This chapter provides an overview of the report “Giving Informal Learning the Recognition it Deserves” and summarises its key findings. It sets out the context for the report and describes the objectives of the project supported by Belgium (Flanders), Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. It also presents the main findings on the benefits, participation patterns, drivers, and policy approaches related to informal learning (explored in greater detail in Chapter 2). Furthermore, the chapter summarises the assessment and recommendations for strengthening the definition of informal learning (Chapter 3) and improving its measurement (Chapter 4). Finally, it outlines possible next steps.
Giving Informal Learning the Recognition it Deserves
Abstract
Lifelong learning is essential for individuals to develop, maintain, and adapt their skills in response to evolving personal aspirations, labour market needs, and societal transformations. While policy attention has traditionally focussed on formal education and structured training, a substantial share of learning over the life course takes place informally – through work, daily activities, social interaction and self-directed experience. As countries respond to rapidly evolving labour markets and technological transformations, recognising, supporting and leveraging informal learning has therefore become increasingly important. A well-functioning lifelong learning system must not only rest on strong foundations in initial education and access to formal and non-formal provision, but also enable individuals to continuously acquire and update skills through informal learning across adulthood.
Despite its central role in skills development, informal learning remains insufficiently recognised in many policy frameworks. It accounts for the majority of time individuals spend learning and is associated with a range of positive outcomes, such as higher wages and improved job performance. Informal learning also complements formal and non-formal education by deepening and reinforcing acquired skills. Moreover, informal learning can serve as a more accessible pathway for skills development, particularly for underrepresented groups such as disengaged learners and employees in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), who may face barriers to participating in more structured learning opportunities. However, it continues to receive limited attention in national and international data collection efforts. The absence of a common definition and consistent measurement practices constrains cross-country comparisons and hinders evidence‑based policy development.
At the same time, informal learning is rapidly evolving due to technological innovation, digital platforms, and changing work practices. These developments expand access and create more flexible, individualised learning pathways – especially for people seeking to upskill or reskill. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) is accelerating these changes, introducing new forms of personalised and adaptive learning that may be difficult to capture with traditional measurement approaches. However, they also raise challenges related to quality, equity, cognitive engagement, and data privacy, underscoring the need for clearer definitions and improved measurement.
The growing emphasis on skills-based hiring – where demonstrated skills matter more than formal qualifications – further increases the relevance of informal learning (OECD, 2025[1]). This shift underscores the value of diverse, non-traditional learning experiences and highlights the need to better capture and recognise informally acquired skills.
Despite sustained and growing interest in informal learning, several of the most widely recognised international surveys addressing this topic produce markedly divergent results, raising important questions about the underlying causes of these discrepancies.
This project, Enhancing the Understanding and Measurement of Informal Learning: Towards a Comprehensive, Shared Definition seeks to deepen understanding of informal learning, both within and outside the workplace (see Box 1.1). Supported by the governments of Flanders (Belgium), Luxembourg and the Netherlands, one of its main objectives is to establish a comprehensive, shared definition of informal learning that builds on existing definitions while capturing its diverse forms. The project also aims to improve the measurement of informal learning by ensuring that the proposed definition is both practical and measurable, and by providing concrete guidance on refining measurement approaches.
To achieve the project’s objectives, the project combined desk-based research with extensive consultations involving experts from governments, international organisations and academia, to:
Map existing definitions, typologies and measurement approaches used by international organisations and countries.
Analyse how these definitions, typologies and measurement approaches could be improved.
Develop a revised definition and typology that reflect the diversity of informal learning, accompanied by guidance on their measurement.
Engage with international experts to learn from their experiences and test the proposed definition, typology and measurement methods.
Formulate final policy recommendations detailing the revised definition, typology, and practical steps for its measurement.
The project resulted in two intermediary reports, the contents of which are presented in this publication:
“Rethinking Informal Learning: Assessment of the Latest Literature and Data” (OECD, 2025[2]), offers a comprehensive international overview of the latest literature and data on informal learning. It explores how informal learning is defined, measured, and evolving, highlighting its benefits and drivers for both youth and adults, at work and beyond.
“Rethinking Informal Learning: Recommendations for Advancing Measurement and Shared Understanding” (OECD, 2026[3]), presents the 10 recommendations to strengthen the definitions and measurement. By guiding improvements in how informal learning is defined and assessed, it aims to elevate its visibility on the policy agenda and better integrate it into lifelong learning systems.
Developing a clear definition and robust measurement approach for informal learning is a necessary first step for advancing policy and research. Without a shared understanding, it remains difficult to determine who is learning, where learning takes place, and how it occurs, or to assess its contribution to skills development and lifelong learning. In practice, the absence of a common definition and consistent measurement framework leads to fragmented and non-comparable data, limits the ability to track trends over time, and risks underestimating the scale and value of informal learning. It can also result in policy blind spots, where important forms of learning remain invisible in evidence bases, reducing the effectiveness of policies and investments aimed at strengthening skills.
At the national level, establishing a common definition and a consistent measurement framework would generate the evidence needed to design targeted interventions, evaluate their effectiveness, and position informal learning as a recognised priority within education and skills systems. At the international level, a common definition could support cross-country comparability, facilitate the exchange of good practices, and strengthen the integration of informal learning into international surveys and policy frameworks, thereby contributing to a more coherent and comprehensive understanding of lifelong learning.
This report presents 10 recommendations to improve the definition and measurement (see Figure 1.1). This chapter provides an overview of the project and summarises the key findings that are presented in Chapter 2‑4. Chapter 2 explores why informal learning matters, who engages in it, what shapes it, and how it is supported across individuals, organisations, and society. Chapter 3 examines how informal learning is defined, how it differs from formal and non-formal education and training, and how definitions can be better aligned across policy and practice. Chapter 4 focusses on how informal learning is measured, the associated challenges, and how measurement can be strengthened through improved survey tools, national approaches, and ongoing innovation.
This project offers one of the first international comparative reviews of informal learning. The topic of informal learning is already addressed in a wide range of reports produced by international organisations, statistical offices, national authorities and academic institutions. Moreover, some international studies examine informal learning in more detail, including its definition and measurement, and expand on specific aspects of informal learning. For example, the OECD report Training in Enterprises explores the concept and presents relevant evidence (OECD, 2021[4]), while Returns to Different Forms of Job-Related Training focusses on its benefits (Fialho, Quintini and Vandeweyer, 2019[5]). However, this report is one of the first international comparative study dedicated exclusively to informal learning, providing a comprehensive analysis that spans its definition and measurement, as well as its outcomes and associated policy levers.
Why informal learning matters
Informal learning is a major, though often less visible, contributor to skills development across the life course. It supports individuals in acquiring and applying knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviours in everyday settings such as work, home, community life, and leisure. Its benefits extend across four broad areas: education systems, individuals, organisations, and society.
Within education systems, informal learning complements both formal and non-formal education and training. For young people, it supports the development of knowledge and skills beyond the classroom through hobbies, peer interaction, volunteering, sports, arts, libraries, digital platforms, and intergenerational exchange. These experiences help reinforce classroom learning, deepen understanding, and foster broader social and personal development. For adults, informal learning similarly complements structured education and training. Evidence suggests that adults who engage in informal learning are also more likely to participate in formal and non-formal education and training (see Figure 1.2), indicating that these learning modes are mutually reinforcing rather than substitutive. Informal learning often helps adults translate theoretical knowledge into practical capability and identify new learning needs.
Source: OECD analysis based on Eurostat (2022[6]), EU Adult Education Survey, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Adult_Education_Survey_(AES)_methodology.
At the individual level, informal learning helps foster positive attitudes towards lifelong learning. By embedding learning in everyday experience, it can strengthen motivation, confidence, and openness to continued development. It often encourages individuals to take greater ownership of their own learning and can create a positive cycle in which learning leads to stronger performance, greater satisfaction, and further learning. For instance, a study from the Netherlands highlights the positive impact of informal learning on job performance and behaviour – 84% of workers with high levels of informal learning report high job satisfaction, compared to 74% among those with low levels, while 28% receive at least one promotion, compared to 18% of low informal learners (Koopmans, 2023[7]).
Informal learning may also improve accessibility for some underrepresented learners, especially those facing barriers to structured education and training, such as workers in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) or adults with negative prior experiences of formal education. However, it may also reproduce inequalities, as those with stronger prior educational foundations or more learning-rich jobs are often better positioned to benefit from it.
Informal learning is particularly important for strengthening both job-specific and transferable skills. In the workplace, it helps individuals acquire tacit knowledge, improve task performance, adapt to changing responsibilities, and better understand organisational culture and expectations. It also supports the development of broader skills such as communication, teamwork, leadership, adaptability, critical thinking, initiative, and socio‑emotional skills. These are valuable not only for work performance, but also across home, community, and civic contexts. Evidence further shows that informal learning is associated with greater job satisfaction, employability, career progression, and promotion prospects.
At the organisational level, informal learning can enhance productivity, innovation, resilience, and knowledge sharing. For instance, an OECD study demonstrated that each hour of informal learning is found to increases productivity by 1% and wages by 0.5% (Fialho, Quintini and Vandeweyer, 2019[5]). It allows workers and firms to respond quickly to changing skill demands, particularly where formal or non-formal training may be too slow or resource‑intensive. Informal learning can also generate positive spillovers, as employees share skills and knowledge with colleagues, strengthening team and organisational performance.
Finally, informal learning generates important societal benefits. By supporting skills development, civic participation, volunteering, and community engagement, it contributes to social cohesion, trust, and collective problem-solving. It also strengthens human capital and adaptability in the face of economic and technological change. Overall, informal learning plays a vital role in supporting inclusive lifelong learning systems and broader societal well-being.
Why is informal learning becoming even more important
Informal learning is rapidly evolving due to technological innovation, digital platforms, and changing work practices, expanding access beyond formal institutions and enabling flexible, individualised learning pathways. New work arrangements – such as remote and hybrid models, flexible schedules, and digital collaboration tools – enhance informal learning by promoting job autonomy, reflection, experimentation, and immediate access to organisational knowledge through digital platforms and other structured knowledge‑sharing systems.
AI tools like ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini offer personalised, on-demand feedback for self-directed learning, professional development, and language acquisition, while learning analytics optimises pathways through data-driven insights and adaptive instruction. Social media platforms, including YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn, serve as increasingly influential informal learning environments. They provide self-paced, accessible learning and can support collaborative and community-based knowledge sharing. Interactive games and “serious games” simulate real-world scenarios to enhance engagement and skill development, though their effectiveness depends on robust pedagogical design.
These emerging forms of informal learning raise important challenges. Quality assurance is limited, and misinformation can spread easily on open platforms. Unequal digital skills risk excluding vulnerable groups, while overreliance on AI may reduce critical thinking, social interaction, and collaborative learning. Cognitive, social, ethical, and mental health considerations must be addressed, alongside data privacy and ethical concerns related to AI use. Ensuring equitable, effective, and safe informal learning requires structured support, digital upskilling, critical thinking guidance, and robust frameworks for responsible use of technology in both workplace and wider learning contexts.
Who is participating in informal learning
Recent evidence from the Adult Education Survey (AES) and the Survey of Adult Skills, a product of the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) shows that participation in informal learning is widespread, but highly uneven across countries, population groups, and learning types. Cross-country differences are particularly large (see Figure 1.3, Panel A). According to the AES, participation in informal learning ranges from 29% to 93% across EU countries. Variation is also evident in job-related informal learning, although country rankings differ, with Nordic countries performing especially strongly (see Figure 1.3, Panel B). These differences likely reflect a combination of methodological factors, national learning cultures, labour market structures, institutional support, and access to enabling infrastructure.
Source: Eurostat (2022[6]), EU Adult Education Survey, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Adult_Education_Survey_(AES)_methodology.
Participation is also shaped by age and socio-demographic characteristics. Younger adults are consistently more likely to engage in informal learning than older adults, particularly through digital tools and workplace learning. Adults with higher levels of education, more advantaged socio‑economic backgrounds, and employment in higher-skilled occupations are also significantly more likely to participate. Participation tends to be highest among managers, professionals, and technicians, and lower among workers in manual and elementary occupations. Smaller differences are observed by gender, although men and women may engage in different forms of informal learning. Participation is also somewhat higher among employed adults and those living in urban areas.
What drives informal learning
Informal learning is shaped by a combination of individual, organisational, social, and system-level factors. Although it is often described as spontaneous or unstructured, the evidence shows that participation is strongly influenced by the environments in which people live, work, and interact. The literature points to five broad categories of drivers:
1. Individual motivation and dispositions to learning: Informal learning is strongly influenced by individual motivation and personal dispositions. Intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and openness to experience encourage engagement and can create a virtuous cycle of confidence, persistence, and continued learning. Socio‑emotional traits such as emotional stability, compassion, and conscientiousness are also positively associated with participation.
2. Workplace practices and job demands: Workplace practices and job demands are important drivers of informal learning. Greater job autonomy and collaborative teamwork can foster learning by enabling reflection, experimentation, and peer-supported problem-solving. Challenging or evolving tasks, as well as perceived skill gaps, can further stimulate informal learning as individuals adapt to new demands.
3. Organisational culture and leadership: A supportive organisational culture helps foster informal learning by providing access to resources, recognising informally acquired skills, and creating enabling structures. Leadership also matters: Leaders can encourage informal learning by modelling continuous development, supporting autonomy, and creating psychologically safe environments for experimentation and knowledge sharing. Interactive and learner-centred approaches can further strengthen learning.
4. Social and relational dynamics: Informal learning is often embedded in social interaction. Regular feedback and reflective dialogue support continuous adaptation and improvement, while social and professional networks provide access to diverse knowledge and experiences. Trust, openness, and reciprocity are particularly important for sustaining such learning.
5. System-level and cross-country influences: The drivers of informal learning vary across countries. While some factors are consistently associated with participation, their strength differs by context. Broader structural conditions – including cultural norms, institutional frameworks, labour market structures, and access to infrastructure – also play an important role in shaping opportunities for informal learning.
How can governments promote informal learning
Governments can stimulate informal learning among youth and adults, both within and beyond the workplace, by:
Integrating informal learning into education and lifelong learning systems: Governments can strengthen informal learning by embedding it across education and lifelong learning systems. This involves fostering self-directed and peer-based learning in schools and higher education, recognising skills gained outside formal settings, and including informal learning explicitly in national lifelong learning strategies. Recognition of prior learning (RPL) systems and certification frameworks can validate skills acquired through work, community engagement, or self-study, motivating learners to continue developing. Cross-sector collaboration between government, educators, employers, and civil society ensures coherent pathways across formal, non-formal, and informal learning environments, making lifelong learning accessible, integrated, and learner-centred.
Promoting learning-conducive workplaces where informal learning can thrive: Workplaces play a central role in informal learning, and governments can foster supportive organisational cultures through leadership development, guidance, and incentives. Training programmes and mentoring schemes equip managers to provide feedback, coach employees, and recognise informal skill-building, while awareness campaigns and practical tools help employers adopt high-performance practices such as teamwork, job rotation, and peer mentoring. Financial and non-financial incentives, including subsidies, tax credits, and recognition of informal training in funding rules, encourage firms to embed informal learning in daily operations, ensuring that skill development becomes an integral part of workplace culture.
Expanding access to infrastructure and resources to ensure that informal learning is widely accessible: Governments can broaden informal learning opportunities by investing in digital and physical infrastructure. Ensuring universal broadband, modern networks, affordable devices, and digital literacy training allows learners to engage in online learning and collaborative projects. Public libraries and community centres can be strengthened as active learning hubs, offering access to resources, workshops, and programmes such as coding clubs or language cafés, including mobile and pop-up initiatives to reach underserved populations. Together, these measures make self-directed, community-based, and technology-enabled informal learning more accessible to learners of all ages and locations.
Assessment
There is a considerable body of literature that seeks to define informal learning, typically positioning this in relation to “formal” and “non-formal” education and training. This “triadic” classification distinguishes the three forms based on structural and organisational features (see Box 1.2). This categorisation is also described in the Classification of Learning Activities (CLA) (Eurostat, 2016[8]). Established in 2016 to promote greater cross-country comparability in statistics, the classification delineates between formal, non-formal and informal learning based on nine attributes.
Given that learning processes can be multi-faceted, the boundaries between different forms of learning are generally accepted to be “fuzzy”. Moreover, the rise of emerging forms of learning (e.g. online, blended, gamification) coupled with efforts to recognise and validate all forms of learning increasingly challenge strict categorisation.
Formal education and training occur within organised settings such as schools, colleges, universities, and adult education centres. These institutions are recognised by relevant education authorities, and participation typically leads to officially validated certification, as structured by qualifications frameworks. While formal education is often concentrated in early life, opportunities exist for re‑engagement during adulthood.
Non-formal education and training refer to organised learning activities that fall outside the official certification system. These may include trainer-led workshops, workplace seminars, structured on-the‑job training, or community-based and private tuition, often under the guidance of a tutor.
Informal learning, by contrast, is largely unstructured, occurs in everyday contexts, and does not lead to formally recognised qualifications. It is typically characterised by the absence of institutional organisation, formal recognition and entry requirements.
Note: Based on OECD Skills Strategy 2019, Box 4.2, drawing on ISCED 2011 (UNESCO – OECD – Eurostat) and PIAAC definitions of formal, non-formal and informal learning.
Source: OECD (2019[9]), OECD Skills Strategy 2019: Skills to Shape a Better Future, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264313835-en.
Despite this complexity, the OECD finds broad consensus – in the literature and among countries surveyed for this project – that the distinguishing features of informal learning are the absence of institutional organisation; formal structure, assessment and recognition; and entry requirements.
The most contested issues in the literature on informal learning concern whether learning must be intentional and whether the individual must be aware of acquiring skills or knowledge. However, a review of definitions adopted by OECD countries and bilateral interviews with international experts and policymakers found strong support for adopting a broad conceptualisation of informal learning that encompasses incidental and unconscious informal learning.
Despite considerable convergence around core conceptual elements, there are significant disparities in both the formality and wording of informal learning definitions across OECD countries. Of the 15 countries that responded to a survey conducted for this project, only half have adopted a definition of informal learning either in legislation or national policy (see Figure 1.4). Legislative provisions are often related to adult education and typically acknowledge informal learning as a basis for skills certification and as a pathway into lifelong learning. Other countries take a more operational approach, referencing informal learning within national strategies and/or systems for the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) without a legal definition.
However, even where formal definitions of informal learning do exist, there is often considerable variation in the extent to which these are commonly understood and utilised by a range of stakeholder groups. This underscores the need to further clarify and harmonise conceptual definitions to enable the effective integration of informal learning into education and lifelong learning systems.
Responses to questions “does your country have an official definition of informal learning?” (N=15)
Source: OECD analysis and a policy questionnaire completed by countries.
Priority Topic 1: Harmonising conceptual definitions and embedding them into education and lifelong learning systems
A clear and commonly agreed definition of informal learning is fundamental to recognising its role within education and skills systems. It strengthens the visibility of informal learning, supports its systematic inclusion in policy development, and enables consistent cross-country measurement.
Recommendation 1: Agree on a shared conceptual definition of informal learning. Box 1.3 sets out a conceptual definition of informal learning recommended by the OECD based on analysis and consultations conducted for this project. It clearly delineates informal learning from formal and non-formal education and training based on four defining characteristics: i) learning is unstructured; ii) it is non-institutionalised, occurring outside of organised educational settings; iii) it is open and accessible, with no entry requirements, and iv) learning is not formally recognised with qualifications or credentials. This definition is also broad in its conceptualisation, encompassing intentional and incidental learning, among adults and young people, in a range of settings and via various means.
Recommendation 2: Promote the widescale adoption of the definition within legal and policy frameworks. Integrating a clear conceptual definition of informal learning into national legislation and policy documents can help embed it, alongside formal and non-formal education and training, within education and skills systems and elevate it to a national policy priority. Countries should also foster cross-sector awareness through guidance and practical tools, promoting a shared understanding and collaboration among government, educators, employers, and civil society to encourage informal learning in different settings, in its varying forms and at all life stages.
The OECD defines informal learning as unstructured, non-institutionalised learning that takes place outside formal educational settings, without organised curricula, instruction, or systematic assessment. It is open and accessible, without entry requirements, and does not lead to formally recognised qualifications after completion.
Informal learning occurs throughout life, in diverse settings such as school, the workplace, home, libraries, cultural venues, or community spaces. It may be individual (e.g. self-study) or social (e.g. through interaction with others), and while it often occurs with a specific intention to learn, in many cases learning is not deliberate and occurs "incidentally", with the learner not immediately recognising newly acquired skills or knowledge.
What distinguishes informal learning from not learning is the acquisition of new knowledge, skills, or attitudes through discernible learning processes or activities that provide clear learning opportunities.
Priority Topic 2: Promoting more consistent operationalisation of the definition of informal learning
While a broad conceptual definition of informal learning is essential, it must be complemented by narrower operational definitions tailored to specific purposes such as measurement and policy design, which often focus on intentional learning or particular contexts.
Recommendation 3: Develop a simple, structured framework for categorising different types of informal learning. A “typology” of informal learning is key to consistent operationalisation, situating narrower definitions within the broader concept, clarifying which forms are included or excluded, and supporting transparency, comparability, and complementary measures. The proposed typology comprises of the following three categories: setting (e.g. school, work, home or other settings such as libraries, and cultural venues); intentionality (e.g. whether learning is deliberate or unintentional); mode (e.g. individual or social, participation in different activities). Figure 1.5 presents the proposed typology of informal learning in illustrative form.
Recommendation 4: Promote greater transparency in operational definitions, situating these within the wider typology of informal learning. Policymakers, national statistical offices and the wider researcher community should clarify the operational definition they are utilising. This should describe precisely the type of informal learning being considered, and what is excluded. Wherever possible, stakeholders should seek to reference and situate their operational definitions within the typology of informal learning. The report presents a decision tree to support this process based on the proposed conceptual definition and typology.
Assessment
Understanding how informal learning is measured is critical for interpreting adult learning data and designing effective policy. However, measurement varies widely across surveys and countries, affecting participation rates, comparability, and policy conclusions.
At international level, AES and PIAAC are the two main sources. AES measures intentional informal learning among all adults over the previous 12 months, using binary yes/no questions on activities such as learning from others, books, devices, guided visits, and libraries. It provides broad cross-country coverage but offers limited insight into the intensity, purpose, or outcomes of learning. Some AES categories, such as guided tours, also sit uneasily with standard definitions of informal learning.
PIAAC, by contrast, focusses only on employed adults and captures informal learning at work, including learning new things, learning-by-doing, and keeping up with new products or services. Its frequency-based questions provide more nuance than AES, but it covers a narrower domain and reflects a different conceptualisation of informal learning.
Altogether, the framework for measuring informal learning at the international level remains patchy and fragmented. Moreover, a challenge is that surveys define and operationalise informal learning in different ways, particularly regarding intentionality, setting, target population, timeframe, and response format. Results are also shaped by methodological factors such as translation, question wording, data collection mode, sampling, and non-response. Because many surveys rely on self-reported data, findings are vulnerable to misunderstanding, recall bias, and under-reporting.
National surveys can complement international instruments by offering more detailed, frequent, and policy-relevant data. Examples from countries such as Australia, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom show growing interest in measuring informal learning more systematically. Overall, the measurement of informal learning at national level remains fragmented and often siloed, with work typically led by academic or research institutions in different countries and limited mechanisms for cross-country collaboration and shared learning among researchers using comparable datasets.
Finally, alternative methods – including time‑use diaries, ethnography, social network analysis, and learning analytics – offer promising ways to capture the intensity, context, and dynamics of informal learning more effectively than traditional surveys alone.
Priority Topic 3: Strengthening international survey instruments
Several international surveys measure informal learning across different contexts, but the overall framework remains fragmented and inconsistent, with limitations in conceptual alignment, indicator coverage, comparability over time, timeliness of data, and cross-country implementation.
Recommendation 5: Preserve and extend the measures of informal learning included in international survey instruments. It is important to retain indicators of informal learning in future waves of the AES and PIAAC, as these are vital mechanisms for benchmarking performance and tracking progress. International survey instruments could move from binary measures of participation to more refined indicators of the intensity of informal learning. Moreover, it could be explored whether to introduce additional questions to better capture the perceived outcomes, benefits and conditions of informal learning, to extend measurement more widely across the typology of informal learning (see Recommendation 3) and to reflect emerging forms of informal learning. Organisations responsible for these surveys, such as Eurostat and the OECD, could consider revising or adding questions in future rounds, while recognising constraints such as survey length, respondent burden, and the need to maintain a balanced set of indicators on formal and non-formal education and training.
Recommendation 6: Promote greater consistency in the implementation of international surveys at the national level. National statistical offices should follow guidance materials for international surveys on informal learning closely, maintaining harmonised definitions of informal learning, question formulation and response options at the national level to safeguard cross-country comparability. It could also be considered to develop additional training and resources for interviewers and utilise the harmonised conceptual definition and typology to strengthen their comprehension of concepts. New AI tools could also be used to assist interviewers and respondents in categorising different forms of learning.
Priority Topic 4: Complementing international instruments with national measures
Many countries already measure informal learning in national surveys, complementing international surveys by offering greater frequency, depth, and flexibility to address country-specific priorities. However, varying definitions, survey design, and question formats, limit comparability across these instruments.
Recommendation 7: Include measures of informal learning in national survey instruments. These should seek to complement international surveys by addressing evidence gaps (e.g. by widening measurement, offering additional depth or granularity, or providing longitudinal data etc) or by providing quantitative measures to baseline and assess progress towards national policy priorities.
Recommendation 8: Establish an international Informal Learning Expert Working Group. This should bring together statisticians and researchers working to define and measure informal learning in different OECD countries. The group could meet twice yearly to support knowledge exchange, work collaboratively on resources that promote greater consistency in national measures of informal learning, and raise awareness of informal learning by promoting the adoption of relevant tools and methodologies across countries.
Priority Topic 5: Promoting ongoing innovation in the definition and measurement of informal learning
Informal learning can be measured not only through surveys but also via innovative methods such as time‑use diaries, ethnographic studies, social network analysis, and learning analytics. As informal learning evolves with technology and changing work patterns, its definitions and measurement approaches must be continually revisited to reflect its dynamic nature.
Recommendation 9: Identify informal learning measurement as an explicit research priority. National and international research councils should support ongoing research to advance innovative methodologies that strengthen the understanding, measurement, and validation of informal learning. In addition to academically orientated research, this could also seek to create testbeds in different settings where informal learning occurs, with a focus on clearly evaluating the success of alternative approaches and developing resources to support wider implementation.
Recommendation 10: Regularly review and update national and international measurement instruments. National policymakers and international organisations should review the definition and measurement of informal learning on an ongoing basis, to ensure that these reflect emerging forms of learning and to explore how alternative methodologies could complement or replace existing surveys.
The report represents a first step towards raising the profile of informal learning through better definition and measurement, with each action taken on the basis of these recommendations contributing to further progress in advancing this agenda.
It is, however, up to a broad range of stakeholders to move the recommendations forward. Advancing this agenda requires co‑ordinated action, with each group assuming distinct yet complementary responsibilities. Potential next steps for different stakeholders could include:
Policymakers: Policymakers can play a central role in formalising the conceptual definition of informal learning (Recommendation 1) and embedding it across legal and policy frameworks (Recommendation 2). By integrating informal learning into education and skills strategies alongside formal and non-formal education and training, policymakers can elevate its visibility. Furthermore, policymakers can provide guidance and practical tool (e.g. information sheets and online tools to self-assess informal learning in firms) utilising the new typology (Recommendations 3 and 4). This could help to build cross-sector awareness of informal learning and to encourage collaboration across government, employers, educators, and civil society to support informal learning in diverse contexts. Policymakers could also promote or request the inclusion of measures of informal learning in both national survey instruments (Recommendation 7) and international survey instruments (Recommendation 5), such as AES.
National statistical offices: National statistical offices are essential in operationalising the definition of informal learning and ensuring high-quality, comparable data. They can incorporate informal learning measures into national surveys to complement international instruments, filling evidence gaps and providing longitudinal or more granular data (Recommendation 7), while ensuring that measures are regularly updated (Recommendation 10). Offices should also ensure alignment with international survey definitions and standards (Recommendation 6) and apply the proposed typology (Recommendations 3 and 4) to clarify operational definitions, thereby improving transparency, data quality, and cross-country comparability. Experts from statistical offices could also participate in the proposed Informal Learning Expert Working Group (Recommendation 8).
International organisations: International organisations can help maintain and enhance the consistency of informal learning measurement globally. They can preserve and extend indicators in major surveys such as AES and PIAAC, refining them to capture the intensity, purpose, and perceived outcomes of informal learning (Recommendation 5). Furthermore, they can support the creation of an international Informal Learning Expert Working Group (Recommendation 8) to facilitate knowledge exchange, develop shared resources, and promote harmonisation across national measurement approaches. International organisations also have a role in regularly reviewing and updating survey instruments to reflect new forms of informal learning and innovative measurement methodologies (Recommendation 10).
Researchers and research councils: Researchers and research councils are critical to advancing the evidence base on informal learning. They can more explicitly state the operational definitions they are utilising in their research, situating these within the typology of informal learning (Recommendation 4). They can prioritise research on measurement innovation, using methods such as learning analytics, ethnographic studies, time‑use diaries, or social network analysis (Recommendation 9). They can also establish testbeds in different learning settings to evaluate and validate alternative approaches, contributing to the development of tools and resources for broader implementation. In addition, researchers could play a key role in operationalising the typology of informal learning in national survey instruments (Recommendation 7) and generating evidence on its outcomes, benefits, and implications for equity and inclusion. They could also be important partners in the Informal Learning Expert Working Group (Recommendation 8).
By taking these actions, stakeholders can collectively strengthen conceptual clarity, improve measurement accuracy and comparability, and ensure that informal learning is consistently recognised and integrated into policy, education, and lifelong learning systems. Each contribution, adapted to the context and capacities of the stakeholders involved, will help advance the agenda and build a robust evidence base for policy and practice.
While full implementation of all recommendations would be ideal, the extent to which this is feasible or relevant will vary by context. For example, some countries may already have national surveys capturing informal learning, requiring only adjustments to question design, whereas others may be starting from scratch.
Given limited capacity, it may be necessary to prioritise certain actions initially, particularly those that help address the generally limited understanding of informal learning among stakeholders. In this regard, incorporating measures of the benefits and outcomes of informal learning into surveys (see Recommendation 5) could represent a particularly important first step, providing tangible evidence that can raise awareness, inform policy, and guide subsequent actions. Moreover, the proposed international Informal Learning Expert Working Group (Recommendation 8) could be given an explicit role in disseminating knowledge, raising awareness of informal learning, and promoting the use of relevant tools and methodologies across countries.
In addition to progressing the implementation of the recommendations, the analysis conducted for this report has highlighted key gaps and identified avenues for future research:
Informal learning among young people: There is limited understanding of informal learning among young people, particularly in the context of digital platforms, AI, and gamified learning environments, where informal learning may take forms not captured in traditional surveys.
Social informal learning outside the workplace: This type of informal learning, which includes learning in community settings, cultural institutions, and informal peer networks, remains underexplored in the literature.
Unintentional informal learning: There is insufficient conceptual clarity and measurement of unintentional forms of informal learning, despite their potentially significant influence on skills, attitudes and behaviours across the life course.
Policies to stimulate informal learning: While national studies exist in countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium, there is no comprehensive international review of the policy levers that can stimulate informal learning across population groups and life stages.
Outcomes and benefits of informal learning: The broader impacts remain underexamined, including contributions to social cohesion and civic participation; implications for equity, inclusion, and accessibility (particularly for underrepresented groups, low-skilled adults and those with limited digital access); and the role of informal learning in supporting labour market transitions in the context of automation and AI.
References
[6] 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).
[8] Eurostat (2016), 2016 AES manual: Methodological guidelines for the Adult Education Survey., https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Adult_Education_Survey_(AES)_methodology.
[5] 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.
[7] 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/.
[3] OECD (2026), Rethinking Informal Learning: Recommendations for Advancing Measurement and Shared Understanding, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/skc/enhancing-the-understanding-and-measurement-of-informal-learning/Rethinking-Informal-Learning-Recommendations-for-Advancing-Measurement-and-Shared-Understanding.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2026).
[1] OECD (2025), Empowering the Workforce in the Context of a Skills-First Approach, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/345b6528-en.
[2] OECD (2025), Rethinking Informal Learning: Assessment of the Latest Literature and Data, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/skc/enhancing-the-understanding-and-measurement-of-informal-learning/Rethinking-Informal-Learning-Assessment-of-the-Latest-Literature-and-Data.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2026).
[4] OECD (2021), Training in Enterprises: New Evidence from 100 Case Studies, Getting Skills Right, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7d63d210-en.
[9] OECD (2019), OECD Skills Strategy 2019: Skills to Shape a Better Future, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264313835-en.