This chapter examines the definition of informal learning. It begins by situating informal learning within the broader framework of formal, non-formal, and informal learning, exploring typical settings and activities, the absence of formal assessment, and how OECD countries define it. It concludes by presenting four OECD recommendations aimed at harmonising definitions (Priority topic 1) and promoting a more consistent operationalisation of informal learning across policy and practice (Priority Topic 2).
Giving Informal Learning the Recognition it Deserves
Abstract
Assessment
Formal, non-formal, and informal learning – The types differ in terms of structure, organisation, and recognition. Formal education and training takes place in recognised institutions and leads to certification; non-formal education and training consists of organised learning activities but does not lead to formal accreditation; and informal learning refers to unstructured, everyday learning without institutional recognition.
Embedded in daily life – Informal learning occurs routinely in daily activities, both within and outside the workplace.
Wide range of settings – It is embedded in tasks, problem-solving, and interactions at home, in communities, schools, youth clubs, libraries, or museums. It occurs through individual initiative or social interaction, for example by observing colleagues, hobbies, volunteering, or family and peer support.
Varied in form – Informal learning can be intentional or incidental, intergenerational (i.e. learning from different age groups) and context-dependent. Its ubiquity makes it difficult to distinguish from non-formal education and training or even from non-learning, raising challenges for clear conceptualisation and measurement.
Diverging views on intentionality – A central debate in the literature concerns whether informal learning is intentional, as different conceptualisations influence how it is defined, measured, and analysed.
No formal recognition or validation – Informal learning is characterised by the lack of formal assessment or certification. Skills developed through informal learning often go unrecognised in the labour market, prompting the creation of validation frameworks to make them more visible and transferable.
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 a prerequisite 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. Establish a broad, common definition that clearly distinguishes informal learning from formal and non-formal education and training.
Recommendation 2: Promote the widescale adoption of the definition within legal and policy frameworks. Embed the definition across legislation, policy, and practice to strengthen recognition and shared understanding.
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. Create a practical typology based on setting, intentionality, and mode to support consistent use and interpretation.
Recommendation 4: Promote greater transparency in operational definitions, situating these within the wider typology of informal learning. Clarify how informal learning is defined in practice by specifying what is included, excluded, and how it is categorised.
A clear and shared definition of informal learning is an essential starting point for recognising its role in education and skills systems. It enhances the visibility of informal learning, supports its consideration in policy design, and enables consistent measurement across countries.
Situating informal learning within the triadic classification
The international literature typically defines “informal” learning in relation to “formal” and “non-formal” education and training (Colley, Hodkinson and Malcom, 2003[1]; Jeong et al., 2018[2]; Evans, 2023[3]; Kalenda and Boeren, 2025[4]). This “triadic” classification distinguishes the three forms based on structural and organisational features, particularly the role of assessment and accreditation.
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.
The distinctions between these forms of learning were first explored in depth in UNESCO reports of the 1970s (Faure, 1972[5]). Although these concepts remain inherently fluid, the expansion of international data collection necessitated harmonised frameworks with clear operational definitions. These were essential for generating comparable cross-country statistics. In response, the European Commission developed the European Union’s Classification of Learning Activities (CLA) (Eurostat, 2016[6]) (see Box 3.1). This classification provided the conceptual foundation for the pilot phase of Eurostat’s Adult Education Survey (AES) in the mid‑2000s.
The 2016 CLA defines learning activities through nine attributes (see Table 3.1), all of which are applicable to formal education and training, and some are applicable to non-formal education and training. Informal learning, conversely, is delineated primarily by the absence of such attributes – namely, a lack of organisational structure, institutional recognition, and formal prerequisites. It refers to the acquisition of new knowledge, skills and attitudes outside such organised settings. Based on these attributes, the CLA adopts a categorical approach to learning activities, assigning each to one of three groups: formal, non-formal, or informal.
First launched in 2006 and revised in 2016, the European Union’s Classification of Learning Activities (CLA) was developed by Eurostat to support the compilation and presentation of comparable statistics and indicators on learning activities both within and across countries. The CLA aims to encompass all types of learning opportunities and education pathways, covering intentional and organised learning activities across all age groups. It is designed to be universally applicable, regardless of a country’s level of development or the structure of its education and training systems.
The CLA establishes criteria for classifying all forms of learning activities – formal, non-formal, and informal. It is primarily used in statistical surveys to collect quantitative data on various aspects of individual participation in learning. While originally developed to underpin the European Union’s Adult Education Survey (AES), it is also applicable to other EU household surveys, such as the Labour Force Survey, and to targeted business surveys, including the Continuing Vocational Training Survey (CVTS).
More broadly, the CLA facilitates the collection, organisation, and dissemination of data on both individuals (e.g. through household surveys focussed on lifelong learning) and training providers. It enables the measurement of participation in learning systems as well as related dimensions such as time investment, financial expenditure, and other engagement indicators.
Source: Eurostat (2016[6]), Classification of Learning Activities (CLA), Manual 2016 edition, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/7659750/KS-GQ-15-011-EN-N.pdf.
Source: Eurostat (2016[6]), Classification of Learning Activities (CLA), Manual 2016 edition, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/7659750/KS-GQ-15-011-EN-N.pdf.
Alternative conceptual frameworks propose viewing learning along a continuum, drawing on characteristics such as those outlined in the CLA (Cross, 2006[7]) (2004[8]) (Rogers, 2007[9]) (Zürcher, 2010[10]) (Stern and Sommerlad, 1999[11]) (Werquin, 2010[12]). For example, Stern and Sommerlad (1999[11]) identified ten learning descriptors, gradually moving from “formal” to “informal”, that span a continuum from “formal programmes leading to a qualification” to “unanticipated experiences and encounters that result in learning as an incidental by-product, which may or may not be consciously recognised”. Cross (2006[7]) introduced The Learning Mixer, a tool designed to characterise learning activities as a blend of formal, non-formal, and informal attributes. Other continuum-based conceptualisations emphasise the degree of intentionality, highlighting that not all learning is necessarily deliberate or planned (Rogers, 2007[9]). These approaches reflect a growing recognition that learning processes are often fluid and multifaceted, resisting strict categorisation.
As working and learning become increasingly “hybrid” in nature (see Chapter 2 on emerging forms of informal learning), the boundaries between learning modes are becoming more fluid (Rupcic, 2024[13]). This reinforces the notion of “fuzzy boundaries” between formal, non-formal, and informal learning within the triadic classification of learning (Kalenda and Boeren, 2025[4]).
The rise of online learning and blended learning – combining traditional face‑to-face instruction with online delivery – enables continuous engagement through platforms available around the clock. They also make learning more accessible, allowing people to learn from their home. These platforms facilitate informal learning through tools such as discussion forums, allowing learners to share feedback and reflections. Such interactions may be synchronous (in real time) or asynchronous (in delayed exchanges), further blurring the lines between formal, non-formal and informal modes of learning (Moore and Miller, 2022[14]).
Everyday contexts for informal learning
Informal learning occurs in the course of daily life, both within and beyond the workplace, including at home, in the community, in schools, in youth clubs, and practically everywhere. The literature on informal workplace learning highlights the dynamic interplay between work and learning, conceptualising the workplace as a natural learning environment (Billett, 2002[15]; Ellström, 2001[16]; Eraut, 2004[8]; Watkins and Marsick, 1992[17]). In this context, learning is embedded in everyday activities, through tasks that require skills such as problem-solving. Such informal learning contrasts to the structuring of formal education and training which typically begin with a planned instruction phase before newly acquired skills get applied in practice.
Informal learning is intrinsic to adults’ and young people’s actions, tasks and activities, resulting in learning by doing, alone or with others (De Grip, 2024[18]; Messmann, Segers and Dochy, 2018[19]). It takes place in real-life settings that foster learning through experience rather than through planned or structured instruction, whether intentional or incidental. This aligns with the concept of a “hidden curriculum”, which refers to skills development occurring in the absence of explicit training plans (Peeters et al., 2014[20]). Tannenbaum and Wolfson (2022[21]) describe such learning as “field-based”, highlighting the importance of the environment in which it occurs.
Informal learning is context-dependent and can take place through social interaction or individual initiative (Lotfi et al., 2025[22]). In the workplace, individuals often learn from colleagues by requesting support, observing or shadowing others, or reflecting on shared experiences (Tannenbaum and Wolfson, 2022[21]). interactions – whether with peers or role models – frequently occur during collaborative tasks or projects, leading to knowledge exchange and the co-construction of solutions to emerging challenges.
Informal learning also occurs in non-work settings, such as at home or in the community, as a byproduct of formal and non-formal education and training, and in spaces such as libraries, science centres, museums, zoos and heritage sites (Degner, Moser and Lewalter, 2022[23]). Informal learning can occur practically everywhere. For instance, it may arise through receiving support from a household member in setting up a new device. Individuals may also learn independently, by searching for information online, reading, or engaging in self-reflection (Decius, 2024[24]). Everyday activities can lead to learning through trial and error, as mistakes often prompt deeper reflection and the development of new insights (le Clus, 2011[25]; Marsick and Neaman, 2017[26]; Ndiangui, Cooke and Koklu, 2025[27]). Furthermore, in spaces like museums, learning can occur through interactive displays and games. Informal learning experiences can also occur through volunteering (Duguid, Mündel and Schugurensky, 2013[28]).
For youth specially, informal learning can also occur through interacting with friends and peers – either within or outside school settings – through everyday activities such as hobbies, youth clubs or family life at home (Souto-Otero, 2021). For instance, youth clubs provide spaces for informal learning through activities and social interactions away from school and family life (de St Croix and Doherty, 2023[29]). Recent research highlights that out-of-school activities delivered through youth work are widely recognised in the international literature as examples of informal learning opportunities (Corney et al., 2023[30]). Such activities place young people in contexts that can foster personal development, strengthen social skills, and cultivate citizenship attitudes (Allaste, Beilmann and Pirk, 2021[31]). Batsleer (2008[32]) describes informal learning in youth work as a process emerging through respectful conversation, dialogue, and empowerment, typically situated in out-of-school environments.
Informal learning can also be intergenerational, occurring between adults and young people, and flowing in both directions (Stephan, 2020[33]).Research by de Guzman et al. (2023[34]) examined the informal learning experiences of young people who travelled on holiday with their grandparents. The study found that participants developed stronger relational skills and gained knowledge and insights about their family history and the places visited. They also reported renewed inspiration regarding life values and norms, stemming from sustained interaction with the older generation.
Whether collaborative or individual, intentional or incidental, informal learning is embedded in everyday experience. Adults and young people may engage in activities with the explicit goal of acquiring knowledge or may gain new understanding as a by-product of tasks undertaken in their daily environments such as work, school or the family context. Table 3.2 summarises common examples of informal learning as identified in the international literature. These include “active” social interactions, as well as more “passive” forms of learning through observation.
Since informal learning occurs within everyday contexts, it poses challenges for its conceptualisation and measurement. A key difficulty lies in distinguishing it not only from formal and non-formal education and training, but also from non-learning. It may be argued that all life activities involve some element of learning. It is therefore essential to define clearly where non-formal education and training ends and informal learning begins.
As described above, the CLA – applied in the measurement of informal learning in the Adult Education Survey – differentiates informal learning from non-learning on the basis of the learner’s intention to learn. This notion, however, is contested (see section on the role of intentionality and consciousness). Some argue that informal learning should entail the acquisition of new knowledge, skills or attitudes as part of a discernible learning process. From this perspective, an activity could be considered non-learning where such acquisition does not occur (Jarvis, 2011[35]).
The role of intentionality and consciousness
One of the most contested issues in the literature on informal learning concerns whether such learning is intentional. Variation in conceptualisations influence the operationalisation for measurement and therefore lead to different data insights on informal learning. It is therefore important to examine these differing perspectives to support greater clarity and consistency in both research and policy.
Across the literature, non-intentional informal learning has been described using a variety of terms, including incidental, random, accidental, unconscious, and implicit learning (Assinger and Biasin, 2023[36]; Bennett, 2014[37]).
This debate also intersects with the concepts of consciousness and awareness (Schugurensky, 2000[38]). Adults are not always aware that they are acquiring new knowledge. Decius (2024[24]), for instance, distinguishes informal learning from self-regulated learning. While informal learning may or may not be intentional, self-regulated learning is characterised by the explicit and conscious pursuit of learning goals, requiring deliberate engagement. This makes it conceptually distinct from unintentional informal learning.
Schugurensky (2000[38]) proposes a tripartite model of informal learning based on degrees of intentionality and consciousness:
Self-directed learning is intentional and conscious. The learner defines personal learning goals and actively pursues them.
Incidental learning is unintentional but conscious. The learner becomes aware of new skills and knowledge as a by-product of another activity.
Learning through socialisation is both unintentional and unconscious. Individuals absorb and internalise new skills, knowledge and attitudes through everyday tasks, interactions and environmental exposure, with awareness potentially emerging only retrospectively.
Bennett (2014[37]) further argues that informal learning can be both intentional and unconscious, describing this as integrative learning. Here, the learner deliberately seeks knowledge yet internalises tacit insights without immediate awareness.
Other classifications reflect similar distinctions. Eraut (2004[8]) refers to deliberative learning as both intentional and conscious, contrasting it with implicit learning, which is unintentional and unconscious. Reactive learning lies in between, characterised by unplanned but conscious responses to immediate challenges or problem-solving needs. Figure 3.1 summarises these typologies, positioning the various forms of informal learning along two axes: intentionality and consciousness.
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. A broad conceptualisation of informal learning recognises that individuals are not always aware that they are acquiring new knowledge and that informal learning is often intrinsic to the actions, tasks and activities of adults and young people (De Grip, 2024[18]; Messmann, Segers and Dochy, 2018[19]). As set out in the Assessment Report (OECD, 2025[39]), informal learning has been found to deliver considerable benefits to individuals, firms and society, whether or not informal learning is deliberate.
Furthermore, unintentional learning experiences can also trigger a “chain effect”, stimulating a conscious and intentional interest in pursuing further learning, including non-formal and formal education (Lokhtina and Faller, 2024[40]). For example, an unintentional learning experience may stimulate a conscious and intentional interest in pursuing further learning on a related subject (Lokhtina and Faller, 2024[40]). If undertaken in a self-organised and learner-directed manner, this would remain within the scope of informal learning as outlined in Figure 3.1. Conversely, an intentional decision to participate in an organised course or training programme would constitute a shift to formal or non-formal education, depending on whether completion results in an officially recognised qualification.
Despite the diversity of informal learning forms, common definitions emphasise the central role of the adult learner. While workplaces and other real-life environments may facilitate informal learning, such learning occurs outside formal settings and tends to be less dependent on instructors. The development of new knowledge, skills and competences therefore emerges through a bottom-up process.
Classical literature on adult education and andragogical principles underscores the importance of self-direction and learner autonomy (Knowles, 1984[41]). Informal learning enables adults to take ownership of their learning pathways, in contrast to learning driven primarily by external or compulsory requirements. This conceptualisation of intentional and conscious informal learning is consistent with psychological research on intrinsic and self-determined motivation, which highlights the value of autonomy and internal drive in sustaining learning engagement.
To conclude, while conceptualisations of informal learning differ in how they emphasise intentionality and consciousness, its defining feature is the autonomy and agency of the learner. Informal learning is generally understood as a bottom-up, learner-driven process that takes place outside formal structures. However, the variation in typologies highlights the need for greater clarity in definitions to improve measurement and policy relevance.
The absence of credentials and assessment
A defining characteristic of informal learning is the absence of formal and systematic assessment (Eurostat, 2016[6]). Skills acquired through informal learning do not result in officially recognised qualifications or credentials. Instead, such learning typically leads to tacit knowledge, which contributes to adults’ expertise and proficiency in carrying out real-life tasks beyond the scope of formal curricula and regulations (de Paor, 2024[42]; Eraut, 2004[8]; Lee and Lee, 2023[43]; Oleson et al., 2022[44]).
Although the literature highlights the wide‑ranging benefits of informal learning (see also Chapter 2), its lack of formal recognition may lead to the undervaluation of adults’ skills and potential (Assinger, 2023[45]; Souto-Otero, 2021[46]; Souto-Otero, 2024[47]). In the labour market, for example, jobseekers often rely on formal credentials to demonstrate their suitability for employment. In response, governments and stakeholders have developed frameworks and mechanisms to validate skills acquired outside the formal education system (Allais, 2017[48]; Bohlinger, 2012[49]; Raffe, 2013[50]). Notably, the European Commission’s Council Recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal learning has supported the formal recognition of such skills (Looney and Santibañez, 2021[51]; Villalba-García, 2021[52]). This work is particularly relevant for improving the visibility and transferability of skills among individuals from vulnerable groups. Many individuals in these groups may have limited access to formal education or face barriers to obtaining formal qualifications, yet acquire valuable skills through work experience, volunteering, or daily life that often go unrecognised in the labour market.
Validation, however, makes the conceptualisation of informal learning even more complex. The existence of recognition procedures may inadvertently encourage individuals to align their informal learning with formal assessment criteria. For example, learners may acquire knowledge and skills through self-study with the intention of later undergoing an assessment and validation procedure (Souto-Otero, 2021[46]). This dynamic has two implications. On the one hand, it diminishes the organic and unstructured nature typically associated with informal learning. On the other hand, it enables individuals to learn flexibly while providing the opportunity to have their skills validated and recognised.
Mechanisms of validation therefore illustrate the challenges of categorising learning activities within the triadic mode, as the boundaries between formal an informal learning often become “fuzzy” (see also Chapter 4). While informal learning in itself is not credential-based, its learning outcomes can be formalised through institutionalised validation and recognition processes.
A broader set of assessment tools offer varied pathways for recognising skills developed through non-formal and informal learning. These methods may be used independently or in combination, depending on the context and purpose (Looney and Santibañez, 2021[51]). They include portfolio assessments, where individuals document work experience and reflect on skill development (Rusk and Smith, 2022[53]), interviews that reveal tacit knowledge not captured by formal qualifications (Schmidt and Müller, 2021[54]), and tests to evaluate technical or soft skills, including psychometric assessments (Potočnik et al., 2021[55]).
National definitions across OECD countries
A survey conducted by the OECD for this project provides important insights into how informal learning is defined and recognised within national education and skills systems. While definitions vary in wording and formality, there is considerable convergence around core conceptual elements.
In the 15 countries that responded to the survey, most define informal learning as unstructured, non-institutionalised learning that occurs through daily life experiences – whether in the workplace, at home, or in social and leisure settings. For example, Czechia defines informal learning as the acquisition of knowledge and skills in an unorganised and non-institutionally co‑ordinated manner. Similarly, national definitions in Greece and Finland emphasise self-directed learning and learning embedded in professional or social contexts. The Finnish statistical office further specifies the absence of formal structures such as curricula or entry requirements. In many European countries, national definitions draw on the European Union’s Classification of Learning Activities (CLA) framework (Eurostat, 2016[6]) and it thereby primarily focusses on learning by adults. Box 3.2 presents several examples of national conceptual definitions of informal learning.
The Strategy of Lifelong Learning in the Czech Republic
“Informal learning, which is understood as a process of obtaining knowledge, acquiring skills and competences from everyday experience and activities at work, in the family and in one’s leisure time. It also includes self-education, where the learner has no way of testing his acquired knowledge (e.g. television language courses). In contrast to formal and non-formal education, it is not organized, is usually not systematic and is not institutionally coordinated.”
Greek Law of Directive 3 879
“Informal learning: Learning activities that take place outside an organized educational context, throughout a person’s life, in the context of leisure time or professional, social and cultural activities. It includes all kinds of self-education activities, such as self-education with printed material or via the Internet or using a computer or various educational infrastructures, as well as the knowledge, skills and abilities that the individual acquires from his or her professional experience.”
Action Plan Lifelong Learning: Setting sail for a learning Flanders
“Informal Learning: Learning that arises from daily activities at work, in family, or during leisure time. The learning has no structured form (in terms of learning objectives, learning time, or learning support) and does not normally lead to a certificate or diploma. Learning can occur with a specific intention, but in most cases there is no intention (learning occurs "incidentally" or by chance). People can learn from colleagues, in the family, from discussions with experts, or studying independently by looking up information in books or on the internet.”
Australian Government Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency
“Informal learning is learning gained through work, social, family, hobby or leisure activities and experiences. Unlike formal or non-formal learning, informal learning is not organised or externally structured in terms of objectives, time or learning support.”
Source: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2007[56]), The Strategy of Lifelong Learning in the Czech Republic, https://msmt.gov.cz/uploads/Zalezitosti_EU/strategie_2007_EN_web_jednostrany.pdf; Government Gazette of the Hellenic Republic (2010[57]), Greek Law of Directive 3 879, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/greece/legislation-and-official-policy-documents; Partnership for Lifelong Learning (2021[58]), Action Plan Lifelong Learning: Setting sail for a learning Flanders, www.vlaanderen.be/publicaties/action-plan-on-lifelong-learning-setting-sail-for-a-learning-flanders; TEQSA (2026[59]), Webpage Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), www.teqsa.gov.au/.
According to the survey, just over half of the responding countries have adopted a definition of informal learning in legislation or national policy documents (see Figure 1.4 in Chapter 1). In these countries, informal learning is codified and integrated into national legislation, often in connection with systems for validating skills acquired outside formal education and in relation to general education VET, or adult learning. For example, Spain incorporates informal learning into its VET system through its professional skills recognition framework (Organic Law 3/2022, of 31 March, on the Arrangement and Integration of Vocational Training). Similar approaches are reflected in Slovenia’s Adult Education Law (2018); Italy’s Law No. 92 (2012) on labour market reform; Colombia’s General Education Law (1994) and related decrees; Costa Rica’s Decree No. 43 481 establishing the National System for TVET; and Greece’s Law No. 3 879 (2010) on lifelong learning. These legal provisions 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 or statistical instruments without enshrining a legal definition. In the Czechia, for instance, informal learning is referenced in the Lifelong Learning Strategy, while in Finland and Ireland, definitions used by national statistical agencies – aligned with those from international surveys such as the AES and the Survey of Adult Skills, a product of the OECD’s Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) – serve as de facto definitions. In Latvia, there is no official definition, but it is described in its Education Development Guidelines for 2021‑2027.
Despite differences in legal and policy frameworks, there is broad consensus on the value of informal learning in supporting individual development, employability, and social inclusion in the responding countries. This shared recognition could reflect a growing relevance of informal learning within modern education and training systems – particularly in light of evolving labour market demands, the expansion of lifelong learning, and the emergence of new opportunities linked to technological innovation and changing forms of work.
This section describes the first priority topic on “harmonising conceptual definitions and embedding them into education and lifelong learning systems”. It highlights how 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.
To harmonise conceptual definitions and embed these into education and lifelong learning systems, the OECD recommends the following: i) agree on a shared conceptual definition of informal learning; ii) promote the widescale adoption of the definition within legal and policy frameworks.
Recommendation 1. Agree on a shared conceptual definition of informal learning
Establishing a clear, shared conceptual definition of informal learning is a crucial first step in recognising its place within education and skills systems. It raises the profile of informal learning, informs policy design, and allows for consistent measurement across countries.
The OECD recommends the following conceptual definition of informal learning.
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.
This conceptual definition (which sets out theoretical constructs) should be recognised as distinct from more operational definitions, which are utilised for specific purposes or by particular stakeholder groups (discussed further in Priority Topic 2).
The OECD recommended conceptual definition is based on several principles. First, that the conceptual definition should clearly delineate informal learning from formal and non-formal education and training based on four defining characteristics, that informal learning is:
1. Unstructured – with an absence of pre‑determined learning objectives, organised curricula and instruction.
2. Non-institutionalised – occurs outside of organised educational settings, such as schools, colleges, universities, and adult education centres.
3. Open and accessible – with an absence of entry requirements or admission processes.
4. Not formally recognised – with an absence of formal and systematic assessment, meaning that the skills acquired through informal learning do not result in officially recognised qualifications or credentials after completion of a learning activity. Skills acquired through informal learning could, however, be recognised or validated at a later stage (e.g. through RPL or Validation of Non-Formal and Informal Learning [VINFL]).
Second, that the definition of informal learning should be broad in its conceptualisation, encompassing intentional and unintentional learning that occurs across the life course, including among adults and young people, in a range of settings and via various means. As described above, among consulted experts for the project there was strong support for adopting a broad conceptualisation of informal learning.
Third, that the definition should clearly distinguish informal learning from non-learning. It may be argued that all life activities involve some element of learning, and it is therefore essential to define clearly where non-learning ends and informal learning begins. Based on a review of the literature and expert consultations, it can be argued that what distinguishes informal learning from non-learning is the acquisition of new knowledge, skills, or attitudes through a discernible learning process or participation in distinct activities that present perceptible learning opportunities (Jarvis, 2011[35]).
In reviewing definitions of informal learning adopted by OECD countries, several examples align well with the OECD recommended definition and the core principles described above. However, there remains scope to support cross-country comparability by further aligning definitions.
Recommendation 2: Promote the widescale adoption of the definition within legal and policy frameworks
Having established a shared conceptual definition of informal learning, there is scope to subsequently integrate it into national legislation and policy documents. Embedding a formal definition into legal and policy frameworks – alongside explicit and measurable targets for advancing informal learning in its varying forms – can ensure that informal learning is not only recognised, but also supported, measured, and integrated into education and skills systems alongside formal and non-formal education and training.
However, given the complexity of the concept, additional interventions will be needed to build cross-sector awareness of informal learning as a distinct form of lifelong learning and national policy priority. Stakeholders engaged through the research highlighted the importance of helping to build understanding of what constitutes informal learning in different contexts (e.g. the workplace), in ways that are understood by a diverse range of stakeholders, including policymakers, statisticians and researchers, employers, adults and young people. Providing guidance and practical tools would enable employers, individuals, and institutions to better recognise, support, and leverage the learning that already takes place every day beyond formal provision.
Several OECD countries have developed guidance or resources to promote greater understanding of the concept of informal learning. Statistics Finland, for example, defines the concept of informal learning on its website (Statistics Finland, 2026[60]). In Australia, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency includes the term in glossaries that aim to support consistency of understanding and interpretation of terminology relating to the education system (TEQSA, 2026[61]).
Other OECD countries have developed guidance to build understanding of the concept for specific purposes or among specific stakeholder groups. For instance, the Youth Competence Centre Austria (part of the Federal Chancellery) provides information on youth policy, including a specific information sheet explaining how learning happens outside structured school settings, such as through daily life, interactions, self-study, or youth work and emphasising how experiences outside of a formal curriculum can build skills and knowledge among young people (Federal Chancellery Austria, 2026[62]).
In Belgium, stakeholders have been working to build understanding of the concept among employers. The National Bank of Belgium (NBB), for example, has developed a guide for businesses looking to report the extent of informal training on the social balance sheet (Sociale Balans / Bilan Social), which is a mandatory annual report that many Belgian companies must file with the NBB (National Bank of Belgium, 2026[63]). It forms part of a company’s statutory accounting documents and provides structured information on the workforce and social indicators, including the amount spent on training and the number of employees trained. Despite the guidance provided, the social balance sheet is currently not used to monitor informal learning, as persistent concerns remain about the accuracy and completeness of companies’ reporting on informal learning. This indicates that the data is not yet considered reliable enough. A more in‑depth analysis and targeted efforts to improve its reliability could enable it to become a more valuable and widely used data source in the future.
Stakeholders have also been working to better understand the conditions for informal learning in organisational contexts. The Flemish Government has, for example, developed the “Learning Lens” (“Leerlens”), a digital tool launched in 2026 to enable organisations to self-assess their learning environment and receive targeted insights and recommendations to stimulate informal learning in the workplace. (Flemish Government, 2026[64]). There have also been more customised interventions in specific sectors of the economy, as illustrated by Box 3.3.
Agoria – Belgium’s largest industry federation and employers’ organisation for the technology sector – identified a need for clearer evidence and guidance on how informal learning operates within the Belgian technology sector.
To address this, it commissioned academic research and translated the findings into a practical guide to help organisations understand, value and actively support informal learning at work. Based on a large‑scale sector study, the guide clarifies what informal learning looks like in practice – such as learning through colleagues, reflection, experimentation and feedback – and why it is critical for productivity, job satisfaction and retention.
The guide provides structured explanations, case examples and practical prompts to help organisations consider how work design, management practices and learning environments can better support informal learning. Rather than replacing formal training, Agoria’s approach positions informal learning as a complementary element of workplace development, offering employers a clearer framework for recognising and supporting learning that happens as part of everyday work.
Source: (Kyndt and Beausaert, 2023[65]), The power of informal learning: A study and guide to learning enthusiasm and informal learning in the Belgian technology industry.
This section describes the second priority topic on “Promoting more consistent operationalisation of the definition of informal learning”. It describes how a broad conceptualisation of informal learning – as described in Priority Topic 1 – needs to be complemented with operational definitions that can be utilised for specific purposes. These narrower, operational definitions are required in a variety of scenarios. For example, to aid measurement, survey instruments often use an operational definition focussing on intentional learning or participation in specific activities that are known to support informal learning. Similarly, policy efforts to stimulate informal learning are more easily directed towards intentional informal learning (e.g. utilising incentives) or informal learning that occurs in particular contexts in which informal learning takes place (e.g. the workplace).
Overall, research and bilateral interviews for the project provided valuable insights on the operationalisation of definitions and how it could be enhanced:
Lack of clarity and consistency: There is often limited transparency and uniformity in how informal learning is operationalised.
Need for categorisation: Experts emphasised a strong demand for a clear categorisation of different types of informal learning – either through a structured framework or “typology”. This would help to situate operational definitions within the broad conceptualisation of informal learning, offering greater clarity on the specific type or form of informal learning being addressed.
Importance of simplicity: There is the perceived need for a simple framework, prioritising a small number of defining features and ensuring that is easy to utilise for different purposes. Informal learning is recognised as a highly multidimensional concept, with a range of factors being relevant when defining different types or forms.
To promote more consistent operationalisation of the definition of informal learning, the OECD recommends the following actions: i) develop a simple, structured framework for categorising different types of informal learning; ii) promote greater transparency in operational definitions, situating these within the wider typology of informal learning.
Recommendation 3: Develop a simple, structured framework for categorising different types of informal learning
Frameworks or “typologies” offer a valuable way to simplify and structure complex concepts, making them more accessible and actionable for policymakers, educators, and practitioners. A core feature of these typologies is their ability to support categorisation, providing a clear structure to organise key elements.
Developing a simple, structured framework for categorising different types of informal learning is particularly important, as it supports more consistent and transparent operationalisation of the concept. While a broad conceptual definition is necessary to capture the full scope of informal learning, operational definitions used for measurement, policy design or evaluation inevitably focus on specific forms or contexts. A clear categorisation framework helps situate these narrower operational definitions within the wider conceptualisation of informal learning, making explicit which dimensions are being captured and which are not. This, in turn, provides greater clarity on the specific type or form of informal learning being addressed, reduces ambiguity in interpretation, and supports more consistent application across surveys, policies and studies.
There are a range of examples of such frameworks or typologies in the fields of education, learning and the labour market. For example, the multi-faceted concept of job quality has received particular attention in recent years, with the ILO, OECD and Eurofound each developing structured frameworks setting out key dimensions of job quality (ILO, 2013[66]; Cazes, Hijzen and Saint-Martin, 2015[67]; Eurofound, 2020[68]). Efforts have also been made to develop typologies of adult learners. For example, the “OECD Skills Strategy Implementation Guidance for Flanders” and OECD policy paper “Who learns? Mapping the many faces of adult learning” both define distinct learner profiles in Flanders, Bulgaria, Ireland, Finland and Portugal, respectively. These profiles are designed to help understand why different groups of adults participate (or do not participate) in lifelong learning, based on a mix of motivation, barriers, socio-demographic traits and labour market characteristics (OECD, 2022[69]).
Reflecting feedback from stakeholders engaged through the project, it is recommended that the typology for informal learning be oriented around a maximum of three categories, prioritised for their usefulness for different stakeholder groups. The typology should also be relatively broad to accommodate changes in learning types over time. This is particularly important in the context of informal learning, given emerging forms of informal learning, such as learning through social media platforms, interactive games or AI tools, for example.
Following consultation with experts during the bilateral interviews and international workshop, it is recommended that the typology orient around the following dimensions:
1. Setting – where informal learning takes place, for example in school, in the workplace, at home or other settings, such as libraries, cultural venues or community spaces.
2. Intentionality – whether the learner has deliberatively engaged in informal learning to support the acquisition of skills or knowledge, or where learning is unintentional.
3. Mode – the manner in which informal learning occurs, for instance whether on an individual basis or through social interaction.
The OECD has found strong support for a visualisation of the typology, to help build understanding and support consistent categorisation of informal learning in its varying forms. Figure 1.5 in Chapter 1 presents the proposed typology of informal learning in illustrative form.
Moreover, there is a need for the typology to provide worked examples of different categories of informal learning. Figure 3.2 presents examples of the 16 different combinations of categories. For instance, a student watching an online tutorial to support class work is an example of learning in schools (setting), while doing so deliberately (intentionality) and on an individual basis (mode).
Experts also noted that additional dimensions of informal learning could be considered for the typology, in particular the role of awareness – namely whether the learner is conscious of acquiring skills or knowledge. However, in the interest of simplicity, this element was excluded from the proposed typology. That said, consciousness could be incorporated as a complementary aspect of the “intentionality” dimension, given the clear interplay between the two concepts. As described in the Assessment Report (OECD, 2025[39]), different types of informal learning can be distinguished based on varying degrees of intentionality and consciousness (see Figure 2.1 in that report), for example: self-directed learning is intentional and conscious; incidental learning is unintentional but conscious; and learning through socialisation is both unintentional and unconscious.
Recommendation 4: Promote greater transparency in operational definitions, situating these within the wider typology of informal learning
Having developed a typology of informal learning, there is a need to effectively utilise it to clarify operational definitions of concern. Policymakers, National Statistics Offices and wider researchers should be transparent about the operational definition they adopt, specifying precisely the type of informal learning being measured or targeted, and, importantly, clearly indicating what is excluded. This ensures that measurements and analyses are focussed and interpretable, and that comparisons across studies or regions are meaningful.
Wherever possible, stakeholders should seek to situate operational definitions within the broader typology of informal learning. Doing so provides a structured reference that can help standardise approaches, promote greater transparency, enhance comparability across data sources, and ensure that different measures complement each other rather than overlap or duplicate effort. Anchoring definitions in this framework also allows governmental and wider stakeholders to identify evidence gaps, assess which types of informal learning are underrepresented in current policies or surveys, and prioritise areas for further investigation.
Moreover, situating operational definitions within the typology supports strategic planning: it enables policymakers and practitioners to consider which levers – such as incentives, guidance, or access to resources – might be most effective in stimulating specific forms of informal learning, whether self-directed, incidental, or social.
Decision trees could be a helpful tool to support consistent categorisation of informal learning, given the complexity of the concept. They provide a clear, visual, step-by-step process for identifying the appropriate classification, translating often descriptive concepts into testable criteria. Typically, decision trees begin with “root nodes” that pose initial questions, followed by branches representing possible answers and intermediate nodes indicating further decision points, before reaching a final classification. Decision trees have been applied in a range of contexts and have previously been used to distinguish between different forms of adult learning (see example from Canada in Box 3.4).
Figure 3.3 presents a decision tree that reflects the conceptual definition as set out in Priority Topic 1 to assess whether a person is learning informally, as well as the categorisation of different types of informal learning, as presented above. The questions guide the reader to the final 16 different types of informal learning.
The Adult Learning Typology was developed as part of the wider Adult Learning and Returns to Training Project, a multi-year initiative led by the Social Research and Demonstration Corporation (SRDC) in Canada. The project aimed to improve how adult learning is conceptualised, measured and analysed, particularly in relation to the financial and non-financial returns to individuals, employers and society.
The project developed a practice‑based typology, distinguishes five broad types of adult learning and defining these based on the form, purpose, provider, and funder of learning activities This structure aimed to make visible forms of learning that are often overlooked, including informal learning.
The typology also makes use of a decision-tree classification framework that uses questions about credentials, target learners, purpose and institutional setting to classify activities consistently.
The typology is also supported by complementary resources – such as conceptual and methodological guides and a glossary – to promote clearer analysis, greater comparability across data sources, and more informed adult learning policy design.
Source: (Myers, Conte and Rubenson, 2014[70]), Adult learning typology, www.srdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/adult-learning-typology.pdf.
The decision tree is based on the conceptual definition, as presented in Recommendation 1, and the proposed typology in Recommendation 3
References
[48] Allais, S. (2017), “Labour market outcomes of national qualifications frameworks in six countries”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 30/5, https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2016.1243232.
[31] Allaste, A., M. Beilmann and R. Pirk (2021), “Non-formal and Informal Learning as Citizenship Education: the Views of Young People and Youth Policymakers”, Journal of Applied Youth Studies, Vol. 5/1, pp. 19-35, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43151-021-00059-z.
[45] Assinger, P. (2023), “Recognition of prior learning in workplaces: exploring managerial practice by the means of a heuristic conceptual framework”, Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 45/3, https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2022.2109615.
[36] Assinger, P. and C. Biasin (2023), “The notion of informal learning within policies for the validation of nonformal and informal learning: A comparison between Austria and Italy”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 27/3-4, https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12313.
[32] Batsleer, J. (2008), Informal learning in youth work, SAGE.
[37] Bennett, E. (2014), “A Four-Part Model of Informal Learning: Extending Schugurensky‟s Conceptual Model”, Tufts University School of Medicine 1.
[15] Billett, S. (2002), “Critiquing workplace learning discourses: Participation and continuity at work”, Studies in the Education of Adults, Vol. 34/1, https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2002.11661461.
[49] Bohlinger, S. (2012), “Qualifications frameworks and learning outcomes: Challenges for Europe’s lifelong learning area”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 25/3, https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2012.687571.
[67] Cazes, S., A. Hijzen and A. Saint-Martin (2015), “Measuring and Assessing Job Quality: The OECD Job Quality Framework.”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 174, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrp02kjw1mr-en.
[1] Colley, H., P. Hodkinson and J. Malcom (2003), Informality and formality in learning : a report for the Learning and Skills Research Centre, Learning and Skills Research Centre.
[30] 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.
[7] Cross, J. (2006), Informal learning: Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and performance.
[18] 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.
[34] 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.
[42] de Paor, C. (2024), “The recognition of prior learning (RPL) as pedagogical practice: tensions and affordances in assessment”, Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 46/3, https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2023.2224236.
[29] 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.
[24] Decius, J. (2024), “Das Potenzial des informellen Lernens am Arbeitsplatz”, Psychologische Rundschau, https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042/a000686.
[23] 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.
[28] Duguid, F., K. Mündel and D. Schugurensky (2013), “Volunteer Work and Informal Learning”, in Volunteer Work, Informal Learning and Social Action, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-233-4_2.
[16] Ellström, P. (2001), “Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 12/4, https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1006.
[8] Eraut, M. (2004), “Informal learning in the workplace”, Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 26/2, https://doi.org/10.1080/158037042000225245.
[68] Eurofound (2020), Working conditions and sustainable work: An analysis using the job quality framework., Eurofound.
[6] Eurostat (2016), Classification of Learning Activities (CLA), Manual 2016 edition, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/7659750/KS-GQ-15-011-EN-N.pdf.
[3] Evans, K. (2023), “Learning Outside the Academy: Conceptual Debates and Research Challenges”, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12342-9_12.
[5] Faure, E. (1972), Apprendre à être [par] Edgar Faure [et al, Fayard-UNESCO.
[62] Federal Chancellery Austria (2026), Infromation sheet: Informal and non-formal learning, https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:519c2133-3575-47d2-bbbe-1b6061b6379d/infosheet_informal_and_non_formal_learning_2025_06.pdf (accessed on 16 March 2026).
[64] Flemish Government (2026), “Webpage Learning Lens [Leerlens]”, https://www.vlaanderen.be/levenslang-leren/leerlens-inzicht-en-acties-om-informeel-leren-op-de-werkvloer-te-stimuleren (accessed on 16 March 2026).
[57] Government Gazette of the Hellenic Republic (2010), Greek Law of Directive 3879, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/greece/legislation-and-official-policy-documents (accessed on 16 March 2026).
[66] ILO (2013), Decent Work Indicators: Guidelines for producers and users of statistical and legal framework indicators, ILO.
[35] Jarvis, P. (2011), “Non-Learning”, in The Routledge International Handbook of Learning, Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203357385.ch10.
[2] 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.
[4] Kalenda, J. and E. Boeren (2025), “Revisiting the triadic classification of learning activities: rethinking their measurement”, International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 44/3, pp. 257-272, https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2025.2489506.
[41] Knowles, M. (1984), Andragogy in action, Jossey-Bass.
[65] Kyndt, E. and S. Beausaert (2023), The power of informal learning: A study and guide to learning enthusiasm and informal learning in the Belgian technology industry, Agoria.
[25] le Clus, M. (2011), “Informal learning in the workplace: A review of the literature”, Australian Journal of Adult Learning, Vol. 51/2.
[43] 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.
[40] Lokhtina, I. and P. Faller (2024), “Rethinking informal workplace learning in times of complexity”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 36/6, pp. 428-442, https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-11-2023-0181.
[51] Looney, J. and B. Santibañez (2021), “Validation of non-formal and informal learning to support disadvantaged learners: Alternative assessments”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 56/3, https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12469.
[22] 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.
[26] Marsick, V. and A. Neaman (2017), “Adult Informal Learning”, in Informelles Lernen, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-15793-7_4.
[19] Messmann, G., M. Segers and F. Dochy (2018), Informal learning at work : triggers, antecedents, and consequences, Routledge.
[56] Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2007), The Strategy of Lifelong Learning in the Czech Republic, https://msmt.gov.cz/uploads/Zalezitosti_EU/strategie_2007_EN_web_jednostrany.pdf (accessed on 16 March 2026).
[14] Moore, R. and C. Miller (2022), Fostering Cognitive Presence in Online Courses: A Systematic Review (2008-2020), https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i1.3071.
[70] Myers, K., N. Conte and K. Rubenson (2014), Adult learning typology, Social Research and Demonstration Corporation, https://www.srdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/adult-learning-typology.pdf.
[63] National Bank of Belgium (2026), Social Balance Sheet, https://www.nbb.be/en/central-balance-sheet-office/preparation-and-filing/what-file/models/separate-social-0 (accessed on 16 March 2026).
[27] Ndiangui, P., R. Cooke and O. Koklu (2025), “Engaging Minds, Inspiring Motivation: The Impact of Integrating OER in Informal Learning Environments”, Research in Educational Policy and Management, Vol. 7/1, pp. 1-26, https://doi.org/10.46303/repam.2025.1.
[39] 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).
[69] OECD (2022), OECD Skills Strategy Implementation Guidance for Flanders, Belgium: The Faces of Learners in Flanders, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7887a565-en.
[44] Oleson, A. et al. (2022), A Decade of Demographics in Computing Education Research: A Critical Review of Trends in Collection, Reporting, and Use, https://doi.org/10.1145/3501385.3543967.
[58] Partnership for Lifelong Learning (2021), “Action plan lifelong learning: Setting sail for a learning Flanders [Actieplan levenslang leren: koers zetten naar een lerend Vlaanderen]”, https://www.vlor.be/adviezen/actieplan-levenslang-leren. (accessed on 13 April 2022).
[20] Peeters, J. et al. (2014), “Adult Learners’ Informal Learning Experiences in Formal Education Setting”, Journal of Adult Development, Vol. 21/3, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-014-9190-1.
[55] Potočnik, K. et al. (2021), “Paving the way for research in recruitment and selection: recent developments, challenges and future opportunities”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 30/2, https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2021.1904898.
[50] Raffe, D. (2013), “What is the evidence for the impact of National Qualifications Frameworks?”, Comparative Education, Vol. 49/2, https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2012.686260.
[9] Rogers, A. (2007), “Looking Again At Non-Formal and Informal Education Towards A New Paradigm”, Appeal Of Non Formal Education Paradigm.
[13] Rupcic, N. (2024), “Working and learning in a hybrid workplace: challenges and opportunities”, Learning Organization, Vol. 31/2, https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-02-2024-303.
[53] 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.
[54] Schmidt, W. and A. Müller (2021), “Workplace universalism and the integration of migrant workers and refugees in Germany”, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 52/2, https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12320.
[38] Schugurensky, D. (2000), “The forms of informal learning: Towards a conceptualization of the field. WALL Working Paper No.19, 2000”, The forms of informal learning: Towards a conceptualization of the field, Vol. 19/19.
[47] Souto-Otero, M. (2024), “Bringing Formal and Nonformal Learning Closer Together: A Reflection on Crossovers in Curriculum, Pedagogy, Assessment and Learning Environments”, in Informal Learning in Vocational Education and Training, Springer VS, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-44341-2_4.
[46] 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.
[60] Statistics Finland (2026), Statistics Finland Informal Learning definition, https://stat.fi/meta/kas/inform_opisk_en.html (accessed on 16 March 2026).
[33] Stephan, A. (2020), “Intergenerational Learning in the Family as an Informal Learning Process: A Review of the Literature”, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, Vol. 19/4, pp. 441-458, https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2020.1817830.
[11] Stern, E. and E. Sommerlad (1999), Workplace learning, culture and performance., Institute of personnel and development, London.
[21] Tannenbaum, S. and M. Wolfson (2022), Informal (Field-Based) Learning, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-083050.
[61] TEQSA (2026), TEQSA Glossaries, https://www.aqf.edu.au/publication/aqf-glossary (accessed on 16 March 2026).
[59] TEQSA (2026), Webpage Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), https://www.teqsa.gov.au/ (accessed on 16 March 2026).
[52] Villalba-García, E. (2021), “Validation of non-formal and informal learning: The hero with a thousand faces?”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 56/3, https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12468.
[17] 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.
[12] Werquin, P. (2010), Recognising Non-Formal and Informal Learning: Outcomes, Policies and Practices, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264063853-en.
[10] Zürcher, R. (2010), Teaching‐learning processes between informality and formalization., https://infed.org/dir/welcome/teaching-learning-processes-between-informality-and-formalization/.