Talk:Informal learning

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Education Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Informal Learning is not as well-defined in the literature as this article suggests (nor does it typically go by the definition this article uses). According to this article, learning in museums, for example, would be formal, yet much of the research on informal learning is directed at museum learning. A group of us (who do research on informal learning) will be working to improve this article in the near future. Porcupine8 16:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the main contributors,
"This has come to be widely known as the 75/25 Rule of Learning. Learners get only about 25 percent or less of what is used at work through formal learning." Could we know a little bit more about this rule? Maybe the source would be enough. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.6.25.120 (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page reads like someones (poorly researched) term paper on informal learning. It needs a rewrite to be up to wiki standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.10.251.62 (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is atrocious. It confuses self directed learning with informal learning and does not even approach incidental and tacit learning. The statistics are ridiculous. Considering this is one of the most heavily published areas of educational research you would think at least some of the major writers would be mentioned, instead of a few not very reliable blogs. It needs to be completely rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.254.170 (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find an original source for the Sally Anne Moore graphic - and believe that while interesting, it implies more precision in share/impact than might be warranted. Can the original source be located and made available for review? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canderson617 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed S. Moore graphic! Not a valid resource. Time to check your references people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:180:8000:6194:9869:3F22:248D:9885 (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding in a subsection discussing nonverbal communication as an informal learning tool in Indigenous American communities. This will serve as a light discussion of cultural variation and examples of effective nonverbal communication.Suhtran (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed J. Cross from Additional reads... The entire book is built around the 80/20 rule, but Cross never bothered to do his own research about the 80/20 rule; nearly all of his references are indirect.For example, Cross references Marcia Conner, who references work done in the EDC in the 90s (a paper I cannot find anywhere!). When Cross references her again (using only her first name this time--Marcia ...), she in turn is referencing the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS). The BLS paper that Conner and Cross (indirectly) cited is not research; it is a literature review written sixteen years ago,based on work done in a pre-digital age when you had to remember facts, one as early as the 70s. The lit review was of four studies of self-report surveys, where NO ONE came up with an 80/20 ratio. To top it off, Cross then references Dobbs, who, like Marcia Conner earlier, again referenced the EDC (which I believe no longer exists, dead website, anyway). Jay Cross likes to say, "study after study", but, this is just one study.He is using the same (ghost) information twice, as if they are two separate pieces that confirm the other. There are many more instances of weak references, but this one is my favorite :).Cross cites Vader (1998) for research on informal learning. I wonder if she knows about this? Vader actually wrote a review-- of a review --of a review --about research done in Canada. Vaders' writing was a blogpost on a blog for parents who homeschool their children. I could go out and read blogs all day too, they are free, and some are exceptional. What I expect when I buy a book,however, is reliability, professionalism, and expertise. Opinions are fine, but please back them up with credible, well-researched references! The sad part for me is that I agree with most of what "Jay" posits, I just wish he didn't falsely position himself as an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:180:8000:6194:9869:3F22:248D:9885 (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]