235]). Examples include employer – school partnerships, community learning festivals, and industry-supported training hubs, all of which draw on diverse expertise and resources.
Scaling up such initiatives requires strong co‑ordination, effective knowledge management, and systematic information sharing. National or local forums – such as skills councils or “learning city” networks – can disseminate successful models and foster continuous improvement. Public incentives can further encourage partnerships between businesses, public libraries, or educational start-ups to co-finance community learning activities. These collaborative approaches expand access to informal learning opportunities while ensuring their alignment with labour market needs, making lifelong learning a shared responsibility across society (OECD, 2021[79]; OECD, 2020[236]).
Promote learning-conducive workplaces
Promoting learning-conducive workplaces involves creating environments where informal learning can thrive. As described above, workplace practices, organisational culture and leadership are all strongly linked to informal learning. Informal learning can therefore be strengthened by developing leadership that actively supports employee learning, raising employer awareness through practical guidance and tools, and providing incentives for firms to adopt workplace practices that foster continuous skill development through informal learning. By advancing these measures, governments can help embed a culture of learning across organisations of all sizes.
Develop learning-supportive leadership in firms
Governments should encourage and support managers, particularly in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), to act as champions of workplace learning. Leadership and human resources development programmes can train managers to provide constructive feedback, coach employees, and recognise informal skill-building (see examples from Poland and Ireland in Box 2.3).
Public agencies increasingly combine management training with on-site coaching, while mentorship and peer learning initiatives have proved effective in enhancing knowledge sharing in small firms (OECD, 2021[237]). Targeted measures such as subsidising mentoring, funding short leadership courses, or providing access to business advisers can help SMEs overcome their tendency to under-invest in training. Evidence also shows that coaching business owners strengthens long-term vision, innovation capacity and staff motivation (OECD, 2021[237]).
By investing in tailored leadership development, policymakers can foster workplace cultures where learning is actively supported from the top down.
Poland: Polish Agency for Enterprise Development (PARP)
The Polish Agency for Enterprise Development (Polska Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości, PARP), has been contributing to the creation and effective implementation of policies related to enterprise development, innovation and human capital development in enterprises. It targets primarily small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), with funding coming from the state budget and European funds.
PARP has several programmes for managers. One example is the SME Manager Academy, which is a programme that finances training and advisory support for managerial staff in SMEs in the area of business management, including HR. Financing is provided for education and training with the aim to 1) diagnose the needs of SMEs and skills gaps of owners and managers; and 2) train SME managers. Financial support provided covers up to 80% of the project, while the remaining 20% is covered by the SME.
Ireland: PLATO Business Development Network
Ireland’s PLATO Business Development Network is a peer-to-peer learning programme designed specifically for owner-managers of SMEs. Delivered through Local Enterprise Offices (LEOs), Ibec (an Irish lobby and business representative group), and Chambers Ireland, PLATO groups managers into small cohorts (12‑15 participants) that meet monthly for facilitated three‑hour sessions. These sessions allow managers to share experiences, raise challenges, and reflect on management practices with the support of peer feedback and external experts. Participants report improvements in managerial effectiveness, productivity, profitability, and growth.
Netherlands: Campaign “Learning in the workplace pays off” and the Learning Culture Quickscan
The Dutch campaign “Learning in the workplace pays off” (“leren op de werkvloer levert aardig wat op”) seeks to raise awareness of informal learning and reframe its role within the workplace. By showcasing everyday learning moments, it promotes a stronger learning culture where continuous development is seen as integral to work. Organisations are encouraged to assess their own practices and access tools to strengthen workplace learning.
As part of the campaign, the website “mijnwerkcultuur.nl” was launched, with information for employers on how to develop a learning culture in their workplaces, as well as the so-called Learning Culture Quick Scan. This online tool provides, in just five minutes, an overview of the state of the learning culture within a company. It also shows how the organisation compares to other firms. By completing the scan, organisations can identify the extent to which employee learning and development are already supported and where there is scope for improvement. The results generate a personalised report offering advice and practical tips to further strengthen workplace learning and development.
Sources: PARP (2026[238]), Website Polish Agency for Enterprise Development (PARP), https://en.parp.gov.pl/index.php/component/knowledge/en; Plato Business Development Network (2026[239]), Website Plato Business Development Network, https://plato.ie/about-plato/; Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (2026[240]), Website My Learning Culture (“Mijnleercultuur.nl”), www.mijnleercultuur.nl/.
Raise employer awareness and equip them with practical tools
Public campaigns and guidance materials can help businesses understand the benefits of fostering a learning culture (see Box 2.3 for an example from the Netherlands). Governments can support this by developing toolkits, case studies, and self-assessment instruments to enable firms to diagnose their training needs.
Studies show that combining financial incentives with advisory support is particularly effective. For example, employment services in many countries now offer skills audits and referrals to training providers, helping companies build a positive learning culture (OECD, 2021[237]). Policymakers can also disseminate best practice guides on informal learning – covering approaches such as cross-generational mentoring and workplace knowledge‑sharing – and promote employer networks for exchanging experiences.
Non-financial measures, including training needs diagnostics, benchmarking tools, and information-sharing platforms, complement subsidies and encourage firms to invest in continuous learning (OECD, 2021[79]). Demonstrating the productivity gains and improved staff retention associated with informal training makes a compelling business case and supports greater uptake.
Incentivise workplaces to foster informal learning
Governments can encourage firms to adopt high-performance workplace practices (HPWP) that stimulate informal learning, such as teamwork, job rotation, autonomy, and peer mentoring. For example, tax credits or public awards could be linked to companies that implement these HPWPs. Policies can also explicitly recognise informal training in funding rules. Several OECD countries now allow firms to claim the costs of on-the‑job and peer learning – beyond formal courses – when applying for training grants (OECD, 2021[237]). In France, for instance, informal on-the‑job training has been made eligible under the national training levy, effectively broadening the definition of “training” (OECD, 2021[237]).
Governments can also make part of a training subsidy conditional on the adoption of practices such as job rotation or knowledge‑sharing sessions, encouraging firms to embed them in daily routines. By financially rewarding these arrangements, policymakers signal that informal, real-world learning is valued on a par with classroom-based training.
Expand access to infrastructure and resources
Expanding access to infrastructure and resources is essential to ensure that informal learning is widely accessible. This includes improving digital connectivity and technology infrastructure, and supporting libraries and community centres as active learning hubs. Together, these measures enable learners of all ages to engage in self-directed and community-based learning, both online and offline.
Improve digital connectivity and infrastructure
Expanding access to high-speed internet and modern networks is essential to reach learners wherever they are. Governments should invest in universal broadband and 5G deployment – through subsidies or public – private partnerships – to ensure that even remote or underserved communities can access online learning resources (OECD, 2025[241]) (see Box 2.4 for an example from a relevant initiative in Italy). Such infrastructure is particularly important for informal learning opportunities that rely on digital platforms.
Equally important is the development of learners’ digital skills. Ensuring that citizens can effectively navigate online platforms, evaluate information, and participate in virtual study groups enhances the value of digital infrastructure. Affordable devices and user-friendly learning platforms, combined with training in digital literacy, allow individuals of all ages and backgrounds to engage in webinars, self-directed projects, and collaborative online learning (World Bank, 2018[242]). Strengthening these skills is critical to fully leveraging technology for lifelong learning.
Italy: National Digital School Plan
Italy’s Digital School Plan (2015) significantly enhanced digital connectivity in schools. By 2020, 93% of classrooms had internet access, and the student-to-device ratio improved from 1:8 in 2013 to 1:4. The plan introduced over 14 000 “innovative learning spaces” – including tech-enhanced classrooms, digital hubs, and mobile labs – creating environments conducive to digital and informal learning. The initiative was further supported by EU Recovery and Resilience Facility funds. An additional EUR 2 billion was allocated to equip 100 000 advanced classrooms by 2025, incorporating e‑learning platforms, devices, and improved connectivity.
Source: OECD (2023[243]), OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en.
Support libraries and community centres as learning hubs
Public libraries and community centres are natural venues for informal learning and should be strengthened accordingly. In particular, they could play a key role in reaching underserved adults (OECD, 2020[244]). These spaces already provide free access to books, multimedia resources, computers, and tutoring, and often host literacy classes or hobby clubs. Governments can support renovations and technology upgrades – such as e‑learning labs or maker spaces – and encourage partnerships with NGOs to deliver skill-building workshops within these venues. Mobile libraries or career “pop-up” stands in community halls can further extend this reach. By programming libraries as active informal learning centres – offering initiatives such as coding clubs, language cafés, or citizen science projects – policymakers can broaden access to learning for all ages in a familiar and accessible setting.
References
[18] AES (2022), Adult Education Survey (AES) methodology, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Adult_Education_Survey_(AES)_methodology.
[66] Ali Abadi, H. et al. (2023), “Informal learning and career identity formation: the mediating role of work engagement”, Personnel Review, Vol. 52/1, https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2021-0121.
[176] Amenduni, F. et al. (2022), “Facing Disruptive Changes With Informal Workplace Learning Strategies: The Experience of European Companies”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 13, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.889850.
[194] Anselmann, S. (2022), “Learning barriers at the workplace: Development and validation of a measurement instrument”, Frontiers in Education, Vol. 7, https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.880778.
[139] Armbruster, J. et al. (2024), ““Doctor ChatGPT, Can You Help Me?” The Patient’s Perspective: Cross-Sectional Study”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 26, p. e58831, https://doi.org/10.2196/58831.
[49] Aruleba, T., O. Adeosun and I. Adebowale (2022), “The Influence of Informal Learning in Promoting Entrepreneurial Capacity of Boutique Owners”, European Journal of Business and Management Research, Vol. 7/1, https://doi.org/10.24018/ejbmr.2022.7.1.1254.
[4] Azzolini, D., S. Campregher and J. Madia (2020), “Formal instruction vs informal exposure. What matters more for teenagers’ acquisition of English as a second language?”, Research Papers in Education, Vol. 37/2, pp. 153-181, https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1789718.
[14] Badgy, L. (2022), An Exploration of Teenagers’ Use of Affinity Spaces on Social Media Platforms for Informal Learning, Florida State University.
[115] Bai, L., X. Liu and J. Su (2023), “ChatGPT: The cognitive effects on learning and memory”, Brain‐X, Vol. 1/3, https://doi.org/10.1002/brx2.30.
[169] Bakker, A. (2017), “Strategic and proactive approaches to work engagement”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 46/2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.002.
[28] Baldan Babayiğit, B. et al. (2025), “Unravelling the data puzzle: a total survey error perspective on adult learning and education participation in the UK”, International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 44/3, pp. 273-290, https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2025.2493798.
[121] Barrot, J. (2024), “ChatGPT as a Language Learning Tool: An Emerging Technology Report”, Technology, Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 29/2, pp. 1151-1156, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09711-4.
[1] Batsleer, J. (2008), Informal learning in youth work, SAGE.
[20] Becker, K. and A. Bish (2017), “Management development experiences and expectations: informal vs formal learning”, Education and Training, Vol. 59/6, https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-08-2016-0134.
[56] Beenen, G. et al. (2023), Editorial: Interpersonal skills: individual, social, and technological implications, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1209508.
[177] Birhanu, E., T. Warkineh and A. Gizaw (2022), “The Learning Potential of Workplace Environment and Civil Servants’ Self-Directed Learning Readiness: A Mixed-Method Approach”, Education Research International, Vol. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8343088.
[102] Bishop, S. (2020), “Algorithmic Experts: Selling Algorithmic Lore on YouTube”, Social Media + Society, Vol. 6/1, https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119897323.
[26] Boeren, E. (2016), Lifelong learning participation in a changing policy context: An interdisciplinary theory, https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137441836.
[159] Boeren, E. (2009), “Adult education participation: The Matthew principle”, Filosofija, Sociologija, Vol. 20/2.
[185] Boerma, S., M. de Laat and M. Vermeulen (2024), “The relationship between organisational agility and informal learning”, Management Review Quarterly, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00460-x.
[213] Boud, D. and H. Middleton (2003), “Learning from others at work: Communities of practice and informal learning”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 15/5, https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620310483895.
[149] Buçinca, Z., M. Malaya and K. Gajos (2021), “To Trust or to Think”, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 5/CSCW1, pp. 1-21, https://doi.org/10.1145/3449287.
[87] Caldana, A. et al. (2023), “A hybrid approach to sustainable development competencies: the role of formal, informal and non-formal learning experiences”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 24/2, pp. 235-258, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-10-2020-0420.
[97] Camp, K., M. Young and S. Bushardt (2022), “A millennial manager skills model for the new remote work environment”, Management Research Review, Vol. 45/5, pp. 635-648, https://doi.org/10.1108/mrr-01-2021-0076.
[214] Cangialosi, N. et al. (2023), “Diversity of Social Ties and Employee Innovation: The Importance of Informal Learning and Reciprocity”, Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, Vol. 39/2, https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2023a8.
[182] Cárdenas-Muñoz, M., L. Rubio-Andrada and M. Segovia-Pérez (2024), “Exploratory analysis on learning behaviours that favour job crafting”, Management Decision, Vol. 62/7, pp. 2265-2291, https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2023-0982.
[116] Cardon, P. et al. (2023), Generative AI in the Workplace: Employee Perspectives of ChatGPT Benefits and Organizational Policies, https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/b3ezy.
[133] Castro, M. and G. Tumibay (2021), “A literature review: efficacy of online learning courses for higher education institution using meta-analysis”, Education and Information Technologies, Vol. 26/2, pp. 1367-1385, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10027-z.
[59] Cerasoli, C. et al. (2018), “Antecedents and Outcomes of Informal Learning Behaviors: a Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 33/2, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9492-y.
[198] Chapman, G. and P. White (2012), The 5 languages of appreciation in the workplace : empowering organizations by encouraging people, Northfield Pub.
[125] Chatti, M. et al. (2013), “Tag-based collaborative filtering recommendation in personal learning environments”, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, Vol. 6/4, pp. 337-349, https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2013.23.
[51] Chum, A. et al. (2015), “Volunteering for employability under conditions of area-level material insecurity: A multilevel study of contextual determinants”, Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269710384_Volunteering_for_employability_under_conditions_of_area-level_material_insecurity_A_multilevel_study_of_contextual_determinants (accessed on 1 October 2025).
[200] Coetzer, A., H. Kock and A. Wallo (2017), “Distinctive Characteristics of Small Businesses as Sites for Informal Learning”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 16/2, https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484317704291.
[52] Collins-Nelsen, R. et al. (2022), “Social context and transferable skill development in experiential learning”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 59/4, https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1886970.
[7] Corney, T. et al. (2023), “Youth Work as Social Pedagogy: Toward an Understanding of Non-Formal and Informal Education and Learning in Youth Work”, Child & Youth Services, Vol. 45/3, pp. 345-370, https://doi.org/10.1080/0145935x.2023.2218081.
[9] Cox, A. (2018), “Space and embodiment in informal learning”, Higher Education, Vol. 75/6, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0186-1.
[45] Crans, S. (2023), Understanding the social side of learning, maastricht university, https://doi.org/10.26481/dis.20230921sc.
[67] Crans, S. et al. (2021), “The mediating role of social informal learning in the relationship between learning climate and employability”, Career Development International, Vol. 26/5, https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-09-2020-0234.
[91] Cripps Clark, J., B. Jacobs and J. MacCallum (2021), “Solidarity and Community: Collaborative Learning in Times of Crisis”, Human Arenas, Vol. 4/4, pp. 607-615, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-020-00152-4.
[77] Crouse, M. et al. (2021), A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach to First-Order Logic Theorem Proving, https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v35i7.16780.
[224] Cummins, P., A. Harrington and T. Yamashita (2022), “Individual Learning Accounts: A Comparison of Implemented and Proposed Initiatives”, Adult Learning, Vol. 33/4, https://doi.org/10.1177/10451595211046971.
[218] Cuyvers, K., V. Donche and P. Van den Bossche (2016), “Learning beyond graduation: exploring newly qualified specialists’ entrance into daily practice from a learning perspective”, Advances in Health Sciences Education, Vol. 21/2, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9640-y.
[83] de Carteret, P. (2008), “Diverse Pleasures: Informal Learning in Community”, Australian Journal of Adult Learning, Vol. 48/3.
[63] De Clercq, D. (2022), “Getting nowhere, going elsewhere: the impact of perceived career compromises on turnover intentions”, Personnel Review, Vol. 51/2, https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2020-0603.
[21] De Grip, A. (2024), “The importance of informal learning at work - On-the-job learning is more important for workers’ human capital development than formal training”, IZA World of Labor, https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.162.v2.
[76] De Grip, A. and J. Sauermann (2012), “The Effects of Training on Own and Co‐worker Productivity: Evidence from a Field Experiment”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 122/560, pp. 376-399, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2012.02500.x.
[160] de Grip, A. and W. Smits (2012), “What affects lifelong learning of scientists and engineers?”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 33/5, https://doi.org/10.1108/01437721211253209.
[11] de Guzman, A. et al. (2023), “Grand travel as a new spring of informal intergenerational learning (IGL): Filipino grandchildren’s emotional experiences during family leisure”, Leisure Studies, Vol. 43/5, pp. 802-815, https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2023.2264532.
[3] de St Croix, T. and L. Doherty (2023), “‘It’s a great place to find where you belong’: creating, curating and valuing place and space in open youth work”, Children’s Geographies, Vol. 21/6, pp. 1029-1043, https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2023.2171770.
[72] De Vos, A., B. Van der Heijden and J. Akkermans (2020), “Sustainable careers: Towards a conceptual model”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.06.011.
[68] Decius, J., M. Knappstein and K. Klug (2024), “Which way of learning benefits your career? The role of different forms of work-related learning for different types of perceived employability”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 33/1, https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2023.2191846.
[181] Decius, J. et al. (2023), “Investigating the multidimensionality of informal learning: Validation of a short measure for white-collar workers”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 34/1, https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21461.
[57] Degner, M., S. Moser and D. Lewalter (2022), “Digital media in institutional informal learning places: A systematic literature review”, Computers and Education Open, Vol. 3, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100068.
[220] Desjardins, R. (2017), Political Economy of Adult Learning Systems, https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474273671.
[154] Dhiman, B. (2023), “Key Issues and New Challenges in New Media Technology in 2023: A Critical Review.”, Journal of Media & Management.
[226] Doerr, A. and T. Kruppe (2015), “Training vouchers, local employment agencies, and policy styles”, Journal for Labour Market Research, Vol. 48/1, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12651-014-0168-z.
[165] Doornbos, A., R. Simons and E. Denessen (2008), Relations between characteristics of workplace practices and types of informal work-related learning: A survey study among Dutch police, https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1231.
[30] Doyle, W., S. Findlay and J. Young (2012), “Workplace Learning Issues of Hotel Employees: Examining Differences Across Management Status and Gender”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 11/4, https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2012.690679.
[140] Draffan E.A. et al. (2015), “Stepwise Approach to Accessible MOOC Development”, https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-566-1-227.
[64] Drejeris, R. and E. Drejeriene (2022), “Novel Approach to the Actions for Causes Elimination of Staff Resistance to Innovative Change”, Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, Vol. 15, https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S354329.
[208] Dudzinska-Przesmitzki, D. and R. Grenier (2008), “Nonformal and Informal Adult Learning in Museums”, Journal of Museum Education, Vol. 33/1, pp. 9-22, https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2008.11510583.
[207] Edmondson, A. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44/2, https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999.
[206] Ellinger, A. (2005), “Contextual factors influencing informal learning in a workplace setting: The case of “reinventing itself company””, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 16/3, https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1145.
[25] Eraut, M. (2004), “Informal learning in the workplace”, Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 26/2, https://doi.org/10.1080/158037042000225245.
[221] Erstad, O. et al. (2016), “Tracing Learning Experiences Within and Across Contexts”, in Learning across Contexts in the Knowledge Society, SensePublishers, Rotterdam, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-414-5_1.
[233] European Commission (2020), European Skills Agenda, https://employment-social-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies-and-activities/skills-and-qualifications/european-skills-agenda_en (accessed on 9 20 2025).
[144] Eurostat (2024), Individuals’ level of digital skills (from 2021 onwards), https://doi.org/10.2908/ISOC_SK_DSKL_I21.
[156] Eurostat (2022), EU Adult Education Survey 2022, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Adult_Education_Survey_(AES)_methodology (accessed on 5 May 2022).
[117] Fahad, S. et al. (2025), “Advancements and Applications of Multimodal Large Language Models: Integration, Challenges, and Future Directions”, in Studies in Computational Intelligence, AI-Driven: Social Media Analytics and Cybersecurity, Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-80334-5_19.
[70] Federman, J. (2020), “A process account of the relationship between informal learning and expressions of anger and anxiety”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 44/2-3, https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-09-2019-0155.
[134] Ferrari, L. and M. Fabbri (2022), “Distance Learning: Rethinking learning design in higher education during the Covid-19 pandemic”, Research on Education and Media, Vol. 14/1, pp. 25-35, https://doi.org/10.2478/rem-2022-0004.
[19] Fialho, P., G. Quintini and M. Vandeweyer (2019), “Returns to different forms of job-related training: Factoring in informal learning”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers.
[189] Fischer, C. and B. O’Connor (2014), “Informal Learning in Workplaces: Understanding Learning Culture as a Challenge for Organizational and Individual Development”, in Professional and Practice-based Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7012-6_2.
[127] Flanagan, B., R. Majumdar and H. Ogata (2022), “Fine Grain Synthetic Educational Data: Challenges and Limitations of Collaborative Learning Analytics”, IEEE Access, Vol. 10, pp. 26230-26241, https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2022.3156073.
[53] Fleming, J., A. Rowe and D. Jackson (2021), “Employers as educators: the role of work placement supervisors in facilitating the transfer of skills and knowledge”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 34/5-6, https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2021.1969343.
[105] Franc, E., R. Stampfl and B. Geyer (2024), “Virtual Communities of Practice on LinkedIn: A Study on Self-directed, Work-related Learning”, MAP Education and Humanities, Vol. 4/1, pp. 100-114, https://doi.org/10.53880/2744-2373.2024.4.100.
[101] Fyfield, M., M. Henderson and M. Phillips (2021), “Navigating four billion videos: teacher search strategies and the <i>YouTube</i> algorithm”, Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 46/1, pp. 47-59, https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1781890.
[98] Garrote Sanchez, D. et al. (2021), “Who on Earth Can Work from Home?”, The World Bank Research Observer, Vol. 36/1, pp. 67-100, https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkab002.
[104] Genden, S. (2023), “Informal Learning Through Social Media: Opportunities for Learning Professionals”, in Learning, Design, and Technology, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17461-7_71.
[93] Gerards, R., A. de Grip and A. Weustink (2021), “Do new ways of working increase informal learning at work?”, Personnel Review, Vol. 50/4, pp. 1200-1215, https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2019-0549.
[95] Gerards, R., A. de Grip and A. Weustink (2020), “Do new ways of working increase informal learning at work?”, Personnel Review, Vol. 50/4, https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2019-0549.
[35] Giancaspro, M. and A. Manuti (2021), “Learning to Be Employable Through Volunteering: A Qualitative Study on the Development of Employability Capital of Young People”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 12, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.574232.
[5] Godwin‐Jones, R. (2019), Future Directions in Informal Language Learning, Wiley, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119472384.ch30.
[32] Gordon, P. and B. Gordon (2017), “The role of volunteer organizations in leadership skill development”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 36/5, pp. 712-723, https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-06-2016-0099.
[135] Gorgy, A. et al. (2022), “Evaluating the educational quality of surgical YouTube® videos: A systematic review”, Health Sciences Review, Vol. 5, p. 100067, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hsr.2022.100067.
[78] Green, A., J. Preston and J. Janmaat (2006), Education, Equality and Social Cohesion, https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230207455.
[38] Grotlüschen, A. et al. (2016), “Adults with Low Proficiency in Literacy or Numeracy”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 131, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jm0v44bnmnx-en.
[110] Guimarães, A., M. Cavalcanti and B. Vasconcelos (2024), “Gamification using technologies for occupational safety training in the civil construction sector”, Work, Vol. 77/2, pp. 477-485, https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-220685.
[6] Habig, B. and P. Gupta (2021), “Authentic STEM research, practices of science, and interest development in an informal science education program”, International Journal of STEM Education, Vol. 8/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00314-y.
[124] Hall, C., J. Mattox and P. Parskey (2020), LEARNING ANALYTICS : using talent data to improve business outcomes, KOGAN PAGE, https://www.koganpage.com/hr-learning-development/learning-analytics-9781789663006 (accessed on 16 September 2025).
[129] Handini, B., N. Nurhasanah and F. Panly (2022), “The Effect of Artificial Intelligent Technology Used (Duolingo Application) To Enhance English Learning”, ELLITE: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching, Vol. 7/2, pp. 86-94, https://doi.org/10.32528/ellite.v7i2.8354.
[69] Han, S. et al. (2022), “The mediating role of informal learning on job performance: the work-learning dual system in South Korea”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 34/5, pp. 437-454, https://doi.org/10.1108/jwl-07-2021-0101.
[88] Haren Conely, L. and L. Cordie (2023), “The Learning Democracy: The Relationship Between Adult Informal Learning, Lifelong Learning Mindset, and Civic Engagement”, Adult Learning, Vol. 34/3, pp. 142-156, https://doi.org/10.1177/10451595231161345.
[145] Hargittai, E. (2021), Handbook of Digital Inequality, Edward Elgar Publishing.
[136] Helming, A. et al. (2021), “The Content Quality of YouTube Videos for Professional Medical Education: A Systematic Review”, Academic Medicine, Vol. 96/10, pp. 1484-1493, https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004121.
[23] Herrmann, L. and J. Kühn (2024), “Is informedness the key? An empirical analysis of VET dropouts in Germany”, Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 16/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-024-00171-3.
[225] Hidalgo, D., H. Oosterbeek and D. Webbink (2014), “The impact of training vouchers on low-skilled workers”, Labour Economics, Vol. 31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2014.09.002.
[80] Hoggan-Kloubert, T. et al. (2023), “Civic lifelong education: fostering informed citizenship amidst global challenges and democratic transformations”, International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 42/4, pp. 335-341, https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2023.2234133.
[138] Hoi, V. and H. Hang (2021), “Understanding students’ behavioural intention to use facebook as a supplementary learning platform: A mixed methods approach”, Education and Information Technologies, Vol. 26/5, pp. 5991-6011, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10565-5.
[81] Holford, J. et al. (eds.) (2023), Lifelong Learning, Young Adults and the Challenges of Disadvantage in Europe, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14109-6.
[209] Huo, M. and P. Boxall (2022), “Do workers respond differently to learning from supervisors and colleagues? A study of job resources, learning sources and employee wellbeing in China”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 33/4, https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1744029.
[152] Jain, A., S. Sahoo and J. Kaubiyal (2021), “Online social networks security and privacy: comprehensive review and analysis”, Complex & Intelligent Systems, Vol. 7/5, pp. 2157-2177, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-021-00409-7.
[163] Jeong, S. et al. (2018), “Integrative Literature Review on Informal Learning: Antecedents, Conceptualizations, and Future Directions”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 17/2, pp. 128-152, https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484318772242.
[191] Jeong, S. et al. (2018), “Integrative Literature Review on Informal Learning: Antecedents, Conceptualizations, and Future Directions”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 17/2, pp. 128-152, https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484318772242.
[186] Jeon, K. and K. Kim (2012), “How do organizational and task factors influence informal learning in the workplace?”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 15/2, pp. 209-226, https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2011.647463.
[173] Johnson, M. and D. Majewska (2022), “Formal, non-formal and informal learning: What are they, and how can we research them?”, Cambridge University Press & Assessment Research Report September.
[118] Jo, H. and D. Park (2024), “AI in the Workplace: Examining the Effects of ChatGPT on Information Support and Knowledge Acquisition”, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, Vol. 40/23, pp. 8091-8106, https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2278283.
[131] Joshi, S. et al. (2024), Ensuring Accuracy and Equity in Vaccination Information From ChatGPT and CDC: Mixed-Methods Cross-Language Evaluation (Preprint), https://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.60939.
[170] Kalenda, J., E. Boeren and I. Kočvarová (2024), “Exploring attitudes towards adult learning and education: group patterns among participants and non-participants”, Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 46/3, https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2023.2199201.
[82] Kapoor, K., V. Weerakkody and A. Schroeder (2018), “Social innovations for social cohesion in Western Europe: success dimensions for lifelong learning and education”, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, Vol. 31/2, pp. 189-203, https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2017.1419336.
[122] Kim, S., J. Shim and J. Shim (2023), “A Study on the Utilization of OpenAI ChatGPT as a Second Language Learning Tool”, Journal of Multimedia Information System, Vol. 10/1, pp. 79-88, https://doi.org/10.33851/JMIS.2023.10.1.79.
[184] Kittel, A., R. Kunz and T. Seufert (2021), “Self-Regulation in Informal Workplace Learning: Influence of Organizational Learning Culture and Job Characteristics”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 12, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.643748.
[40] Koopmans, L. (2023), “Long term effects of lifelong learning [Lange termijn effecten van leven lang ontwikkelen (LLO)]”, https://www.tno.nl/nl/newsroom/2023/12/tno-onderzoek-informeel-leren-loont/.
[71] Kortsch, T., E. Schulte and S. Kauffeld (2019), “Learning @ work: informal learning strategies of German craft workers”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 43/5-6, https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-06-2018-0052.
[120] Krecar, I., M. Kolega and L. Jurcec (2024), “Perception of ChatGPT Usage for Homework Assignments: Students’ and Professors’ Perspectives”, IAFOR Journal of Education, Vol. 12/2, pp. 33-60, https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.12.2.02.
[15] Kumar, V. and P. Nanda (2024), “Social Media as a Learning Tool: A Perspective on Formal and Informal Learning”, International Journal of Educational Reform, Vol. 33/2, https://doi.org/10.1177/10567879221094303.
[17] Kumar, V. and P. Nanda (2024), “Social Media as a Learning Tool: A Perspective on Formal and Informal Learning”, International Journal of Educational Reform, Vol. 33/2, https://doi.org/10.1177/10567879221094303.
[192] Künn, A. et al. (2022), “Leven lang ontwikkelen in Nederland”, ROA Reports, No. 001, ROA, Maastricht.
[161] Kyndt, E. and H. Baert (2013), “Antecedents of Employees’ Involvement in Work-Related Learning: A Systematic Review”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 83/2, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313478021.
[158] Kyndt, E., F. Dochy and H. Nijs (2009), “Learning conditions for non-formal and informal workplace learning”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 21/5, https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620910966785.
[99] Lake, A. (2023), Beyond Hybrid Working: A Smarter & Transformational Approach to Flexible Working, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003288930.
[111] Lampropoulos, G. and Kinshuk (2024), “Virtual reality and gamification in education: a systematic review”, Educational technology research and development, Vol. 72/3, pp. 1691-1785, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10351-3.
[29] Lavrijsen, J. and I. Nicaise (2018), “Systemic obstacles to lifelong learning: the influence of the educational system design on learning attitudes”, in Advancing Theory and Research in Widening Participation.
[215] le Clus, M. (2011), “Informal learning in the workplace: A review of the literature”, Australian Journal of Adult Learning, Vol. 51/2.
[62] Lecat, A., S. Beausaert and I. Raemdonck (2018), “On the Relation Between Teachers’ (In)formal Learning and Innovative Working Behavior: the Mediating Role of Employability”, Vocations and Learning, Vol. 11/3, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-018-9199-x.
[42] Lee, E. and W. Lee (2023), “Enabling Continuous Innovation and Knowledge Creation in Organizations: Optimizing Informal Learning and Tacit Knowledge”, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19592-1_68.
[167] Lim, C. et al. (2020), “Self-regulated learning as a mediator in the relationship between peer learning and online learning satisfaction: A study of a private university in Malaysia”, Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, Vol. 17/1, https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2020.17.1.3.
[119] Lin, X. (2024), “Exploring the Role of ChatGPT as a Facilitator for Motivating Self-Directed Learning Among Adult Learners”, Adult Learning, Vol. 35/3, pp. 156-166, https://doi.org/10.1177/10451595231184928.
[86] Liu, J. (2021), “Inclusiveness in Instructional Design & Development of Informal Learning Experiences: From Cultural Lenses”, Journal of Applied Instructional Design, Vol. 10/3, https://doi.org/10.51869/103/jcl.
[180] Lohman, M. (2009), “A Survey of Factors Influencing the Engagement of Information Technology Professionals in Informal Learning Activities”, Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, Vol. 25.
[190] Lotfi, H. et al. (2025), “What is informal workplace learning: a qualitative meta-synthesis”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 37/2, pp. 171-193, https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-05-2024-0108.
[178] Lucena Barbosa, F. and J. Borges-Andrade (2022), “Informal learning behaviors, interaction and workplace autonomy and readiness to learn”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 34/4, https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-04-2021-0047.
[151] Macrynikola, N. et al. (2021), “Does social media use confer suicide risk? A systematic review of the evidence”, Computers in Human Behavior Reports, Vol. 3, p. 100094, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100094.
[187] Maiorca, C. et al. (2021), “Informal Learning Environments and Impact on Interest in STEM Careers”, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, Vol. 19/1, pp. 45-64, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10038-9.
[113] Mäkinen, H. et al. (2023), “Preventing adolescents’ social exclusion with serious games – a scoping review”, International Social Work, Vol. 67/4, pp. 922-938, https://doi.org/10.1177/00208728231178399.
[22] Manuti, A. et al. (2015), “Formal and informal learning in the workplace: A research review”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 19/1, https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12044.
[31] Manuti, A. et al. (2015), “Formal and informal learning in the workplace: A research review”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 19/1, https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12044.
[201] María Martínez‐León, I. and J. Martínez‐García (2011), “The influence of organizational structure on organizational learning”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 32/5/6, pp. 537-566, https://doi.org/10.1108/01437721111158198.
[58] Mikalef, K. et al. (2013), “Does informal learning benefit from interactivity? the effect of trial and error on knowledge acquisition during a museum visit”, International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, Vol. 7/2, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2013.055620.
[240] Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (2026), Website My Learning Culture (“Mijnleercultuur.nl”), https://www.mijnleercultuur.nl/ (accessed on 1 June 2026).
[148] Mnguni, N. et al. (2024), “An Experimental Study of The Efficacy of Prompting Strategies In Guiding ChatGPT for A Computer Programming Task”, Journal of Information Systems and Informatics, Vol. 6/3, pp. 1346-1359, https://doi.org/10.51519/journalisi.v6i3.783.
[137] Moghavvemi, S. et al. (2018), “Social media as a complementary learning tool for teaching and learning: The case of youtube”, The International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 16/1, pp. 37-42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.12.001.
[195] Moore, A. and J. Klein (2020), “Facilitating Informal Learning at Work”, TechTrends, Vol. 64/2, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00458-3.
[132] Muhammed T, S. and S. Mathew (2022), “The disaster of misinformation: a review of research in social media”, International Journal of Data Science and Analytics, Vol. 13/4, pp. 271-285, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41060-022-00311-6.
[84] Mündel, K. and D. Schugurensky (2008), “Community based learning and civic engagement: Informal learning among adult volunteers in community organizations”, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Vol. 2008/118, pp. 49-60, https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.295.
[106] Munger, K. et al. (2021), “Accessibility and generalizability: Are social media effects moderated by age or digital literacy?”, Research & Politics, Vol. 8/2, https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680211016968.
[54] Nägele, C. and B. Stalder (2017), “Competence and the need for transferable skills”, in Technical and Vocational Education and Training, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4_34.
[89] National Research Council (2012), “Indicators for Lifelong, Informal Learning”, in Beatty, A. and J. Koenig (eds.), Key National Education Indicators: Workshop Summary, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/13453/chapter/7 (accessed on 30 September 2025).
[147] Nazari, M. and G. Saadi (2024), “Developing effective prompts to improve communication with ChatGPT: a formula for higher education stakeholders”, Discover Education, Vol. 3/1, p. 45, https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00122-w.
[166] Noe, R., M. Tews and A. Marand (2013), “Individual differences and informal learning in the workplace”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 83/3, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.009.
[231] OECD (2026), Korea: The Free Learning Semester Programme, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/career-readiness/Korea-The-Free-Learning-Semester-Programme.pdf.
[241] OECD (2025), Closing Broadband Connectivity Divides for All: From Evidence to Practice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d5ea99b2-en.
[157] OECD (2025), Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/ (accessed on 25 February 2019).
[223] OECD (2024), Survey of Adult Skills – Reader’s Companion: 2023, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3639d1e2-en.
[243] OECD (2023), OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en.
[237] OECD (2021), Incentives for SMEs to Invest in Skills: Lessons from European Good Practices, Getting Skills Right, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1eb16dc7-en.
[79] OECD (2021), OECD Skills Outlook 2021: Learning for Life, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0ae365b4-en.
[39] OECD (2021), OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/97a5bbfe-en.
[37] OECD (2020), Education at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en.
[244] OECD (2020), Increasing Adult Learning Participation: Learning from Successful Reforms, Getting Skills Right, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cf5d9c21-en.
[234] OECD (ed.) (2020), Strengthening the governance of skills systems: Lessons from Six OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3a4bb6ea-en.
[236] OECD (2020), Workforce Innovation to Foster Positive Learning Environments in Canada, Getting Skills Right, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a92cf94d-en.
[36] OECD (2019), OECD Skills Outlook 2019: Thriving in a Digital World, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/df80bc12-en.
[230] OECD (2016), Education Policy Outlook Korea, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-policy-outlook/418974-Education-Policy-Outlook-Korea.pdf (accessed on 9 October 2025).
[92] OECD (2010), Improving Health and Social Cohesion through Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264086319-en.
[227] Oh, S. (2016), “The effects of workplace learning on organizational socialization in the youth workforce”, Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol. 17/4, pp. 567-580, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-016-9456-3.
[33] Oliveira, M. and P. Pinheiro (2020), “Factors and Barriers to Tacit Knowledge Sharing in Non-Profit Organizations – a Case Study of Volunteer Firefighters in Portugal”, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 12/3, pp. 1294-1313, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00665-x.
[100] Pagnozzi, F. et al. (2024), “Organisational Culture and Hybrid Work in the Italian Public Sector—The Case of a Small University”, Springer, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-76970-2_12.
[61] Panagiotakopoulos, A. (2011), “Barriers to employee training and learning in small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs)”, Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, Vol. 25/3, pp. 15-18, https://doi.org/10.1108/14777281111125354.
[179] Parker, S. (2014), Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity, and more, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115208.
[60] Park, Y. and W. Choi (2016), “The effects of formal learning and informal learning on job performance: the mediating role of the value of learning at work”, Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol. 17/2, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-016-9429-6.
[238] PARP (2026), Website Polish Agency for Enterprise Development (PARP), https://en.parp.gov.pl/index.php/component/knowledge/en (accessed on 3 March 2023).
[85] Patrick, R., C. Henderson‐Wilson and M. Ebden (2022), “Exploring the co‐benefits of environmental volunteering for human and planetary health promotion”, Health Promotion Journal of Australia, Vol. 33/1, pp. 57-67, https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.460.
[155] PIAAC (2023), Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/piaac.html.
[203] Pifer, M., V. Baker and L. Lunsford (2015), “Academic departments as networks of informal learning: faculty development at liberal arts colleges”, International Journal for Academic Development, Vol. 20/2, https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1028065.
[16] Pires, F. et al. (2022), “Learning with YouTube: Beyond formal and informal through new actors, strategies and affordances”, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, Vol. 28/3, pp. 838-853, https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565211020545.
[8] Pittaway, L. et al. (2024), “Entrepreneurship Clubs and Societies: Learning Benefits in Practice”, in Contemporary Issues in Entrepreneurship Research, Extracurricular Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Activity: A Global and Holistic Perspective, Emerald Publishing Limited, https://doi.org/10.1108/s2040-724620240000019001.
[239] Plato Business Development Network (2026), Website Plato Business Development Network, https://plato.ie/about-plato/ (accessed on 3 March 2023).
[107] Polanco-Levicán, K. and S. Salvo-Garrido (2022), “Understanding Social Media Literacy: A Systematic Review of the Concept and Its Competences”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 19/14, p. 8807, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148807.
[12] Powell, A., D. Frank and L. McClain (2025), “Broadening the scope of intergenerational learning in environmental education: an investigation of youth-to-educator intergenerational learning during a residential environmental education program”, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 31/8, pp. 1635-1657, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2025.2486365.
[219] Prayson, R. and J. Rowe (2017), “Effective Feedback in the Workplace”, Critical Values, Vol. 10/3, https://doi.org/10.1093/crival/vax017.
[73] Quendler, E., M. Lamb and N. Driouech (2020), “Sustainable Education, Employability, and Job Prospects for Next Generations in the Digital Era”, in London, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Lifelong Learning, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197506707.013.24.
[216] Rastogi, M. and O. Karatepe (2022), “Informal learning, work engagement and their effects on work-family enrichment”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 71/7, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2020-0087.
[108] Ravyse, W. et al. (2016), “Success factors for serious games to enhance learning: a systematic review”, Virtual Reality, Vol. 21/1, pp. 31-58, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-016-0298-4.
[94] Renard, K. et al. (2021), “The impact of new ways of working on organizations and employees: A systematic review of literature”, Administrative Sciences, Vol. 11/2, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11020038.
[235] Reznikova, L., R. Labanino and D. McKee Mathews (2024), “Pooling our strengths: The power of stakeholder engagement in education and skills policy”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 316, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b73697cb-en.
[205] Rigolizzo, M., Z. Zhu and J. Harvey (2022), “Leader humility, leader authenticity and informal learning: how humble team leaders model everyday workplace learning”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 34/8, https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-01-2022-0010.
[13] Rosales, A. and D. Blanche-T (2021), “Explicit and Implicit Intergenerational Digital Literacy Dynamics: How Families Contribute to Overcome the Digital Divide of Grandmothers”, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, Vol. 20/3, pp. 328-346, https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2021.1921651.
[222] Rubenson, K. (2006), The Nordic model of Lifelong Learning, https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920600872472.
[168] Rusk, D. and L. Smith (2022), “Utilizing Prior Learning Portfolios to Rebundle Formal and Informal Learning”, https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-3809-1.ch007.
[193] Sambrook, S. and J. Stewart (2000), “Factors influencing learning in European learning oriented organisations: Issues for management”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 24, https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590010321179.
[34] Schugurensky, D. (2015), “On Informal Learning, Informal Teaching, and Informal Education”, in Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development, Measuring and Analyzing Informal Learning in the Digital Age, IGI Global, https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8265-8.ch002.
[196] Schürmann, E. and S. Beausaert (2016), “What are drivers for informal learning?”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 40/3, https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-06-2015-0044.
[150] Scott, R., J. Stuart and B. Barber (2022), “Connecting with close friends online: A qualitative analysis of young adults’ perceptions of online and offline social interactions with friends”, Computers in Human Behavior Reports, Vol. 7, p. 100217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100217.
[47] Scribner, J. (1999), “Professional development: Untangling the influence of work context on teacher learning”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 35/2, https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x99352004.
[164] SER (2024), Montior Leercultuur 2023, https://publicaties.ser.nl/ser_leercultuurmonitor_2023/cover (accessed on 16 October 2025).
[74] Sharma, A. and M. Goyal (2021), “Building Sustainable Workforce through Informal Learning.”, ANWESH: International Journal of Management & Information Technology, Vol. 6/1.
[130] Shortt, M. et al. (2023), “Gamification in mobile-assisted language learning: a systematic review of Duolingo literature from public release of 2012 to early 2020”, Computer Assisted Language Learning, Vol. 36/3, pp. 517-554, https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1933540.
[202] Sitar, A. and M. Škerlavaj (2018), “Learning-structure fit part I: Conceptualizing the relationship between organizational structure and employee learning”, Learning Organization, Vol. 25/5, https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-09-2015-0050.
[197] Skule, S. (2004), “Learning conditions at work: a framework to understand and assess informal learning in the workplace”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 8/1, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-3736.2004.00192.x.
[27] Smet, K. et al. (2022), Outcomes of Informal Work-Related Learning Behaviours: A Systematic Literature Review, https://doi.org/10.16993/sjwop.151.
[41] Smet, K. et al. (2022), Outcomes of Informal Work-Related Learning Behaviours: A Systematic Literature Review, https://doi.org/10.16993/sjwop.151.
[43] Smith, E. (2001), “The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5/4, https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270110411733.
[174] Song, D. and C. Bonk (2016), “Motivational factors in self-directed informal learning from online learning resources”, Cogent Education, Vol. 3/1, https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1205838.
[2] Souto-Otero, M. (2021), “Validation of non-formal and informal learning in formal education: Covert and overt”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 56/3, https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12464.
[162] Souto-Otero, M. (2021), “Validation of non-formal and informal learning in formal education: Covert and overt”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 56/3, https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12464.
[204] Sparr, J., K. Knipfer and F. Willems (2017), “How Leaders Can Get the Most Out of Formal Training: The Significance of Feedback-Seeking and Reflection as Informal Learning Behaviors”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 28/1, https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21263.
[103] Stanley, T. (2023), Inclusive and accessible social media: A guide for social media content creators, Library Services, The Open University., https://oro.open.ac.uk/78816/3/The%20Open%20University%27s%20Inclusive%20and%20Accessible%20Social%20Media%20Guide%20-%20Feb%202023%20-%20PDF.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2025).
[141] Stracke, C. and G. Trisolini (2021), “A Systematic Literature Review on the Quality of MOOCs”, Sustainability, Vol. 13/11, p. 5817, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115817.
[50] Suherman, A., N. Arminarahmah and M. Martini (2024), “The Impact of Organizational Culture on Employee Retention and Performance in the Technology Industry: A Comparative Study”, International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology, Vol. 4/2, pp. 516-526, https://doi.org/10.35870/ijmsit.v4i2.3405.
[153] Suryadevara, S. (2024), “Navigating Data Protection Challenges in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: A Comprehensive Review.”, REVISTA DE INTELIGENCIA ARTIFICIAL EN MEDICINA., https://www.academia.edu/124958504/Navigating_Data_Protection_Challenges_in_the_Era_of_Artificial_Intelligence_A_Comprehensive_Review.
[171] Susomrith, P. and A. Coetzer (2019), “Effects of informal learning on work engagement”, Personnel Review, Vol. 48/7, https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2018-0430.
[175] Taheri, M., S. Motealleh and J. Younesi (2022), “Workplace fun and informal learning: the mediating role of motivation to learn, learning opportunities and management support”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 34/3, https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-05-2021-0062.
[210] Tannenbaum, S. et al. (2009), “Informal learning and development in organizations”, in Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203878385-18.
[48] Tannenbaum, S. and M. Wolfson (2022), Informal (Field-Based) Learning, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-083050.
[128] Tao, L., M. Cukurova and Y. Song (2025), “Learning analytics in immersive virtual learning environments: a systematic literature review”, Smart Learning Environments, Vol. 12/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-025-00381-6.
[10] Tawfik, A. et al. (2023), “Informal Learning in United States Libraries: A Systematic Review”, TechTrends, Vol. 67/3, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00811-z.
[183] ter Weel, B. et al. (2025), Taken en Vaardigheden op het werk, 2012-2024, SEO Economisch Onderzoek en ROA, https://www.seo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2024-156-Taken-en-vaardigheden-op-het-werk-2012-2024.pdf.
[112] Ullah, M. et al. (2022), “Serious games in science education: a systematic literature”, Virtual Reality & Intelligent Hardware, Vol. 4/3, pp. 189-209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vrih.2022.02.001.
[229] UNESCO (2025), What you need to know on lifelong learning, https://www.unesco.org/en/lifelong-learning/need-know#:~:text=All%20learning%20spheres%20and%20spaces (accessed on 9 October 2025).
[143] Vallo Hult, H. and K. Byström (2022), “Challenges to learning and leading the digital workplace”, Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 44/3, pp. 460-474, https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2021.1879038.
[75] van der Heijde, C. and B. van der Heijden (2005), “The development and psychometric evaluation of a multi-dimensional measurement instrument of employability-and the impact of aging”, International Congress Series, Vol. 1280, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2005.02.061.
[46] Van Der Klink, M., J. Boon and K. Schlusmans (2012), All by myself. Research into employees’ informal learning experiences, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHRDM.2012.044201.
[146] van Deursen, A. et al. (2021), “Digital inequalities in the Internet of Things: differences in attitudes, material access, skills, and usage”, Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 24/2, pp. 258-276, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1646777.
[199] Vanderkooy, A., E. Regier and M. Lilly (2019), “Investing in inclusive growth: A systematic review of the role of financial incentives to promote lifelong learning”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 27, pp. 176-190, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.03.004.
[90] Von Kotze, A. and S. Walters (2017), Forging solidarity : popular education at work, Sense Publishers.
[228] Waite, S. et al. (2020), “Diverse aims, challenges and opportunities for assessing outdoor learning”, in Outdoor Learning Research, Routledge, https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429436451-20.
[96] Waldrep, C., M. Fritz and J. Glass (2024), “Preferences for Remote and Hybrid Work: Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic”, Social Sciences, Vol. 13/6, p. 303, https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13060303.
[211] Wang, S. and X. Zhang (2022), “Impact mechanism of supervisor developmental feedback on employee workplace learning”, Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 43/1, https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3379.
[109] Wang, T. and Y. Hung (2024), “Gamification of Learning Aviation Knowledge for Improving the Efficiency of Flight Training”, The International Journal of Aerospace Psychology, Vol. 35/1, pp. 34-48, https://doi.org/10.1080/24721840.2024.2358763.
[65] Warrick, D. (2023), “Revisiting resistance to change and how to manage it: What has been learned and what organizations need to do”, Business Horizons, Vol. 66/4, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2022.09.001.
[188] Warr, P. and C. Allan (1998), “Learning Strategies and Occupational Training”, in Robertson, I. and C. Cooper (eds.), Personnel Psychology and HRM.
[24] Watkins, K. and V. Marsick (1992), “Towards a theory of informal and incidental learning in organizations”, International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 11/4, https://doi.org/10.1080/0260137920110403.
[142] Weritz, P. (2022), “Hey Leaders, It’s Time to Train the Workforce: Critical Skills in the Digital Workplace”, Administrative Sciences, Vol. 12/3, p. 94, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12030094.
[232] Werquin, P. (2010), Recognising Non-Formal and Informal Learning: Outcomes, Policies and Practices, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264063853-en.
[44] Wolfson, M. et al. (2018), “A cross-level investigation of informal field-based learning and performance improvements”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 103/1, https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000267.
[126] Wong, B., K. Li and S. Cheung (2023), “An analysis of learning analytics in personalised learning”, Journal of Computing in Higher Education, Vol. 35/3, pp. 371-390, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09324-3.
[242] World Bank (2018), World Development Report 2019: The Changing Nature of Work, Washington, DC: World Bank, https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1328-3.
[172] Wu, C. and S. Parker (2017), “The Role of Leader Support in Facilitating Proactive Work Behavior: A Perspective From Attachment Theory”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43/4, https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314544745.
[123] Xiao, Y. and Y. Zhi (2023), “An Exploratory Study of EFL Learners’ Use of ChatGPT for Language Learning Tasks: Experience and Perceptions”, Languages, Vol. 8/3, p. 212, https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030212.
[212] Young, S. (2013), A Person-Situation Model of Employee Engagement, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida.
[217] Zainil, M. et al. (2023), “The Influence of a STEM-Based Digital Classroom Learning Model and High-Order Thinking Skills on the 21st-Century Skills of Elementary School Students in Indonesia”, Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, Vol. 10/1, pp. 29-35, https://doi.org/10.20448/jeelr.v10i1.4336.
[114] Zheng, L. et al. (2021), “Serious Games as a Complementary Tool for Social Skill Development in Young People: A Systematic Review of the Literature”, Simulation & Gaming, Vol. 52/6, pp. 686-714, https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781211031283.
[55] Zia, M. et al. (2022), “Transformational leadership promoting employees’ informal learning and job involvement: the moderating role of self-efficacy”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 43/3, https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-06-2021-0286.