Integrative Literature Review on Informal Learning: Antecedents,Conceptualizations,and Future Directions

Abstract

Despite intense interest in informal learning in the workplace, few attempts have been made to synthesize the current literature. This article provides an integrative and analytical review of prior empirical studies with two research questions: (1) How has informal learning been conceptualized and measured in prior research? and (2) What factors influencing informal learning in the workplace have been empirically identified? Based on the findings from the first research question, the authors propose a conceptual framework for understanding informal learning activities using three dimensions: learning competence, intentionality, and developmental relatedness. To answer the second question, Lewin’s field theory, which captures the importance of the person and the environment fit, was applied to identify antecedents of informal learning at the individual, group, and organizational levels. The authors then provide a critique of the state of the informal learning literature and outline targeted suggestions to guide practice and future empirical, theoretical work.

Keywords

informal learning antecedents measures conceptual framework

Introduction

Interest in informal learning has substantially grown in the field of human resource development (HRD) over the last three decades as scholars have recognized that informal learning is a driving force of corporate sustainability and competitiveness (Ellinger, 2005; Schulz & Roßnagel, 2010). In the preface of his book, Informal Learning, Cross (2007) states that “the workhorse of knowledge economy has been, and continues to be, informal learning” (p. xiii). He goes on to suggest that informal learning likely accounts for 70 to 80 percent of workplace learning as it is highly integrated into everyday work activities.

Numerous studies have reported a positive influence of informal learning in the workplace, including enhanced productivity and cost savings at the organizational level, and enhanced knowledge and skills of individual employees (Dale & Bell, 1999; Ellinger & Cseh, 2007; Leslie, Aring, & Brand, 1998). Engaging in informal learning activities such as collaboration with colleagues can also result in changes in individuals’ beliefs or points of view (Meirink, Meijer, Verloop, & Bergen, 2009). Employees are more likely to gain new, practical knowledge from informal learning activities (Berg & Chyung, 2008; Jeon & Kim, 2012).

With increased interest in and demand for informal learning, pressure on HR practitioners to develop and support informal learning has also grown (Ellinger, 2005; Marsick, 2009). Responding to these calls, numerous researchers have conducted conceptual and empirical studies on how to better facilitate informal learning (Choi & Jacobs, 2011; Schürmann & Beausaert, 2016). Searching Business Source Complete and Academic Search Complete using the keywords informal learning, we found 2,225 full-text, peer-reviewed journal articles: 145 published between 1991 and 2000; 838 articles between 2001 and 2010; and 1,242 articles between 2011 and 2017.

Despite this explosion of research on informal learning, few studies (e.g., Le Clus, 2011) have synthesized the core concepts, particularly identifying what drives informal learning in organizations, and most of them have drawn their conclusions from conceptual work. Thus, a comprehensive literature review of empirical studies on informal learning is urgently needed.

By definition, informal learning involves noninstitutionalized and unstructured learning, and occurs deliberately or spontaneously, encompassing broad learning behaviors, activities, and theories (Marsick, 2009). Cunningham and Hillier (2013) described informal learning in the workplace as “. . .any learning activity related to the pursuit of understanding, knowledge, or skills . . . almost everything that a person does can be thought of as informal learning” (p. 38). In line with these open and broad views, one of the challenges in informal learning research has been the difficulty of measuring informal learning (Schürmann & Beausaert, 2016; Skule, 2004). It is critical to see which conceptual frameworks and measurements of informal learning have been utilized in the literature (Cerasoli et al., 2018). In doing so, examining the types of informal learning and related antecedents is important before a study measures informal learning outcomes.

The purpose of this article is to synthesize the current body of literature on informal learning, focusing on empirical studies that have investigated the antecedents of informal learning, and to identify an agenda for future theory building, research, and practice. The current research will help HRD scholars and practitioners understand the scope and drivers of informal learning based on empirical evidence. In this article, we seek to answer the following research questions using Torraco’s (2005) and Callahan’s (2010, 2014) guide to conducting integrative literature review:

Research Question 1: How has informal learning been conceptualized and measured in prior research?

Research Question 2: What factors influencing informal learning in the workplace have been empirically identified?

We then provide a critique of the state of the informal learning literature and outline targeted suggestions to guide future empirical and theoretical work.

Definitions, Behaviors, and Theories of Informal Learning

Several scholars have defined informal learning, often in contrast with formal learning, but no consensual definition has emerged yet (Clarke, 2004). Whereas formal learning is characterized as highly structured, institutionally sponsored, and classroom-based learning with an educator or trainer, informal learning is characterized as “predominantly unstructured, experiential, and non-institutionalized” as individuals make sense of their everyday working experiences (Marsick & Volpe, 1999, p. 4). Informal learning is initiated by the learners, either individually or with others, in pursuit of knowledge and skill acquisition to serve the individual’s as well as the organization’s objectives.

Informal learning activities are largely “self-directed, intentional, and field-based” (Cerasoli et al., 2018, p. 2). Integrated with the concept of incidental learning, informal learning is often discussed as an accidental by-product of work activities that is spontaneous and tacit (Marsick & Watkins, 2001). Similarly, Eraut (2004) described informal learning as “implicit, unintended, opportunistic and unstructured learning and the absence of a teacher” (p. 250).

Schugurensky (2000) identified three forms of informal learning depending on the degree of consciousness and intentionality exercised by the learner: (a) self-directed learning is both conscious and intentional, (b) incidental learning is conscious but not intentional (e.g., learning as a by-product of working), and (c) tacit learning, also known as socialization, is neither conscious nor intentional. More recently, Bennett (2012) suggested adding a fourth form of informal learning: integrative learning. This type of informal learning is nonconscious but intentional as it involves implicit processing of tacit knowledge and sudden insights generated from intuition (e.g., “aha” moments). For these reasons, tacit, implicit knowledge such as practical know-how can only be gained from informal learning whereas explicit conceptual knowledge and skills may be gained from formal training courses (De Jong & Ferguson-Hessler, 1996; Hager, 1998).

Scholars have also identified the major types of informal learning activities and practices. For example, Crouse, Doyle, and Young (2011) and Clarke (2004) identified doing new tasks, working with others, observing others, trial and error, reading/researching, surfing the web, reflecting on action, mentoring, job rotation, job shadowing, and networking. Lohman (2000, 2006) included asking questions, sharing materials and resources with others, searching the Internet, scanning professional magazines and journals, sharing and reflecting on other’s practices and experiences, and trying out new ideas and techniques. Chan and Auster (2003) additionally discussed on-the-job training, conference attendance, and self-directed projects.

Van Woerkom, Nijhof, and Nieuwenhuis (2002) and De Groot et al. (2012) emphasized critical reflective behaviors at work for effective informal learning, and highlighted learning from mistakes, challenging group think, asking for feedback, and evaluating findings from scientific research. These exemplary practices indicate that informal learning occurs in a number of different ways, involving the individual cognitive processes and actions as well as sociocognitive interactions (Clarke, 2004).

Scholars have also attempted to advance a theoretical framework. For example, drawing on Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory, Marsick, Nicolaides, and Watkins (2014) claimed that reflective strategies are essential for productive informal learning as the learning process starts with recognizing problems between what is expected and what actually happens in everyday life. In this sense, informal learning recognizes personal experiences related to daily routine work with a dialectical process of action and reflection.

Based on Argyris and Schon’s (1978) double loop learning theory, intentionality, conscious thought and planning, and proactivity were suggested as facilitators of informal learning (Marsick, 2009) as they deepen an individual’s critical reflection that confronts underlying beliefs and assumptions. In comparison, drawing from Wenger’s (1998) community of practice, Poell, Chivers, Van der Krogt, and Wildemeersch (2000) proposed learner-network theory states that informal learning occurs in relationships and interactions with various social contexts (e.g., people, job tasks, and organizational culture), and different kinds of informal learning needs and patterns can emerge depending on the different types of learning networks. Taken together, the informal learning process is not linear, nor does it indicate personal meaning-making in a vacuum; rather, it is highly contextual and emerges from self-perceived cognitive gaps and task-dependent social interactions.

In an effort to provide a unifying framework for informal learning, Marsick (2009) suggested Kurt Lewin’s (1947) field theory as a key to understanding informal learning in that his psychological equation of B = ƒ(P, E) well-captures the influences of individual, group, and organizational variables. Human behavior (B) is the function of both the person (P) and his or her surrounding environment (E); thus, drawing on field theory, both personal and contextual characteristics play a role in shaping informal learning experiences. For example, organizational culture and structure (e.g., time, materials, systems, and incentives) should influence individuals’ informal learning, and individual characteristics such as their beliefs, values, and histories should mediate their actions. Marsick (2009) also noted that leadership is often considered a critical factor that shapes organizational culture and individual behavior in allocating human, financial, and physical resources.

Taken together, informal learning is an individual learning process that is highly embedded and integrated with daily work activities, primarily delivers tacit, implicit knowledge, and can be deliberate, conscious, planned, and intended, or spontaneous, unconscious, unplanned, and unintended, resulting in the enhancement of knowledge and skills.

Method

An integrative literature review is a form of research that reviews and synthesizes literature on a specific topic using an integrative method through a systematic process of searching, selecting, and synthesizing the literature (Torraco, 2005). The literature search process is guided by the six W elements of integrative literature review suggested by Callahan (2010, 2014): authors (who), databases (where), timeline (when), search terms (how), the number of articles (what), and a set of inclusion/exclusion criteria (why). The literature search and selection process are described in detail below.

For a thorough search of the literature, we used multiple online databases including ERIC, Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, Education Full Text, and Human Resources Abstracts using the following combinations of search terms that appeared in abstracts and titles of articles: ((AB informal w1 learn*) or (TI informal w1 learn*)) AND AB (workplace* or employ* or organiza*). The truncated versions of “employee” and “organization” were used to capture all ending variants. We limited our search to articles published in peer-reviewed journals with full-text versions available. This search was conducted twice in March 2015 and April 2017. After removing redundant articles, 465 articles remained.

We initially screened the article abstracts to determine which studies explored antecedents of informal learning in workplace settings. For example, studies that focused on students’ informal learning were excluded. If the article was deemed relevant to our research purpose, the full text was screened and included if it met all of the following criteria: (a) empirical study (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed method), (b) published in English, and (c) published from 1998 to 2017. Some studies used the term “workplace learning” in their abstracts, but our review of those studies found that the concepts of formal training and informal learning were combined; thus, they were excluded. In addition, a snowball method was utilized as we tracked any relevant articles identified in the reference lists. As a result, we identified 55 articles for the final review. The articles were relatively equally divided between quantitative (n = 27) and qualitative (n = 23) approaches, with a few (n = 5) using mixed methods approaches. Almost half (n = 26) of the articles were published within the past 6 years (2011-2017) with the remaining (29) articles published between 2000 and 2010.

We used Microsoft Excel to generate a review matrix to organize the data set. The data elements consist of the author(s)’ name(s), research title, journal title, publication year, research methodology, sample, instrument, and findings. Each antecedent of informal learning identified in the final set of articles was categorized using the framework of the individual, group, and organizational levels based on Lewin’s (1947) field theory. Articles were distributed to all the authors for the initial independent analysis followed by a group discussion and consensus.

Conceptualization and Measurement of Informal Learning in Empirical Studies

Many studies have conceptualized informal learning along the lines of incidental learning rather than distinguishing them; thus, informal learning is described as either intentional or serendipitous. For example, De Groot et al. (2012) indicated that informal learning occurs “more or less as an accidental by-product of work activities or more deliberately by means of reflection on incidents” (p. 49). Skule (2004) also stated that informal learning may be “intentional, but is in most cases non-intentional” (p. 9). In contrast, Watkins and Marsick (2001) introduced incidental learning as a subset of informal learning and reported that informal learning can be planned and intentional, but incidental learning is never planned. In our review, only a few empirical studies (e.g., Rowden, 2002; Rowden & Ahmad, 2000) investigated these two different concepts separately. Only one study (i.e., Schulz & Roßnagel, 2010) solely focused on intentional informal learning in the workplace in which learners initiate and structure their learning.

The relevant informal learning activities or types varied across studies as well. Choi and Jacobs (2011) conceptualized learning with others, self-experimentation, and external scanning as three subtypes of informal learning, whereas Cunningham and Hillier (2013) used mentoring, peer relationships, and temporary job restructuring as the general framework of informal learning. Doornbos, Simons, and Denessen (2008) presented a framework which identified 12 types of work-related learning categorized by developmental relatedness (i.e., individual, together, and from others) and learning intentionality (i.e., deliberate or spontaneous).

Bednall, Sanders, and Runhaar (2014) identified reflection on daily activities, knowledge sharing with colleagues, and innovative behaviors as three representative informal learning activities to enhance knowledge and expertise acquisition. Hoekstra, Korthagen, Brekelmans, Beijaard, and Imants (2009) divided informal learning into four major categories: learning by experimenting, learning by getting ideas from others, learning by doing, and learning by reflective practices. Kwakman (2003) reported reading, experimenting, reflecting, and collaborating as major types of informal learning activities when teachers participate in professional development. Other studies reported self-directed learning (e.g., Lai, Wu, & Li, 2011; Schulz & Roßnagel, 2010), critical reflection (e.g., De Groot et al., 2012), or interpersonal interactions (e.g., Van Der Heijden, Boon, Van Der Klink, & Meijs, 2009) as the primary types of informal learning.

As the definitions and types of informal learning varied widely among studies, it is not surprising to see little coherence in the measurement of informal learning. Among the 27 quantitative studies, four most frequently used scales were identified. Noe, Tews, and Marand (2013) developed a three-factor nine-item instrument with each factor representing learning from oneself, learning from others, and learning from noninterpersonal sources. Rowden and Ahmad’s (2000) Small Business Workplace Learning survey was based on Rowden’s (1995) qualitative study with eight items related to informal learning and six items related to incidental learning behaviors. Van Woerkoms’s (2003) instrument operationalized critical reflection at work using seven dimensions: reflection, experimentation, learning from mistakes, career awareness, critical opinion sharing, asking for feedback, and challenging groupthink. Finally, Lohman (2005) developed and validated an instrument consisting of eight informal learning activities.

Other studies (e.g., Jeon & Kim, 2012) utilized secondary data from national, large-scale surveys such as the Human Capital Corporate Panel survey in South Korea, the Changing Nature of Work and Lifelong Learning survey in Canada, and the Adult Education Participation Survey in Taiwan. Some of these studies simply asked about the number of hours spent participating in informal learning activities or used a binary scale indicating participation or nonparticipation in informal learning during a certain time period. Other measures asked about the extent of the informal learning contribution relative to formal learning to obtain certain skills and knowledge. For example, Enos, Kehrhahn, and Bell (2003) listed 20 core skills associated with successful completion of managerial duties and asked participants to identify how much they learned from informal learning versus formal learning for each skill.

Another observation that caught our attention was the variety of samples representing various nations and occupations. Of the 55 studies, 17 were conducted in northwestern European countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and Germany, followed by 14 studies in the United States and five studies in Canada. This reflects an increased interest in informal learning within highly developed countries (J. Smith, n.d.). The national backgrounds of other studies included South Korea, Malaysia, Russia, Indonesia, and Australia. Regarding the industrial type or occupation, the most frequently studied occupational group was teacher/faculty across 11 studies, followed by the health care profession across seven studies. Other studies included HRD professionals, government employees, information technology professionals, police officers, professional chefs, engineers, and scientists. Four studies focused on managerial-level employees, and three studies focused on small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

The Antecedents of Informal Learning in the Workplace

In this section, we provide a review of the factors affecting informal learning based on the extant literature. Guided by Lewin’s field theory, which identified the importance of interactions between individuals and environments, the elicited factors are categorized into three groups: individual, group, and organizational levels (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Classification of Informal Learning Antecedents by Level.

Individual level			Group level				Organizational level
Sociodemographic	Personal characteristics	Job characteristics	Leadership	Feedback	Networking	Interpersonal relationship	Organizational characteristics	Organizational interventions	Organizational culture and environment	Work tool and resources
- Age - Generation (-) - Gender - Education - Life role	- Cognitive ability - Self-efficacy - Personality (e.g., nurturing, outgoing, initiative) - Motivation to learn - Perception of learning - Attitude or epistemic belief	- Job position - Seniority - Function - Department - Skill level - Tenure - Career motivation - Interest in profession - Commitment to professional development - Value of work - Job satisfaction - Challenging work - Task autonomy - Labor intensity - Job demand-control - Utility of knowledge into a job	- Managerial/supervisor support - Managerial characteristics (e.g., commitment, management styles and skills) - Managerial responsibility and motivation	- Reflective dialogue - Positive encouragement - Open communication - Support among group members	- Communication with outsiders - Mixed with internal and external networks - Asking questions and observing other colleagues	- Interpersonal communication - Open sharing - Trust and respect - Positive social interactions	- Type (e.g., public and for-profit) - Size - Industrial type - Relations of power and hierarchy	- Meetings - Personal development plans - Mentoring/Coaching - Recognition - Lack of Reward (-)	- Mission and tradition - Learning-supportive culture - employees’ resistance to change - Degree of change and demands - Psychological safety	- Information/communication tools - Experts within or outside of organization - Physical and architectural structure - Lack of Time and funds (-) - Work pressure and high expectation - Support from HR system.

The Antecedents of Informal Learning at the Individual Level

The individual level focuses on individual characteristics. We found that the determinants of informal learning at the individual level could be best captured by the following three factors: sociodemographic, personal, and job characteristics.

Sociodemographic characteristics

Studies investigating the relationship between age or generation and informal learning reported mixed results. Some scholars noted that younger generations tended to be more open-minded, eager to learn, and adaptive to technology (Sibaran, Tjakraatmadja, Putro, & Munir, 2015), while others revealed a positive relationship between informal learning and age (Nilsson & Rubenson, 2014). Participation in informal learning differed between genders in terms of learning method preferences (e.g., women tend to spent less time on self-teaching, but more often learn from their colleagues; de Grip & Smits, 2012; Kwakman, 2003), learning conditions such as feedback, new learning approaches, and communication tools (Kyndt, Dochy, & Nijs, 2009), and reasons for engaging in informal learning (Nilsson & Rubenson, 2014). Furthermore, the educational level was significantly and positively associated with the degree of informal learning efforts (Kyndt et al., 2009).

Personal characteristics

Personal characteristics included cognitive ability, self-efficacy, personality, and interest. Individuals with higher cognitive or metacognitive ability are more likely to engage in informal learning opportunities and transfer skills they have learned (Enos et al., 2003; Hoekstra et al., 2009). Self-efficacy predicted individuals’ participation in informal learning (Choi & Jacobs, 2011). Furthermore, particular personality types (e.g., nurturing and outgoing) promoted engagement in learning that involved interactions with others (Lohman, 2005, 2006).

Individuals’ interests involve multiple aspects: motivation, perception, and attitude or belief in informal learning. Motivation was reported in the form of love of learning (Lohman, 2005, 2006), interest in learning (Noe et al., 2013), perceived need for lifelong learning (Lans, Wesselink, Biemans, & Mulder, 2004), learning value (Van Der Heijden et al., 2009) learning goal (Choi & Jacobs, 2011) or goal orientation, and personal or situational interest Schulz & Roßnagel, 2010). Attitude toward or belief in informal learning also mediated the effects of learning competences (Doornbos et al., 2008; Schulz & Roßnagel, 2010).

Career motivation and interest stimulate individuals’ career development intentions. Three career-motivating factors contributing to informal learning were interest in the profession (Lohman, 2005, 2006), professional development commitment (Lohman, 2006), and value toward career progress (Cormier-MacBurnie, Doyle, Mombourquette, & Young, 2015; Van Rijn, Yang, & Sanders, 2013).

Job characteristics

Employees who differed in seniority, function, department tenure, part-time versus full-time, and skill level (Doornbos et al., 2008; Kyndt et al., 2009; Nilsson & Rubenson, 2014; Van Der Heijden et al., 2009) engaged in informal learning activities differently. For example, the employees with more than 10 years of seniority engaged more in informal learning when feedback, coaching, and information acquisition were obtained compared with the employees with less than 5 years of seniority (Kyndt et al., 2009).

Greater job satisfaction positively influenced the effectiveness of informal learning through learning by doing (Jeon & Kim, 2012) including a supportive environment, benefit or compensation, recognition, climate, and contentment (Rowden & Conine, 2005). In addition, the utility of knowledge was significantly higher when employees perceived that their knowledge from a current task was useful (Jeon & Kim, 2012; Sutherland, 2016).

Challenging work or task complexity requires informal learning, particularly on-the-job learning (Schürmann & Beausaert, 2016). A challenge that encouraged job completion increased the learning commitment (Eraut, 2004). In addition, task autonomy and labor intensity were highly associated with informal learning (Doornbos et al., 2008; Schürmann & Beausaert, 2016). Employees who reported that their job required a great deal of analysis were more likely to participate in informal learning (Nilsson & Rubenson, 2014).

The Antecedents of Informal Learning at the Group Level

Informal learning at the group relates to interpersonal dynamics and socioemotional processes within and between groups in the workplace (Brown, 1988; Marquardt, 2011). Examples included leader–member exchanges and peer interaction in teams. The factors representing interpersonal relationships and group interaction (e.g., leader–member exchange and utilizing a peer group) fell into this level. We categorized the group-level determinants into four categories: leadership, feedback, networking, and interpersonal relationship.

Leadership support

Managerial support is a critical component facilitating informal learning (Ouweneel, Taris, Van Zolingen, & Schreurs, 2009; Pifer, Baker, & Lunsford, 2015). According to Sambrook and Stewart (2000), managerial characteristics such as senior managers’ commitment, managerial skills, and leadership styles influenced employees’ participation in informal learning. Ellinger (2005) found that learning-committed leaders play several roles: (a) create informal learning opportunities, (b) serve as developers (coaches or mentors), (c) visibly make space for learning, (d) encourage risk taking, (e) instill the importance of sharing knowledge and developing others, (f) give positive feedback and recognition, and (g) serve as role models. Jeon and Kim (2012) also found that support from top management leadership positively affected the informal learning process.

Feedback

Feedback is an essential activity and resource for learning (Holley, Santos, Cook, & Kerr, 2016; Nisbet, Dunn, & Lincoln, 2015). Hoekstra et al. (2009) found that peer feedback and reflective dialogue fostered teachers’ learning. Doornbos et al.’s (2008) study of Dutch police also revealed that collegial feedback was positively associated with more frequent learning activities. In addition, feedback from leaders led to informal learning (Eraut, 2004), and in particular, open communication was a key for supportive leadership (Eraut, 2004; Jeon & Kim, 2012).

Networking

Participation in a network positively stimulates learning with peers and from outsiders (Doornbos et al., 2008; Schürmann & Beausaert, 2016). Holley et al. (2016) found that strong ties to a more capable peer promoted informal learning. Van der Heijden et al. (2009) also revealed that participation in internal and external networks was a significant predictor of employability and encompassed a mix of formal and informal learning opportunities.

Interpersonal relationship

Interpersonal relationship has been found to be a vehicle for workplace learning processes and outcomes (Cuyvers, Donche, & Van den Bossche, 2016; Lai et al., 2011). Relationship dynamics include positive relationships, seeking help, consulting, clear communication, trust, respect, and developing positive connections among participants during collaboration (Cunningham & Hillier, 2013; Cuyvers et al., 2016). Employees preferred to communicate interpersonally and shared information freely, so professional relationships facilitated informal learning (e.g., Lai et al., 2011). These activities could lead to team empowerment (Kukenberger, Mathieu, & Ruddy, 2015), which was highly associated with informal learning (Nisbet et al., 2015; Schürmann & Beausaert, 2016). Specifically, support from colleagues or collegiality was an important group factor for informal learning (Ouweneel et al., 2009; Pifer et al., 2015). For example, Boud, Rooney, and Solomon (2009) presented interventions like morning tea and toolbox talks, which promoted informal learning through employees’ social interaction. Professional meetings among colleagues also helped them learn and exchange knowledge (Neher, Ståhl, & Nilsen, 2015; Yanchar & Hawkley, 2015).

The Antecedents of Informal Learning at the Organizational Level

The organizational level is not the summation of a group’s behavior, but it relies on an organization’s mechanism (Robbins & Judge, 2013). The constructs of the organizational level are the cultural, institutionalized, and systemic influences on the learning of members. Elicited factors are divided into four categories: organizational characteristics, organizational interventions, organizational culture, and work tools and resources.

Organizational characteristics

Twelve studies reported that characteristics of an organization such as size, architectural structure, industry, and composition of constituents affect informal learning (Clarke, 2004; Nisbet et al., 2015). The impact of the organizational size was distinctive, with large organizations providing greater resources and established mechanisms of learning (Nilsson & Rubenson, 2014). Frequent face-to-face contact also promoted communication among members, but the lack of proximity among colleagues in far-off offices interfered with creating a learning culture (Lohman, 2006). In addition, the participation rate of informal learning varied depending on the type and industry of the organization (Kyndt et al., 2009; Nilsson & Rubenson, 2014). For example, employees working in public sectors and education, health, and social service industries participated more actively in informal learning. The structure of constituents also affected informal learning (Schei & Nerbø, 2015). In particular, hierarchical order in rank hindered informal learning and interfered with active communication (Holley et al., 2016).

Organizational interventions

Formal training and rewards were two examples of organizational interventions influencing informal learning. First, participating in formal training promoted informal learning by enabling individuals to share knowledge or skills (Schürmann & Beausaert, 2016). The process of planning informal learning, such as matching employees to an assignment, significantly influenced informal learning facilitation (Cunningham & Hillier, 2013). Second, rewarding proficiency (e.g., salary or career opportunities) encouraged participation in informal learning (Skule, 2004). In contrast, a lack of meaningful rewards could discourage employees’ informal learning because they felt they were not appreciated by the organization, so they hesitated to participate in learning activities (Lohman, 2000).

Organizational culture and environment

Jurasaite-Harbison and Rex (2010) reported that the mission and tradition of an organization affects informal learning. Because mission and tradition are closely related to a country’s cultural and historical context, mission and culture influenced how members thought and behaved. For example, teachers in a Russian school had to prepare a school festival related to their mission and values, which became an opportunity for learning (Jurasaite-Harbison & Rex, 2010).

A supportive learning culture facilitates employees’ participation in learning activities (Cormier-MacBurnie et al., 2015; Kwakman, 2003; Skule, 2004). Especially for newcomers, mentoring, as a way of continuing professional education, was a major vehicle for self-development (Neher et al., 2015; Pifer et al., 2015; Williams, 2003). In addition, a positive and psychologically safe environment was a prominent aspect of learning culture (Schei & Nerbø, 2015; Schürmann & Beausaert, 2016). In many cases, informal learning occurred through trial and error. To do so, having no fear of making mistakes, asking questions or providing different perspectives were essential prerequisites to informal learning (Schürmann & Beausaert, 2016).

In contrast, an unsupportive organization culture such as high work pressure, bureaucracy, or short-termism, had a negative influence on informal learning (Lohman, 2009; Sambrook & Stewart, 2000). A perceived lack of support occurred when managers did not understand their role as trainers (Cormier-MacBurnie et al., 2015). A silo mentality, which refers to a competitive relationship among teams or departments, was also a psychological barrier to interaction with others (Ellinger, 2005; Ellinger & Cseh, 2007).

It is worthwhile to note, however, that some scholars reported a counter-intuitive relationship between organizational culture and informal learning. That is, when employees perceived a lack of support from their organizations, they used more informal learning strategies to fill the gap (Chan & Auster, 2003; Enos et al., 2003). Skule (2004) suggested that even if employees were exposed to many changes and demands, when the amount was perceived as appropriate, it stimulated employees’ learning. However, Berg and Chyung (2008) argued that there was no significant relationship between how employees perceived the organization’s learning culture and the degree of informal learning engagement. Employees sometimes regarded interventions from the organization as both “interference” and “support” at the same time (Hoekstra et al., 2009).

Work tools and resources

One of the most frequently reported factors contributing to employees’ informal learning was using information and communication tools such as the Internet and internal documents (Cuyvers et al., 2016; T. Smith & Barrett, 2014). Sharing knowledge and interacting with each other using communication media (e.g., Wiki) is a good example (Milovanović, Minović, Štavljanin, Savković, & Starčević, 2012). Likewise, the lack of a knowledge management system reduced the efficiency of informal learning activities (Ellinger, 2005). Employees also acquired knowledge from internal and external experts (Kyndt et al., 2009) by interacting with them in a project workgroup. Through these interactions, employees formed learning networks as an organizational asset. Support from human resource systems was another facilitator of informal learning (Bednall et al., 2014; Sambrook & Stewart, 2000). When employees perceived that the performance appraisal quality (e.g., clarity, regularity, and openness) was high, their willingness to participate in informal learning improved (Bednall et al., 2014). In addition, employees’ perceptions of the organization’s investment in employee learning and development as a strategic goal and mission enhanced employees’ learning (Sambrook & Stewart, 2000).

Limited time and financial constraints were frequently mentioned as obstacles. Lack of time due to a heavy workload was one of the most frequently reported inhibitors of informal learning Cormier-MacBurnie et al., 2015; Lohman, 2009). Insufficient funds to purchase learning materials or hiring substitute employees were other factors inhibiting employees’ participation in informal learning (Lohman, 2005; Schei & Nerbø, 2015).

Discussion

This integrative literature review examined how informal learning has been conceptualized and measured to clarify the nature, types, and scope and which antecedents at the individual, group, and organizational levels have been found to influence informal learning.

Research Question 1: How Has Informal Learning Been Conceptualized and Measured in Prior Research?

Regarding our first research question, our review of the empirical research on informal learning revealed that the instruments of informal learning used in the precedent empirical studies were mostly tentative and lack rigorous psychometric validation. Despite the general consensus that informal learning is broad in scope and application, most instruments seem to fall short in capturing the broad scope (e.g., thought processing and interacting with self, within a group, with resources and members of the organization or outside the organization) and common practices of informal learning. Some studies that used a generic, single question such as asking about the number of hours or participation (i.e., whether participated or did not participate in informal learning) did not adequately assess the extent, type, or quality of informal learning in the workplace.

Studies that developed an instrument based on the precedent qualitative studies can be illuminating, but they have limitations. Qualitative studies usually employed a small number of participants representing a specific occupation or organization, when our review of the literature indicates a strong influence of organizational characteristics; thus, the findings are short of generalized conceptualizations, not readily applicable to other populations (Skule, 2004). We found that only a few studies (e.g., Doornbos et al., 2008; Kwakman, 2003) reported their instrument development processes and validity analysis results.

From a conceptual and theoretical point of view, the multi-dimensional nature of informal learning should be considered in developing an instrument, using multiple sub-factors or constructs. Scholars have noted that the nature of informal learning is complex and multi-faceted, involving cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational dimensions embedded in a sociocultural context (Schulz & Roßnagel, 2010). Informal learning occurs through a dialectic process of action and reflection; thus, it consists of both action components and mental components evolving from multiple activities such as individual learning, interpersonal learning, and collaborative learning (Marsick, 2009; Meirink et al., 2009). However, most current instruments have treated informal learning as unidimensional, merely listing a series of informal learning activities and using a composite score to quantify informal learning.

Taken together, we feel that a very pressing need in informal learning research is developing and improving an instrument, particularly through conceptual and theoretical advancement. Akrofi, Clarke, and Vernon’s (2011) study is a good example in that they attempted to clarify the concept and measurement of workplace learning, but they only focused on both formal and informal learning at the executive level (i.e., senior managers). Although several studies have identified the lack of available instruments to measure informal learning, little progress has been made (Wang & Spitzer, 2005).

Based on our findings, we developed a conceptual framework from which an instrument or instruments can be conceived. Figure 1 is our proposed conceptual framework that helps one see the options and continuum of important and available informal learning behaviors and activities alongside three dimensions: intentionality, developmental relatedness, and learning competence. The proposed framework shows the possibility of leveraging or combining major conceptualizations of informal learning in the extant literature.

Figure 1.

Proposed conceptual framework of workplace informal learning.

Drawing on Marsick and Watkins’s (2001) model of informal and incidental learning and on Eraut’s (2004) research, the dimension of intentionality indicates that informal learning in the workplace occurs either spontaneously or deliberately. Whereas spontaneous learning takes place with or without one’s conscious awareness as a result of unplanned and unexpected events or actions, deliberative learning stems from clear learning needs and intentions to acquire new knowledge and solve problems.

Second, Doornbos et al. (2008) introduced the idea of developmental relatedness and defined it as “how interaction between the learning worker and his or her interaction partner(s) contributes to learning solely on the part of the worker or for the interaction partner(s) as well” (p. 131). They distinguished three aspects of developmental relatedness: individual learning, learning together, and learning from others. For example, whereas individual learning refers to learning by oneself without social interaction, learning from others or together indicates a one-way or two-way developmental relation. Interaction partners can include people either inside or outside of the working organization. As this dimension involves individual learning and learning from or with others, learning processes or activities can be conceived along the continuum from self-directed learning to the social constructivism approach, such as community of practice and social-cognitive theory.

As for the third dimension of learning competence, workplace informal learning can be conceived as two different yet iterative cycles–action and mental components (Hoekstra et al., 2009). It recognizes informal learning as a dialectic process of action and reflection (Marsick & Watkins, 2001) For example, although the action component encompasses experimenting with new ideas, setting learning goals, and interacting with colleagues, the mental component can include assessing specific learning needs, monitoring learning progress, and engaging in critical reflection. As these activities involve various cognitive and metacognitive skills and knowledge as well as past, present, and future actions required for learning; we name this dimension as “learning competence,” which is deeply embedded in Kolb’s (1984) theories and concepts of experiential learning and reflection.

Research Question 2: What Factors Influencing Informal Learning in the Workplace Have Been Empirically Identified?

For the second research question, our review revealed that the current literature makes it difficult to determine what types of informal learning are associated with or facilitated by which specific individual, group, or organizational factors. If important and frequent informal learning activities in line with personal or organizational characteristics are missing, the findings could be partial or inconclusive. For example, Bednall et al. (2014) conceptualized informal learning as three major activities (i.e., reflection on daily activities, knowledge sharing with colleagues, and innovative behavior) and found that employees’ innovative behavior is facilitated by performance appraisal quality, but is negatively associated with human resource management (HRM) system strength. Kwakman (2003) conceptualized individual, collaborative, and instructive activities as a framework of teacher workplace informal learning and reported that job variety is associated only with collaborative learning activities. Although useful, these examples show that without an agreed-upon framework of informal learning activities and entities of interaction together, study results are difficult to compare.

Based on Lewin’s (1947) field theory, Marsick (2009) emphasized that individual informal learning should be understood within the social context. The subfactors of the group and organizational levels in our review provide a comprehensive picture of the environmental facilitators (e.g., people, resources, tools, tasks, and interventions) that have been empirically examined. Although some definitions indicate that informal learning is initiated and implemented by an individual employee (or learner), the antecedents of informal learning identified from this study (i.e., the situated contexts such as leadership, interaction with colleagues, and the organizational system) play a critical role in facilitating the learning process.

In this sense, we agree with Cunningham and Hillier’s (2013) viewpoint that the study of informal learning must be multi-level in nature. Scholars (e.g., Ellinger, 2005; Marsick, 2009) have also argued that the relationships between the factors and informal learning engagement are interdependent and complex and should not be understood in a one-way direction, giving support to the interactions among individual, group, and environmental factors. The crux of these arguments is that there might be joint effects or cross-level interactions among antecedents influencing an individual’s informal learning engagement. However, we found only three studies (e.g., Bednall et al., 2014; Tews, Noe, Scheurer, & Michel, 2016; Van Rijn et al., 2013) that investigated such interactions. For example, Bednall and his colleagues (2014) examined the joint effect of HRM system strength with performance appraisal quality that influences informal learning. Current studies focusing on these interactions are scarce.

Implications for HRD Research

The most prominent implication of this research is that the proposed conceptual framework explicitly describes the core components of informal learning to help future researchers develop an instrument to measure informal learning in the workplace and to identify a clear set of relevant antecedents. More specifically, 12 combinations of informal learning activities can be derived from the framework, as presented in Table 2. For instance, the action/deliberate/internal-others cube can identify informal learning activities that involve action-oriented components interacting with people inside of the organization with a clear learning intention such as asking team members for advice to solve a problem. Exemplary activities can be added, but to do so, the extent of requiring deliberation, target learner(s), and the concentration or interaction of action and reflection must be justified.

Table 2.

Examples of 12 Types of Informal Learning Activities in the Workplace.

Type (cube)	Illustrative example
Deliberate/self/mental	I reflect on work situations to make sense of what has happened and what I can learn from it.
Deliberate/self/action	I experiment with new working methods on my own.
Deliberate/internal others/mental	I contemplate suggestions made by my supervisor to improve performance.
Deliberate/internal others/action	I ask my team members for advice to solve a work-related problem.
Deliberate/external others/mental	I ponder the customer feedback to improve my work procedures.
Deliberate/external others/action	I consult with experts outside of the organization who might have insights and information on a work-related problem.
Spontaneous/self/mental	I find that exploring solutions for a problem sometimes provides unintended insights to solve another problem.
Spontaneous/self/action	What I learn about my job happens as a natural consequence of doing my job.
Spontaneous/internal others/mental	I sometimes obtain unexpected insights from a discussion with my team.
Spontaneous/internal others/action	When I make a mistake, my boss or a coworker helps me identify what to do to avoid making the mistake again.
Spontaneous/external others/mental	Interacting with others outside of the organization sometimes adds unintended, critical questions on my working process.
Spontaneous/external others/action	I sometimes receive unrequested feedback on my services or products from a client.

Although our proposed framework is premature to be called an emerging theory of workplace informal learning, it presents a lens for comparing, synthesizing, and combining major conceptualizations of informal learning in the extant literature. Particularly, we believe that the three dimensions of the framework can facilitate further integration of related concepts and theories of learning (e.g., experiential learning, community of practice, social-cognitive theory, and self-directed learning) in balancing various forms of informal learning behaviors.

Another salient theoretical implication is that the antecedents of informal learning identified from this research show the importance of the fit between the person and the environment that facilitate informal learning, which is in line with the premise of Lewin’s (1947) field theory. Considering the multi-level nature of informal learning (i.e., individual, group, and organizational), we suggest that researchers further expand their attempts to investigate the joint contributions of individuals and contexts. Many HRD researchers have over-emphasized either individual-level antecedents or contextual-level antecedents and have largely ignored the individual-context interaction effects (Chatman, 1989; Garavan, McGuire, & O’Donnell, 2004). People are not merely passive recipients influenced by their external environments, but they are active agents who interpret and reproduce the environment recursively. In other words, the influence of individual-level antecedents on informal learning may vary as a function of the group- or organizational-level (contextual) variables, or vice versa. A multi-level interactionist approach with both conceptualization and statistical analysis would contribute useful insights to this under-examined area (Lau & Nie, 2008).

It is also important to note that the current literature has largely focused on informal learning in organizational and workplace contexts, yet other social contexts such as family, community, or national culture can influence informal learning in the workplace. Based on our review, we found one study (Tews et al., 2016) that demonstrated a negative influence of work-family conflict on managers’ informal learning and its negative moderation effect on the relationship between core self-evaluations and informal learning.

It may be worthwhile to examine the impact of national culture on informal learning empirically. Kim and McLean (2014) described the influence of national culture on how informal learning works with relevant antecedents using Hofstede’s (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010) five cultural dimensions. Marsick (2009) pointed out that the impact of national culture on informal learning is still unknown and called for more research. For example, Jeong, McLean, and Park (2018), in their qualitative study, found that Korean culture (e.g., Confucianism, face-saving) makes a profound impact on shaping experience of informal learning among employees working in SMEs. Bednall et al. (2014) also recommended, that researchers investigate the potential moderating effects of national culture on the association between performance appraisal and informal learning. They suggested that employees’ perceptions of performance appraisal may be different according to their national culture such as a high or low power distance culture or an individualistic or collectivistic culture.

In addition, using the three dimensions suggested in our proposed framework, it would be helpful to examine the different types of informal learning activities in which different working groups are engaged. For example, Lohman (2005) found that teachers engage more in interactive informal learning activities (i.e., “internal others” or “external others” in the developmental relatedness dimension) while HRD professionals rely to a greater extent on independent learning activities (i.e., “self” in the developmental relatedness dimension). Marsick (2009) also suggested that there may be differences in learning activities between “knowledge workers—who frequently use judgment in complex, ambiguous circumstances—[and] employees asked to execute according to a script or exact rule set, often developed by others in the hierarchy” (p. 272). In addition, a different set of antecedents could influence different types of informal learning. For example, the antecedents of the spontaneous/external others/action types of informal learning can be different from the antecedents of the deliberate/self/mental types of informal learning. Hence, it is worthwhile to investigate the various types.

Implication for HRD Practice

In terms of practical implications, our findings can be a useful reference tool for HRD professionals and organizational leaders when leveraging informal learning. Organizations will differ in terms of which individual, group, and organizational factors are important, and Table 1 can be used as an exhaustive list to select context-relevant variables to improve informal learning in organizations. The proposed conceptual framework can further guide HRD professionals to diagnose, design, and evaluate informal learning activities that maximize the use of selected antecedents. Our review of influential antecedents at the organizational level clearly support various positive roles an organization play including providing supportive learning culture, designing job requirements, and providing technologies for acquiring and sharing knowledge. Moreover, several HRD interventions can be designed and operated, strategically interconnected and integrated with the HRM system such as compensation and performance appraisals in the context of organizational mission or strategies. For example, organizations can offer formal managerial training programs on how to facilitate a team environment that is conducive to learning and provide various motivational aids such as formal/informal mentoring groups, learning communities, and knowledge management systems for exchanging, sharing, and creating ideas (Rosenberg, 2005).

In addition, the results of this review also offer HRD professionals a diagnostic basis to support a learning environment that invites employees to learn. Rather than leaving the decision to the employees to learn at will, organizations can take a more proactive role in promoting individual employees’ informal learning participation by considering all individual, group, and organizational factors that facilitate informal learning. More importantly, our conceptual framework can be a guide for organizations to identify what types of informal learning activities take place the most or least frequently in their workplaces. They can then design informal learning opportunities tailored to the unique context of their organizations. For example, SMEs, where the infrastructure, labor, and resources for learning are limited, could promote certain types of informal learning such as spontaneous/self/action-oriented activities that are more in line with experiential and self-directed learning. In contrast, large-sized enterprises might focus on delivering deliberate/internal others/action-oriented informal learning activities using their rich resources and finances, encouraging collaborative learning and community of practice.

Last but not least, this article highlights how essential informal learning behaviors and activities must be identified and how researchers must continue to develop a theoretically and psychometrically sound informal learning instrument. It also provides a comprehensive list of informal learning antecedents that have been empirically supported. Our review of the empirical studies on informal learning indicates that our knowledge of antecedents of informal learning has grown, but more studies can be done, especially studies that examine the role of national and organizational culture. Ultimately, research on informal learning will be most fruitful if the outcomes of informal learning can be accounted for by a sound, comparable, and applicable design and measurements. We believe that our proposed conceptual framework is useful for designing and comparing informal learning behaviors and processes while leveraging the major learning theories. We invite scholarly scrutiny of this framework’s efficacy and suggestions for improvement.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Shinhee Jeong

Author Biographies

Shinhee Jeong earned her PhD in Educational Human Resource Development from Texas A&M University. She has accepted a position of assistant professor in the School of Leadership and Human Resource Development at Lousisiana State University. She worked at Korea Labor Education Institute as a program manager and at Korea Research Institute of Vocational Education and Training as an assistant researcher for more than 6 years. Her research interests include person–environment fit, multi-level analysis and measurement development across various topics such as leadership, workplace learning, and knowledge creation.

Soo Jeoung Han is an assistant professor in Organizational Performance and Workplace Learning (OPWL) program in the College of Engineering at Boise State University in the United States. She received her PhD and MS in Educational Human Resource Development at Texas A&M University and earned her BA in English Education from Korea University. Her research interests reflect her diverse work experiences including the field of virtual team collaboration, cross-cultural team diversity, shared leadership development of teams, and global and women executive leadership.

Jin Lee is a PhD student in the Department of Educational Administration and Human Resource Development at Texas A&M University. He has 4 years of professional career in global IT business and HR consulting industries. He participated in many training and development projects with global companies such as LG Electronics and Hyundai Motor Group. His current research interests are entrepreneurship with an emphasis on corporate venturing and innovation, and international HRD in terms of the influence of systems and cultural factors.

Suravee Sunalai has served as a director of the Office of Educational Quality Assurance at Dhurakij Pundit University, Thailand. She has been involved in several national consulting and assessing assignments for the Bureau of Standards and Evaluation and the Office for National Educational Standards and Quality Assessment, Ministry of Education, Thailand. She has a PhD from Texas A&M University. Specialty in human resource development.

Seung Won Yoon is a professor of Organization, Learning, and Technology in the Department of Higher Education and Learning Technologies at the Texas A&M University–Commerce. He actively serves on various leadership roles within the Academy of Human Resource Development. His research focuses on improving workplace performance through connecting leadership, learning/knowledge sharing, technology, and organizational behavior.

References

Akrofi

Clarke

Vernon

(2011). Validation of a comprehensive executive learning and development measure. International Journal of Training and Development, 15, 184-209.

Argyris

Schon

D. A.

(1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

*Bednall

T. C.

Sanders

Runhaar

(2014). Stimulating informal learning activities through perceptions of performance appraisal quality and human resource management system strength: A two-wave study. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13, 45-61.

Bennett

E. E.

(2012). A four-part model of informal learning: Extending Schugurensky’s conceptual model. Proceedings of the Adult Education Research Conference, Saratoga Springs, NY. Retrieved from http://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2012/papers/3

*Berg

S. A.

Chyung

S. Y.

(2008). Factors that influence informal learning in the workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning, 20, 229-244.

*Boud

Rooney

Solomon

(2009). Talking up learning at work: Cautionary tales in co-opting everyday learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 28, 323-334.

Brown

(1988). Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups. London, England: Basil Blackwell.

Callahan

J. L.

(2010). Constructing a manuscript: Distinguishing integrative literature reviews and conceptual and theory articles. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 300-304.

Callahan

J. L.

(2014). Writing literature reviews: A reprise and update. Human Resource Development Review, 13, 271-275.

10.

Cerasoli

C. P.

Alliger

G. M.

Donsbach

J. S.

Mathieu

J. E.

Tannenbaum

S. I.

Orvis

K. A.

(2018). Antecedents and outcomes of informal learning behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33, 203-230.

11.

*Chan

D. C.

Auster

(2003). Factors contributing to the professional development of reference librarians. Library & Information Science Research, 25, 265-286.

12.

Chatman

J. A.

(1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333-349.

13.

*Choi

Jacobs

R. L.

(2011). Influences of formal learning, personal learning orientation, and supportive learning environment on informal learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 239-257.

14.

*Clarke

(2004). HRD and the challenges of assessing learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 8, 140-156.

15.

*Cormier-MacBurnie

Doyle

Mombourquette

Young

J. D.

(2015). Canadian chefs’ workplace learning. European Journal of Training and Development, 39, 522-537.

16.

Cross

(2007). Informal learning: Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and performance. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

17.

Crouse

Doyle

Young

J. D.

(2011). Workplace learning strategies, barriers, facilitators and outcomes: A qualitative study among human resource management practitioners. Human Resource Development International, 14, 39-55.

18.

*Cunningham

Hillier

(2013). Informal learning in the workplace: Key activities and processes. Education + Training, 55, 37-51.

19.

*Cuyvers

Donche

Van den Bossche

(2016). Learning beyond graduation: Exploring newly qualified specialists’ entrance into daily practice from a learning perspective. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21, 439-453.

20.

Dale

Bell

(1999). Informal learning in the workplace. London, England: Department for Education and Employment.

21.

*de Grip

Smits

. (2012). What affects lifelong learning of scientists and engineers? International Journal of Manpower, 33, 583-597.

22.

De Groot

Jaarsma

Endedijk

Mainhard

Lam

Simons

R. J.

Beukelen

P. V

. (2012). Critically reflective work behavior of health care professionals. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 32, 48-57.

23.

De Jong

Ferguson-Hessler

M. G

. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31, 105-113.

24.

*Doornbos

A. J.

Simons

R. J.

Denessen

(2008). Relations between characteristics of workplace practices and types of informal work-related learning: A survey study among Dutch police. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19, 129-151.

25.

*Ellinger

A. D.

(2005). Contextual factors influencing informal learning in a workplace setting: The case of “reinventing itself company.” Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 389-415.

26.

*Ellinger

A. D.

Cseh

(2007). Contextual factors influencing the facilitation of others’ learning through everyday work experiences. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19, 435-452.

27.

*Enos

M. D.

Kehrhahn

M. T.

Bell

(2003). Informal learning and the transfer of learning: How managers develop proficiency. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 369-387.

28.

*Eraut

(2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26, 247-273.

29.

Garavan

T. N.

McGuire

O’Donnell

(2004). Exploring human resource development: A levels of analysis approach. Human Resource Development Review, 3, 417-441.

30.

Hager

(1998). Recognition of informal learning: Challenges and issues. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 50, 521-535.

31.

*Hoekstra

Korthagen

Brekelmans

Beijaard

Imants

(2009). Experienced teachers’ informal workplace learning and perceptions of workplace conditions. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21, 276-298.

32.

Hofstede

G. J.

Minkov

(2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

33.

*Holley

Santos

Cook

Kerr

(2016). “Cascades, torrents & drowning” in information: Seeking help in the contemporary general practitioner practice in the UK. Interactive Learning Environments, 24, 954-967.

34.

*Jeon

K. S.

Kim

K. N.

(2012). How do organizational and task factors influence informal learning in the workplace? Human Resource Development International, 15, 209-226.

35.

Jeong

McLean

G. N.

Park

(2018). Understanding informal learning in small-and medium-sized enterprises in South Korea. Journal of Workplace Learning, 30, 89-107.

36.

*Jurasaite-Harbison

Rex

L. A.

(2010). School cultures as contexts for informal teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 267-277.

37.

Kim

McLean

G. N.

(2014). The impact of national culture on informal learning in the workplace. Adult Education Quarterly, 64, 39-59.

38.

Kolb

D. A.

(1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.

39.

*Kukenberger

M. R.

Mathieu

J. E.

Ruddy

(2015). A cross-level test of empowerment and process influences on members’ informal learning and team commitment. Journal of Management, 41, 987-1016.

40.

*Kwakman

(2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 149-170.

41.

*Kyndt

Dochy

Nijs

(2009). Learning conditions for non-formal and informal workplace learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21, 369-383.

42.

*Lai

H. J.

M. L.

A. T.

(2011). Adults’ participation in informal learning activities: Key findings from the adult education participation survey in Taiwan. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 51, 409-432.

43.

*Lans

Wesselink

Biemans

H. J.

Mulder

(2004). Work-related lifelong learning for entrepreneurs in the agri-food sector. International Journal of Training and Development, 8, 73-89.

44.

Lau

Nie

(2008). Interplay between personal goals and classroom goal structures in predicting student outcomes: A multilevel analysis of person-context interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 15-29.

45.

Le Clus

. (2011). Informal learning in the workplace: A review of the literature. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 51, 355-373.

46.

*Leslie

Aring

M. K.

Brand

(1998). Informal learning: The new frontier of employee & organizational development. Economic Development Review, 15, 12-18.

47.

Lewin

(1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1, 5-41.

48.

*Lohman

M. C.

(2000). Environmental inhibitors to informal learning in the workplace: A case study of public school teachers. Adult Education Quarterly, 50, 83-101.

49.

*Lohman

M. C.

(2005). A survey of factors influencing the engagement of two professional groups in informal workplace learning activities. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 501-527.

50.

*Lohman

M. C.

(2006). Factors influencing teachers’ engagement in informal learning activities. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18, 141-156.

51.

*Lohman

M. C.

(2009). A survey of factors influencing the engagement of information technology professionals in informal learning activities. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 25, 43-53.

52.

Marquardt

M. J.

(2011). Building the learning organization: Achieving strategic advantage through a commitment to learning (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

53.

Marsick

V. J.

(2009). Toward a unifying framework to support informal learning theory, research and practice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21, 265-275.

54.

Marsick

V. J.

Nicolaides

Watkins

K. E.

(2014). Adult learning theory and application in HRD. In Chalofsky

N. E.

Rocco

T. S.

Morris

M. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of human resource development (pp. 40-61), Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

55.

Marsick

V. J.

Volpe

(1999). The nature and need for informal learning. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1(3), 1-9.

56.

Marsick

V. J.

Watkins

K. E.

(2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001, 25-34.

57.

Meirink

J. A.

Meijer

P. C.

Verloop

Bergen

T. C.

(2009). Understanding teacher learning in secondary education: The relations of teacher activities to changed beliefs about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 89-100.

58.

*Milovanović

Minović

Štavljanin

Savković

Starčević

(2012). Wiki as a corporate learning tool: Case study for software development company. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31, 767-777.

59.

*Neher

M. S.

Ståhl

Nilsen

(2015). Learning opportunities in rheumatology practice: A qualitative study. Journal of Workplace Learning, 27, 282-297.

60.

*Nilsson

Rubenson

(2014). On the determinants of employment-related organized education and informal learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 36, 304-321.

61.

*Nisbet

Dunn

Lincoln

(2015). Interprofessional team meetings: Opportunities for informal interprofessional learning. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 29, 426-432.

62.

*Noe

R. A.

Tews

M. J.

Marand

A. D.

(2013). Individual differences and informal learning in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 327-335.

63.

*Ouweneel

A. P. E.

Taris

T. W.

Van Zolingen

S. J.

Schreurs

P. J.

(2009). How task characteristics and social support relate to managerial learning: Empirical evidence from Dutch home care. The Journal of Psychology, 143, 28-44.

64.

*Pifer

M. J.

Baker

V. L.

Lunsford

L. G.

(2015). Academic departments as networks of informal learning: Faculty development at liberal arts colleges. International Journal for Academic Development, 20, 178-192.

65.

Poell

R. F.

Chivers

G. E.

Van der Krogt

F. J.

Wildemeersch

D. A.

(2000). Learning-network theory: Organizing the dynamic relationships between learning and work. Management Learning, 31, 25-49.

66.

Robbins

S. P.

Judge

T. A.

(2013). Organizational behavior (15th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

67.

Rosenberg

(2005). Beyond E-Learning: Approaches and technologies to enhance organizational knowledge, learning, and performance. New York, NY: Pfeiffer.

68.

*Rowden

R. W.

(1995). The role of human resource development in successful small to mid-sized manufacturing businesses: A comparative case study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6, 355-373.

69.

*Rowden

R. W.

(2002). The relationship between workplace learning and job satisfaction in US small to midsize businesses. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 407-425.

70.

*Rowden

R. W.

Ahmad

(2000). The relationship between workplace learning and job satisfaction in small to mid-sized businesses in Malaysia. Human Resource Development International, 3, 307-322.

71.

*Rowden

R. W.

Conine

C. T.

Jr. (2005). The impact of workplace learning on job satisfaction in small US commercial banks. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17, 215-230.

72.

*Sambrook

Stewart

(2000). Factors influencing learning in European learning oriented organisations: Issues for management. Journal of European Industrial Training, 24, 209-219.

73.

*Schei

Nerbø

(2015). The invisible learning ceiling: Informal learning among preschool teachers and assistants in a Norwegian kindergarten. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26, 299-328.

74.

Schugurensky

(2000). The forms of informal learning: Towards a conceptualization of the field (New approach to lifelong learning Working Paper #19-2000). Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/2733/2/19formsofinfrmal.pdf

75.

*Schulz

Roßnagel

C. S.

(2010). Informal workplace learning: An exploration of age differences in learning competence. Learning and Instruction, 20, 383-399.

76.

*Schürmann

Beausaert

(2016). What are drivers for informal learning? European Journal of Training and Development, 40, 130-154.

77.

*Sibaran

R. M.

Tjakraatmadja

J. H.

Putro

U. S.

Munir

N. S.

(2015). The Influence of multigenerational workforce in effective informal team learning. Journal of Economics and Business Research, 21, 199-127.

78.

*Skule

(2004). Learning conditions at work: A framework to understand and assess informal learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 8, 8-20.

79.

Smith

(n.d.). Informal learning groups. Retrieved from http://www.publicsphereproject.org/content/informal-learning-groups

80.

*Smith

Barrett

(2014). Informal e-learning: The case of small business owners. Education + Training, 56, 219-232.

81.

*Sutherland

O. D.

(2016). Adult learning in innovative organisations. European Journal of Education, 51, 210-226.

82.

Tews

M. J.

Noe

R. A.

Scheurer

A. J.

Michel

J. W.

(2016). The relationships of work–family conflict and core self-evaluations with informal learning in a managerial context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89, 92-110.

83.

Torraco

(2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 356-367.

84.

*Van Der Heijden

Boon

Van der Klink

Meijs

. (2009). Employability enhancement through formal and informal learning: An empirical study among Dutch non-academic university staff members. International Journal of Training and Development, 13, 19-37.

85.

*Van Rijn

M. B.

Yang

Sanders

. (2013). Understanding employees’ informal workplace learning. Career Development International, 18, 610-628.

86.

*Van Woerkom

. (2003). Critical reflection at work: Bridging individual and organizational learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.

87.

Van Woerkom

Nijhof

W. J.

Nieuwenhuis

L. F

. (2002). Critical reflective working behaviour: A survey research. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26, 375-383.

88.

Wang

G. G.

Spitzer

D. R.

(2005). Human resource development measurement and evaluation: Looking back and moving forward. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 5-15.

89.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

90.

*Williams

(2003). Informal learning in the workplace: A case study of new teachers. Educational Studies, 29, 207-219.

91.

*Yanchar

S. C.

Hawkley

M. N.

(2015). Instructional design and professional informal learning: Practices, tensions, and ironies. Educational Technology & Society, 18, 424-434.