Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences
Graduate School of Childhood Development and Education
The Ongoing Development of Employees: Integration
between Formal and Informal Learning
Research Master Child Development and Education - Thesis 2
Student: Ellen van Reemst (10214879)
Supervisors: dr. J. (Joost) Jansen in de Wal
prof. dr. M. L. L. (Monique) Volman Reviewers: dr. J. (Jaap) Schuitema
dr. E. (Els) Kuiper Supervisor internship NCOI: mr. T. (Tom) Bos 19 July 2017
2 Abstract
This study explored what characteristics of formal training are experienced by employees as contributing to the integration between formal and informal learning and hence stimulate their critical reflective working behavior. This is achieved by drawing a purposeful maximum variation sample from survey participants who filled out questionnaires about their formal and informal learning, their self-regulation of learning, and demographic information. Semi-directed interviews with sampled participants were held in order to obtain depth of understanding about integration between formal and informal learning of experienced employees. The results showed that formal training is considered to be important for expressing and developing critical
reflective working behavior. Practical assignments, interactive didactic methods and a safe environment helped employees to critically reflect on their work practices by experimenting with new ideas and sharing knowledge with others, and made them feel confident to suggest
improvements. Altogether, these characteristics of formal training call for a culture of learning, in which both organizations and professional educational institutes work closely together in order to provide supportive structures that facilitate critical reflective working behavior and enables employees to take responsibility for their own learning. The results of this study can help improve training for employees, and indirectly organizations, in a lifelong learning and
knowledge-based society. Finally, since this study demonstrated the importance of guidance in employees’ informal learning process, it is suggested to approach workplace learning as critical reflective working behavior more often, so that the importance of integrating informal and formal learning (in organizational success) is addressed automatically.
3 The Ongoing Development of Employees: Integration between Formal and Informal
Learning
Due to rapid developments in information and communication technology, increasing
internationalization and globalization, and growing competitiveness between organizations, there is a need for ongoing development of employees throughout working life (Froehlich, Segers, & van den Bossche, 2014; Noe, Tews, & Marand, 2013; Tynjälä, 2013). Nowadays, the learning process of experienced employees plays an important and central role in individual career development and organizational success. In order to keep up with changes in society and economy, it is important for both organizations and employees to be adaptable, productive and innovative.
The ongoing development of employees includes both formal and informal learning (Tynjälä, 2008; Watkins & Marsick, 1992). Formal learning can be defined as learning, based on planned and (highly) structured events or experiences that prepare individuals to obtain a specific set of learning goals, knowledge and skills (Eraut, 2000; Marsick & Watkins, 2001). Formal learning is often seen as a form of learning within the traditional educational context, build on pedagogical concepts and didactic methods (Hager, 2004). Eraut (2000) identified five
characteristics of formal learning: 1) ‘a prescribed learning framework’, 2) ‘an organized
learning event or package’, 3) ‘the presence of a designated teacher or trainer’, 4) ‘the award of a qualification or credit’, and 5) ‘the external specification of outcomes’. Moreover, formal
learning can include (institutionally sponsored) off-the-job training, lecture-based training, the-job training, or computer-based training courses (Rowold & Kauffeld, 2009), in which on-the-job training is more adapted to the context and less traditional.
Informal learning acknowledges that learning does not only occur within formal organized programs or training courses, but also occurs in the context of practice. Marsick and Volpe (1999) reviewed several studies on informal learning and concluded that informal learning can be characterized as follows: 1) ‘it is integrated with daily routines’, 2) ‘it is triggered by an internal or external jolt’, 3) ‘it is not highly conscious’, 4) ‘it is haphazard and influenced by chance’, 5) ‘it is an inductive process of reflection an action’, and 6) ‘it is linked to learning of others’. In other words, informal learning is typically not highly structured or conscious. Moreover, it is not institutionally based, but contextualized to the workplace (Eraut, 2000; Colley, Hodkinson, & Malcolm, 2003; Marsick & Watkins, 2001).
4 Informal learning occurs in situations that are not usually intended or planned for
learning, consequently the control over informal learning rests primarily in the hands of the learner. In line with this, Eraut (2000) distinguished between three types of informal learning, which differ in their intentionality. Implicit learning occurs unconsciously and unintended, while
reactive learning is more explicit and intended but takes place spontaneously in response to
current situations without time for reflection. Deliberative learning is the most intended learning situation Eraut (2000) distinguished. In this type of learning time is time is specifically set aside for reflection about a clear work-based goal. So, in other words, informal learning can be
unintended or intended, but, if intended or planned, the learning is controlled by the learner. As a result, informal learning is influenced by individual characteristics, such as the ability to self-regulate learning (Schulz & Stamov Rossnagel, 2010). Individuals can actively self-regulate their own informal learning by setting their learning goals, monitoring their learning process and choosing their own time and space of learning. Hence, informal learning activities can include a variety of self-directed and self-initiated activities, such as trial and error, coaching, site visits, talking and sharing with others, scanning professional magazines and journals, and searching the internet (Jeon & Kim, 2012; Lohman, 2006; Marsick & Watkins, 2001).
Often, informal and formal learning are seen as two separate entities and discussed in contrast with each other (Choi & Jacobs, 2011). However, research showed that it is not possible to make a full distinction between informal and formal learning situations (Hodkinson, Colley, & Malcolm, 2003). After examining a range of different contexts in which learning took place, it turned out that characteristics of both informal and formal learning were present in all of them, but the inter-relationships between characteristics of formal and informal learning vary from situation to situation. Also, Billett (2004) argued that it is inappropriate to consider workplace learning as completely informal, since work places do provide events in which learning is structured. Furthermore, it is inappropriate to discuss informal and formal learning in contrast with each other because both types of learning are important for developing professional competence (Aarkrog, 2005; Burn et al., 2005; Tynjälä, 2008). Slotte, Tynjälä, and Hytönen (2004) argued that informal learning alone is not enough for developing professional competence because informal learning often takes place unconsciously, which could result in undesirable outcomes. Hence, formal learning is needed for critical reflection on practical knowledge and habits. Also, formal learning is needed to keep up with rapid developments in knowledge and
5 technology, since informal learning alone cannot ensure that the knowledge and skills of
employees will keep pace with current developments (Slotte et al., 2004).
In addition, researchers have argued that informal and formal learning are complementary in terms of learning goals (Aarkrog, 2005; Jacobs & Park, 2009). Formal and informal learning activities provide the learner with different but advantageous opportunities of learning (Aarkrog, 2005). For example, formal learning is structured, guided and often individual, whereas informal learning could be more contextualized and collaborative (Tynjälä, 2008). In addition, formal learning may stimulate informal learning: it forms an explicit knowledge basis to enable, assimilate and reflect on informal learning at the workplace (Lohman, 2003), whereas formal learning needs to be backed up by informal learning in order to be of practical relevance
(Ellström, 2001). Taking into account the inter-relatedness between informal and formal learning and the advantages of both types of learning, it is important for developing professional
competence of employees to identify how formal and informal learning are/should be integrated (Berg & Chyung, 2008; Choi & Jacobs, 2011; Svensson, Ellström, & Aberg, 2004).
Integration between formal and informal learning supposes a ‘reflexive’ connection between formal and informal learning (Tynjälä, 2008). For example, employees critically reflect on their work practices based on what they have learned during formal training, and vice versa, formal learning activities are critically considered, based on the practical knowledge derived from working experiences of employees. Hence, informal and formal learning meet each other in the light of critical reflection. Critical reflection can be defined as the (collective) process of challenging and critiquing the assumptions on which our beliefs and practices have been built (Høyrup, 2004). Critical reflection can be seen as a core process in ongoing employee and organizational development (Høyrup, 2004). Taking into account the definition of critical reflection, critical reflective working behavior can be defined as ‘a set of connected activities, aimed at analyzing, optimizing or innovating work practices on individual, team, or
organizational level’ (Van Woerkom, Nijhof, & Nieuwenhuis, 2002). These activities include learning from mistakes, vision sharing (expressing one’s vision, asking (critical) questions or suggesting improvements), sharing this knowledge with others, challenging groupthink
(identifying and questioning assumptions), asking for feedback and experimentation (put ideas into practice).
6 The above described critical reflective behavior activities evoke the idea that reflective working behavior is of an informal nature. However, it is important to note that as different manifestations of integrations between formal and informal learning move along a formal-informal continuum, so does critical reflective working behavior. Critical reflective working behavior, which is directed by a teacher, can be seen as a manifestation of integration at the formal end of the continuum. For example, trainers could give their course members practical assignments, which support informal learning at work and eventually lead to (reflexive) reflective practices on work and training activities. Consequently, the activity becomes more formally structured because it is initiated and directed by the teacher, instead of by learners themselves. Critical reflective working behavior can also be seen as integration between formal and informal learning on the informal end of the continuum, when it is aroused by unplanned events. For example, during a formal training the learner could spontaneously share knowledge with other learners, who stimulate the learner to informally experiment with a particular topic, which in turn leads to additional (feedback) questions during the formal training and eventually to a (reflexive) critical reflection on the formal learning activities. Furthermore, when informal and formal learning occur in the same context at the same time, for example when course members informally share their thoughts with each other during a formal structured training, it could be seen as a parallel connection between formal and informal learning.
More insight is needed into integrations of formal training and informal learning at the workplace among experienced employees, since most studies only focused on a combination of formal and informal learning (e.g., job experience) among Vocational Education and Training (VET) students (Baartman & De Bruijn, 2011; Guile and Griffiths, 2001). For example, Guile and Griffiths (2001) identified five different models of work experiences, in which different relationships between VET schools and work organizations are described. However, professional educational institutes, that provide training for employees, may face different challenges than VET schools because the context of learning of experienced employees differs from that of VET students, when facilitating the integration of formal and informal learning. For example,
employees follow separate and non-continuous courses at different training institutes, whereas VET students depart from continuous formal schooling at educational institutes. Moreover, the curriculum design of formal training at professional training institutes may differ from VET schooling and from training to training because they could be tailored to specific companies and
7 demands of organizations and employees, while VET schooling is provided according to a national curriculum. As a result, it is insufficiently known what the role of educators and
professional education institutes might be in the ongoing development of experienced employees (Manuti, Pastore, Scardigno, Giancaspro, & Morciano, 2015).
Furthermore, research on informal and formal learning among experienced employees that does exist, often focuses on affecting factors on the level of the individual employee and the organization (Garavan, 1997; Kyndt & Baert, 2013; Schürmann & Beausaert, 2016), instead of on the learning activity itself. Consequently, information is lacking on what formal learning activities contribute to integration between informal and formal learning at the workplace so that both types of learning harmoniously contribute to professional competence. It remains unknown how the ongoing development of employees might be improved by certain formal training characteristics. It is important to investigate this topic, especially since organizations frequently invest in formal training by default (Jeon & Kim, 2012). Therefore, in this study it is explored what characteristics of formal learning activities (called: formal drivers), provided by
professional educational institutes, contribute to reflexive and reflective integration between formal and informal learning and hence stimulate participation in critical reflective working behavior activities.
Method Sample
In order to accomplish the aim of this study, qualitative data is collected among a sample of experienced employees. Conducting an online-questionnaire about employees’ formal and informal learning, their self-regulation of learning (SRL), their demographic information (gender, age, level of highest education), and work-related information (type of function, years of working experience, organization size and sector), was an instrumental first step towards this sample. The questionnaire items on formal, informal and self-regulation of learning were based on previously used instruments of Choi and Jacobs (2011) and Zimmerman (2000), and
translated by the executive researcher and her supervisor.
Clients and employees of the Dutch learning institute ‘NCOI’ were approached in order to reach as many and all kinds of employees in different functions and organizations to fill out the questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed by the use of the tool Check Market, held in
8 Dutch, and took 15 minutes to complete, which participants could do in their own time and space. The survey started with an introduction text in which the participant was explained about the aims of the study and in which the anonymity of the participant was assured. At the end of the questionnaire, the participant was asked if he or she would be willing to participate in an additional interview. If so, participants were asked to leave their e-mail address, so that they could be selected, reached and invited for an additional interview. Among the participants who left their e-mail address a subscription for NCOI’s Online Academy, six months free online training was raffled.
In total 426 participants filled out the questionnaire, of whom 46.2% indicated to be eligible for an additional research interview. Independent samples t tests indicated no difference between the groups that were or were not eligible for an additional interview regarding informal learning (t (424) = -1.150, p = .251, d = -.064), formal learning (t (397) = .973, p = .331, d = .050), and self-regulated learning (t (391) = -.561, p = .575, d = -.029). There were also no differences between these two groups in demographic information and work-related information. Hence, further descriptive analyses were done only for the group who indicated to be eligible for an additional interview. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the study sample. In general,
descriptive statistics indicated that participants scored low on formal learning, average on informal learning, and high on self-regulated learning. Most of the participants worked for the government (N = 99; 50.3%), in the educational sector (N = 30; 15.2%), the health sector (N = 16; 8.1%), or in business services (N = 13; 6.6%). In total N = 149 (75.6%) women and N = 48 (24.4%) men were eligible for an additional interview.
Table 1
Characteristics of the Study Sample (N = 197)
Variable Mean SD Observed Range
Age 44.29 10.286 20 - 65
Formal learning 1.650 .509 1 - 4
Informal learning 2.794 .566 1 - 4.5
Self-regulated
9 By drawing a purposeful maximum variation sample from survey participants who were eligible for an additional research interview, it was aimed to achieve an interview-sample that is characteristic for the full breadth of manifestations of integrations of formal and informal learning of experienced employees (Ivankova et al., 2013; Palinkas et al., 2013). First, the thirty participants with the highest scores and the thirty participants with the lowest scores on informal learning were selected and divided into two groups. This was done first since the variable informal learning comes closest to the dependent variable of current study; during informal learning employees could learn form their mistakes, share their vision and knowledge, and experiment with new ideas, which eventually can lead to critical reflective working behavior. Moreover, in this way a sufficient variety between the participants was ensured in order to explore a possible wide range of formal drivers of critical reflective working behavior. Second, from these two groups the ten participants with the highest scores and the ten participants with the lowest scores on self-regulation of learning (the second closest variable to the dependent variable of this study) were selected, which resulted in four groups of ten participants. Finally, the participants were distinguished based on their scores on formal learning. This was done last, since this variable is least comparable with the dependent variable of this study, but corresponds mostly to the independent variable of the study; namely formal drivers of critical reflective working behavior. From the remaining four groups the three participants with the highest and three participants with the lowest scores on formal learning were approached and invited for an additional interview. Next to this procedure, four participants with average scores on informal, formal and self-regulation of learning were invited for the interview. In Scheme 1 the selecting procedure is displayed by a flowchart.
When inviting participants for interviews, it was taken into account that participants should have followed a formal training within the last year, in order to ensure that they were able to remember what characteristics of formal learning activities they have experienced as
contributing to their integration between their formal and informal learning. In total, ten participants were selected, two from the average group and one from each of the other final groups. According to Guest, Bunce, and Johnson (2006) this should be enough as they found data saturation occurred within the first twelve interviews. Table 2 shows the characteristics of the participants who were interviewed.
10 Scheme 1
Selecting Interview Participants
Procedure
Individual interviews were held to explore and obtain depth of understanding about the integration of formal and informal learning. The interviews took place in May 2017 at a location of the employees’ choice (at their organization, at NCOI, or elsewhere) and were conducted by the principal investigator in Dutch. Each interview lasted about 45 minutes and was recorded. The interviews started with open-ended general questions about the participants’ way of learning, followed by more specified questions about learning activities. After establishing informal and formal learning activities, the participants were asked about whether and how they
11 integrated both types of learning. In addition, participants were asked about the recent courses they took part in and how these courses stimulated integration between the content that was provided and informal learning activities at work.
At first, participants were probed by asking open-ended general questions, but, if needed, participants were prompted to think about the integration of informal and formal learning as a reflexive process and critical reflective practice. Participants were asked, for example, how formal training contributes to critical reflective working behavior activities, such as learning from mistakes, vision sharing, sharing knowledge, challenging groupthink, asking for feedback and experimentation (Van Woerkom et al., 2002). Also, if participants had no idea about characteristics of formal training that influenced critical reflective working behavior, they were prompted to think about different characteristics of formal training, namely the process, the approach and role of the instructor, location and setting, purposes and content of the training (Colley et al., 2003). Table 3 shows the complete interview guideline: the main constructs, the interview and follow-up questions, and the order in which they were asked.
A semi-directed interview gave the interviewer the opportunity and flexibility to explore opinions of the participant in detail, but still provided reliable and comparable qualitative data because of prepared questions and clear instructions for the interviewer (Creswell, 2002).
Furthermore, the interviews were of an informal nature, creating a confident relationship with the participants. After finishing this research project, the results of the study were sent to (the
organizations of the) participants, as a compensation of participating in the study.
Table 3
Interview Guideline and Associated Constructs
# Construct Question Example Follow-up questions
1. Formal and informal learning activities
What activities do you undertake in order to develop yourself as an employee?
Any other activities? Sometimes it has been said that people learn every day, don’t you? How?
What kind of off-the-job and on-the-job learning activities do you undertake?
Do you undertake any learning activities together
12 with colleagues?
What do you regard as
informal and formal learning?
Recap/Grounding: Formal learning can be defined as learning, based on planned and (highly) structured events or experiences that prepare individuals to obtain a specific set of learning goals, knowledge and skills. Informal learning is typically not highly structured or conscious, it is not institutional based, but contextualized to the workplace. Informal learning can be unintended or intended, but, if intended or planned, the learning is controlled by the learner.
2. Integration between informal and formal learning
Does it happen that you learn both formally and informally at the same time?
What do you regard as integration between informal and formal learning?
Could you give a concrete example?
What does the process of integrating informal and formal learning look like? What is the role of reflection in in the integration between formal and informal learning?
Grounding: Integration between formal and informal learning can (also) be seen in the light of critical reflection. For example, employees critically reflect on their work practices based on what they have learned in the formal training, and vice versa, the formal training is critically considered based on the practical knowledge derived from working experiences of employees. 3. Formal training characteristics as drivers to the integration between informal and formal learning
What characteristics (e.g. the
process; the approach and role of the instructor; location and setting; purposes; content) of the most
recent formal training you followed, did you experience as contributing to your development as a good and critical employee?
What characteristics of formal training made you critically reflect on your work
practices?
Any other characteristics? What characteristics of formal training lead to learning from
mistakes?
What characteristics of formal training lead to vision
sharing?
What characteristics of formal training lead to sharing
13
knowledge with others?
What characteristics of formal training lead to challenging
groupthink?
What characteristics of formal training lead to asking for
feedback?
What characteristics of formal training lead to
experimentation?
Data analysis
The qualitative data derived from the interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by the executive researcher by hand. Constant comparison techniques led to the identification of overall themes in the data (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). The researcher first read through the data, after which the researcher chunked the data into smaller meaningful parts, fragments of the answers to interview questions, and labeled these fragments with a descriptive ‘code’. Codes were given deductively, which means that codes were prepared, based on literature, prior to analyses (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). Codes were also given inductively, which means that codes emerged from the data; in case they did not fit the existing prepared codes. Each new chunk of data was compared to previous codes, in order to ensure that similar chunks were labeled with the same code. After all data had been coded, codes were grouped by similarity and categorized into overall themes, which together formed the answer to the central research
14 Table 2
Characteristics of Interview Sample
Participant Age Gender Informal learning SRL Formal learning Function / Sector Years of working experience Size of organization Level of highest education Recent formal training 1 48 M 4.08 4.67 3.20 Coordinator training and quality /Health insurance 31 > 500 University Blended learning 2 48 F 4.50 4.78 1.80 HRM director / Education 26 >500 University Management development 3 57 M 3.50 3.44 1.90 Policymaker/ Public sector 25 201-500 University Personal skills 4 45 F 3.25 3.78 1.10 HRM advisor / Construction 24 51-200 Higher education Presentation techniques 5 34 F 2.33 4.33 2.00 Policy executor / Public sector 18 51-200 Vocational education Policy training 6 47 F 2.08 4.33 1.50 Policy executor / Public sector 28 201-500 Secondary school Policy training
15 7 54 F 2.42 3.67 1.60 Policymaker/ Health sector 36 >500 Higher education Writing and making policy 8 44 M 2.00 2.78 1.10 Policy advisor/ Public sector 19 201-500 Higher education Writing policy 9 50 F 2.83 3.78 1.40 HRM advisor/ Public sector 20 >500 University Personal skills 10 51 F 2.83 3.78 1.60 Senior administration/ Public sector 32 >500 Secondary school Time management
16 Results
By analyzing the interview results, it has been revealed what characteristics of formal training are experienced by employees as contributing to the integration between formal and informal learning and hence stimulate their critical reflective working behavior. Prior to this, it was needed to establish building blocks of critical reflective working behavior with the
participants. Therefore, in this section, first participants’ perspectives on employees’ formal and informal learning activities will be considered. Second, participants’ perspectives on integration between formal and informal learning will be described. By doing this, also participants’
perspectives on the role of formal training in critical reflective working behavior are presented. Third, corresponding with the goal of this study, formal drivers of critical reflective working behavior will be discussed. Furthermore, it is noteworthy to mention up front that a big difference in the depth to which interview questions were answered is noticed between participants (40%) who are used to think about concepts of learning because of their daily job (HR employees) and participants (60%) who are not (non-HR employees). Hence, in some relevant cases, the answers of both groups will be distinguished. For instance, this section will end with describing what HR-employees considered as a culture of learning at work.
Building blocks of critical reflective working behavior
When participants were asked about the activities they undertook in the light of their personal development as an employee at the start of the interview, more than half of the
participants (60%) first named learning activities which can be regarded as formal. Most of them mentioned educational programs, training courses, seminars, congresses, workshops, and
reference work or manuals that come with these training days, as beneficial for their own
professional development. After deliberation with their managers, they were stimulated and financially supported to follow formal training, mostly provided by an external training institute. Some of the participants also referred to training days and congresses, which were organized and given by the organization itself (e.g., their employers or colleagues) as instructive experiences for their professional development.
Following training can be mandatory or not. But either way, you decide, in consultation with your supervisor, what training you should do in order to improve certain capacities. On the one
17
hand, the training could be about soft skills: presenting, writing, communicating, etc. On the other hand, it could be about professional or work-related knowledge. (Participant 3)
In addition, participants were explicitly asked to define what formal learning means to them. Three characteristics of formal learning were reported the most. First, half of the
participants (50%) described formal learning as educational programs, training courses and workshops, which were financially supported by the organization of the employee, but mostly provided by an external educational institute. The second frequently mentioned characteristic of formal learning refers to the content of what was taught. Participants (40%) reported that formal learning was about theory. Participant 7 illustrated: ‘Formal learning is actually just the theory
that has been given’. Third, participants described that formal learning occurs in a classroom
(40%), a characteristic of formal learning that refers to the setting in which formal learning take place. Participant 2 illustrated: ‘When I think about formal learning, I think about the traditional
old classroom’. Only one of the participants mentioned that learning is formal when it can be
passed with an exam.
It is noteworthy that more than half of the participants named formal learning before they named informal learning as contributing to their own professional competence. Most of them nominated informal learning activities by themselves after they named formal learning activities. With some of the participants (30%), non-HR participants who are not confronted with ideas of learning in their daily job, it was necessary to explicitly ask about learning activities on a normal day at work, before they came up with informal learning activities that contributed to their personal development as an employee. Participants mentioned that they develop themselves as an employee by discussing with colleagues; being a part of a networking group; searching the
Internet; consulting news websites; reading daily notifications, internet forums or newsletters; trying new tasks related to new functions; making difficult phone calls; giving presentations; making work visits and by evaluating the workday or a work-related task on their own.
Next to formal learning, participants were also invited to define informal learning. Many of them (60%) found it hard to give a clear and explicit definition of informal learning. Instead they named several aforesaid work related activities, which they regarded as informal learning. For example, when participant 6 was asked to define informal learning, she answered: ‘For
18
I ask my colleagues for help’. In addition, participants (40%) referred to informal learning, as it
could be any work related activity. Participant 7 explained: ‘It is about the daily things you try
out and do’. Moreover, Participant 8 reported that as an employee you develop: ‘Just by doing your job’. Furthermore, some of the participants (30%) regarded informal learning as putting
formal learned theoretical ideas into practice. Moreover, participant 3 exemplified: ‘Informal
learning is about learning in practice and involves skills that are difficult to fulfill theoretically’.
Participant 7 illustrated: ‘During work, you discover how the theory works in practice’. Thus, in general, informal learning is mostly considered as practical activities at the workplace.
Notably, all of the participants (100%) mentioned discussing with colleagues as important to their own professional development. Sharing knowledge and experiences with colleagues, both with contacts inside and outside the organization, were believed as very important activities for the development of professional competence and dealing with work-related problems.
If I notice that I get stuck, I immediately seek help with my colleagues or supervisor. Then I ask: Can we put our heads together for a moment? And than, we talk about it for quarter, maybe half an hour. I think that is very pleasant to do. I mean, then I can go on again. (Participant 8)
Moreover, some participants ask their colleagues explicitly for feedback, others joined networking groups in their field of work. Also, peer review meetings and job evaluation meetings with seniors were named as valuable learning activities for dealing with dealing with new work tasks or problems.
With regard to the definitions of formal and informal learning, it is of interest to make a distinction between participants who are dealing with learning concepts because of their daily job and participants who are not. HR-employees added some characteristics of formal and informal learning that were not mentioned by any other participants. For example, two of the HR-employees emphasized that the goal of formal learning is learning: it is predetermined what and how to learn. Participant 9 explained: ‘Formal learning is learning with a pre-determined
goal. The learning is structured an organized by someone else, learning goals are formulated and learning is one of the main purposes’. In addition, the HR-employees, addressed that in
19 Participant 1 illustrated: ‘It happens spontaneously because you are curious about something’. Also, two of the HR-employees addressed that in informal learning the learner is responsible for his or hers own learning process. None of the other participants, the participants who are not confronted with theories about learning in their daily job, explicitly mentioned that learners are responsible for their own informal learning process, neither that in formal learning goals of learning are structured and predetermined.
Altogether, this paragraph described employees’ perspectives on learning activities. It showed what kind of formal and informal learning activities employees found beneficial to their professional development. Moreover, this paragraph also showed that non-HR employees are not fully used to think about their own learning process; they had a limited representation of formal and informal learning compared to HR employees. Now this has been established, it is possible to report how employees considered integration between formal and informal learning, while taking into account employees’ perspectives’ on formal and informal learning. In other words, it is important to understand how employees regard informal and formal learning in order to understand how (often) they engage in critical reflective working behavior.
Integration between formal and informal learning
The majority of the participants (70%) were convinced of the idea that employees learn both formally and informally at the same time. In other words, they were sure that integrations between formal and informal learning exist. Participant 10 explained that informal and formal learning reinforce each other, ‘if you follow a course, you are supposed to seek out more, you
know more, but you also have more questions during course’. Before participants were prompted
to think about integration between formal and informal learning as critical reflective working behavior, they were encouraged to think about it for themselves. Although participants (50%) had difficulty with thinking about concrete work related situations in which both formal and informal learning occur, participants gave descriptions of integrations between informal and formal learning, during the interviews. The majority of the participants (60%), all of them were non-HR employees, referred to integration between formal and informal learning as putting theory into practice. It is noteworthy that four of them also defined formal learning as learning about theory. Participants explained integration between formal and informal learning as follows:
20
Recently I have gotten a new function, for which I followed a course. And now, during my work, I am trying to apply what I have learnt. I am thinking about examples they gave me and adjust them to my own work situation. So yeah, I am putting theory into practice. (Participant 6)
I see that at training agencies they try to make a combination between informal and formal learning. They insert breaks in the learning program or stimulate you to follow courses in a certain order, so that you can apply and practice what you have learnt during breaks or in between courses. (Participant 8)
In these examples, a reflexive connection between formal and informal learning is absent. Moreover, it is about a one-way relationship or serial connection, going from formal learning activities towards informal learning activities and not vice versa. Formal training is supposed to trigger participants to put newly learned ideas and methods into their work practices. However, the formal training is not critically considered, based on work practices. In this sense, integration between formal and informal learning is rather limited.
Other examples that were given indicated a more parallel connection between formal and informal learning. Sometimes these examples were given without being aware of it. For instance, participants (70%) reported that they share knowledge and experiences with other course
members during a formal setup. Especially at congresses this happens very often. Participant 6 illustrated: ‘On an organized training day, it happens very often that you informally share your
work experiences with other course members, you certainly learn from each others’ examples’.
Participant 7 reported: ‘You bring your own experiences to the training, everyone does’. In this way, organized discussions are seen as a concrete example of integration between formal and informal learning because structured and organized formal training include several episodes of informal learning, moments in which you informally deliberate about your own experiences. Another example that is reported by 30% of the participants is that employees, during formal training, sometimes spontaneously learn different things than intended, for example by getting to know fellow students. Participant 4 gave a concrete example during the interview: ‘If you end up
in a group where no one takes the initiative, you may learn to be assertive, although that might not be the purpose of the training’. Also, a few participants (20%) reported that they constantly
21 are learning, both informally and formally at the same time, when they are confronted with a case at work and use both theoretical and practical knowledge to solve the case.
For me, it is not that black and white. You are combining <formal and informal learning> continuously. In every case I encounter in my work, I am asking myself: what do I know about this from my own experience? What did the training tell me about it? And then I am going to use best of both. (Participant 7)
Not for every participant a parallel connection between formal and informal learning was imaginable. This could be explained by the strong initial association of participants (30%), all non-HR, with regard to the location of informal and formal learning activities. Moreover, they associated both types of learning with different locations: what is learned at work is regarded as informal learning and what is learned at a professional learning institute or training day is regarded as formal learning. In other words, what is learned at one location is taken to the other, a serial connection. A participant explained:
I do not think that you learn both informally and formally at the same time because when I follow an external course, it is a blocked moment in time. I can’t be learning at work at the same time, I will only do that when I come back from the course. (Participant 8)
In addition, some other participants (30%) reported that it also not always possible to have a parallel connection between formal and informal learning because the formal training is structured and fixed and leaves no room for informal own initiatives. Participant 10 explained:
‘Mostly courses are so tightly structured that there is no time to discuss about your informal work experiences’.
Since not all participants were familiar with a parallel or reflexive integration between formal and informal learning, all participants were prompted to think about the integration between formal and informal learning as critical reflective working behavior and asked how formal training contributed to this. It is noteworthy that half of the participants (50%), of whom three were HR-employees, addressed the importance of reflection in integrating formal and
22 informal learning themselves. Participant 1 gave a concrete example of one of his work
situations in which formal and informal learning meet each other in the light of reflection.
I am constantly engaged in intervision. In my job, I am mostly working alone, individually, so I need to ask for feedback continuously. In order to get feedback, I arrange a formal meeting, in which we discuss our work practices and reflect on our own goals. What are you getting from this? And what am I getting from this? (Participant 1)
A majority of the participants (70%) reported that formal training helps employees to remain critical and objective towards their own work practices. For example, participant 2 explained that by following formal training ‘in an external location, we had time to reflect on
our work and organization as a whole, from a distance’. She added: ‘We had the opportunity to give each other feedback and we now know how to find each other, for what subjects’. Moreover,
she exemplified that in this way it was possible ‘to get to know your colleagues in a different and
better way’, which was seen as important for optimizing work practices and collaboration in a
team. Furthermore, it has been said by 40% of the participants during the interviews that formal training provides a solid theoretical foundation that confirms employees to rely on their own ability and that empowers them to suggest improvements or do things differently.
It was very helpful to notice that I immediately could use the theory, which I had learnt during course, in my work practices. I knew what to do and how we should do it. If I did not follow the course, I did not feel strong enough to say that we needed to change our current work practices (Participant 7)
In addition, challenging yourself and broadening your knowledge, are seen as an added value of formal training by 40% of the participants. Formal training resulted in new perspectives, which enables participants to critically look at their own work practices and gave participants the opportunity to try new things. In general, external contacts, for example people that participants met during a formal training, were most valuable for critical reflective working behavior.
Discussing and sharing knowledge with external contacts resulted in new ideas and perspectives to critically reflect on their own work practices. Participant 7 explained: ‘It is very helpful to
23
share your thoughts with someone with fellow course members from a different company (…). Then I look at my own organization, are we doing the same things as is done nationwide?’.
In sum, all of the participants (100%) considered integration between formal and
informal learning as valuable to the professional development of an employee. As this paragraph showed, participants described the role of formal training in critical reflective working behavior in different ways. In general, formal training helped them to reflect on their own work practices from a distance, resulted in new perspectives to deal with problems or tasks differently, made employees feel confident to suggest improvements, and gave employees the opportunity to experiment with new ideas. Next, it was explored what specific characteristics of formal training employees experienced as contributing to their critical reflective working behavior.
Formal drivers of critical reflective working behavior
Becoming aware of your own learning was seen as an initial first step towards stimulating critical reflective working behavior by a majority of the participants (80%). By becoming aware of your own method and by consciously applying what you have been learned, informal learning becomes more concrete and visible. Hence, it becomes clearer how your own work practices can be improved or optimized. In other words, participants are supposed to make informal learning more deliberative.
Integration is about awareness, awareness of your own work practices and methods. What am I doing? How am I doing this? How can I improve it? What is the best way to do this?
(Participant 5)
In this organization, I noticed that you need to announce the unstructured informal learning activities, otherwise people, my team, are intent to dive into the content. Off course, that is also learning, but sometimes you need to reflect on your practices (…). What do I learn from this? What do you learn from this? You need to do that consciously. (Participant 1)
In addition, participants emphasized the role of formal training in becoming aware of your own learning process. By structuring or guiding the informal learning process, employees become
24 aware of what they informally learn, which makes it easier to reflect on their own working behavior.
When thinking about integration, I think it is important to set goals. (…) By structuring the informal learning process, it becomes more formal and obliged. It sounds strict, but it makes it easier to evaluate whether the learning goals are achieved. (…) You need to become aware of the informal learning process, and that is only possible by formalizing the process. (…) Only then you can make use of what is learned informally. (Participant 2)
During the interviews, participants named several characteristics of formal training which helped them to become aware of their own learning process or working behavior, and
(eventually) enable them to critically reflect on their own working practices. Beside that these characteristics encourage awareness; they also ensure that what has been learned lasts, which was seen as another fundamental condition for critical reflection on their work practices by 50% of the participants. Basically, the formal characteristics or formal drivers of critical reflective working behavior can be reduced to the assignments and the didactic methods of the course, the role of the trainer and the environment in which the training takes place. Moreover, it is
noteworthy that most of the named characteristics call for an active attitude of the course member or employee during the course.
First, formal training could facilitate an active and critical attitude of employees by giving employees (practical) assignments in which they need to apply what has been learned. In this way, employees have the opportunity to experiment with new ideas and put them into practice. Participant’s preferred formal training that provided realistic practical assignments or that allowed employees to apply what has been learned during one of their own work situations (chosen by themselves) and provided feedback on these real-life work situations. Formal training is considered to be valuable for critical reflective working behavior of the employee when it is linked to the personal work experiences of course members by 90% of the interview participants.
Assignments are often more difficult than tasks you encounter in work practices. You are broadening and deepening your knowledge. Hence, you look at your work practices differently. (…) For example, once we had an assignment about calculating unemployment benefits. We
25
found out that everyone does it differently. So, we looked at it again and again, and found out what was the best way to do it. Without the assignment, we had not known. (Participant 10)
I recently took part in a training in communication skills. (…) We had to do an assignment after the training was finished. We were supposed to apply what we had learned in our own work and send it back for feedback. I really enjoyed that I received feedback on my own work practices because in this way I found out how I could revise my real-life work practices based on the theory. (Participant 8)
Second, didactic methods, in which interaction and discussions between course members are stimulated and organized, are seen as valuable for critical reflective working behavior. Employees need to be critically aware of their own work practices before they can voice themselves and share their thoughts with other course members in the classroom. In this way, participants learn from each other’s experiences and see how things can be done better or differently.
I found that course really instructive because the teacher invited all the course members to share their own practical experiences on a certain topic. Then you know: she does this and he does that. (…) If you know what your colleagues are doing, how they tackle a problem, you can apply that to your own work. (Participant 6)
Also, it has been said during the interviews that participants found it helpful, for their own critical reflective working behavior, to share their newly learned ideas with their colleagues at work. They should be informed about the new ideas before any (collective) changes or
improvements can be made. However, formal training and work practices do not give this opportunity very often.
The most beautiful thing is when you get the opportunity to share what you've learned, during the course, on the work floor. I always try to tell my colleagues what I have learned during course, but most of the time does not work. Everyone is just busy doing his or her job. It would be helpful if this was included in the course. (Participant 9)
26 Third, another way to stimulate employees to reflect on their working behavior is by asking critical questions. In this, the role of the trainer is seen as crucial by 90% of the participants. The trainer should be able to ask good and critical questions, which stimulate or trigger employees to reflect on their learning and work practices. Participant 5 described the role of the trainer as follows: ‘Trainers must let the course members think and do by asking them
critical questions. Trainers should not provide the answer right away but should let employees analyze the question or work-related problem’. The trainer should help employees to become
aware of their own learning process and take responsibility for it. Participant 9 added: ‘Trainers
should guide course members to become critically aware of their patterns of thought’. In order to
do this, the trainer must be familiar with the work practices of the course members. Participant 4 exemplified: ‘The trainer should at least know in what way the training could contribute to the
work practices of the individual course member, in order to ask the right questions. If the trainer does not, the training will not work’.
Fourth, 40% of the participants reported that the environment in which learning takes place should be arranged in such a way that employees feel safe to critically reflect on their own work practices, experiment with new ideas, and feel free to learn from mistakes. Since, at the work place, employees are often assessed on their performance, it is up to professional education institutes to create an environment in which employees feel safe to make mistakes and in which it is normal to criticize each other in order to learn from each other instead of compete with each other.
You were allowed to say anything you wanted, without feeling stupid. As a result, everyone was open to share their problems and problems could be tackled entirely. (…) It was a setting in which you were allowed to make mistakes, you learn a lot from mistakes, while at work you are mostly criticized on your mistakes. (Participant 7)
In addition, participant 1 addressed that although external trainers need to inform managers about the results of the training, they also have to give employees the opportunity to be open about their work experiences and treat their personal stories with respect and integrity.
Finally, not only the direct environment in which training takes place, but also the environment in which the acquainted knowledge must be applied, is considered to be important
27 for employees’ opportunities to show critical reflective working behavior. For example,
participant 9 explained that what has been learnt during course disappears or fades out because everyone at the workplace ‘is just busy doing his or her job’. Moreover, during the interviews, participants described that formal training is often not structured in such a way that the employee receives sufficient guidance in the process of making what was learned their own in practice. Participant 3 reported: ‘The translation to practice is often left entirely to the employee’. In order to make sure that what has been learned lasts, a majority of the participants (60%) suggested that formal trainers could remind or trigger (e.g., by email) course members on what was learned and asking questions about it, even a while after the course finished. ‘Return-days’ were seen as valuable because on these days participants got the opportunity to reflect on how the course did or did not change their work practices. In this latter case, regarding the (work) environment in which critical reflective working behavior could take place, non-HR employees already pointed out the importance of a, what HR employees called, a ‘culture of learning’ at work. This will be discussed in the next paragraph.
Culture of learning at work
When it comes to integrating formal and informal learning and stimulating critical reflective working behavior, the results showed a difference in the depth of understanding integration between formal and informal learning between HR-employees and participants who are not dealing with learning concepts because of their daily job. Participants, who are not
thinking about learning because of their daily job, most of the time referred to separate aspects of the training that were or were not contributing to integrating formal and informal learning, while HR employees addressed that for integrating formal and informal learning a change in the culture of learning is needed. Although the suggestions from the non-HR employees may have indicated that a cultural change is needed, none of them explicitly expressed it, while HR-employees did.
You need to create a culture, in which you constantly want to improve. For example, at the same time you are doing your job, you are evaluating it. (…) It should be normal to organize activities, such as peer review meetings, in which people consciously reflect on their work practices. (…) The more you do this consciously and structured, the more it becomes a normal routine. (Participant 1)
28 In order to achieve a culture in which learning has a central role, HR employees
considered a close relationship between the formal trainer or educational institute, the organization of the employee and employees themselves as essential. The trainer should be familiar with the (culture of the) organization. Also, the formal training and work circumstances of the employee should be adjusted to each other. This means, for example, that the learning goals of the training should be matched with the goals of the organization and that the formal learning activities are incorporated into daily work practices of employees. In this way, it becomes possible to develop and demonstrate critical reflective working behavior in the organization.
It is important to involve the managers of course members in the learning process, so that the trainer knows what kind of project the course member is doing. In this way, you can find out what would be valuable to learn for both the course member and the organization.
(Participant 2)
When training does not fit in with the development goals of the individual or the organization as a whole, and it is not in compliance with the manager, integration is not possible. (…) A close relationship between an external training institute and the organization could ensure continuous learning. (…) The trainer is familiar with the organization and knows what different functions comprise. As a result, the trainer is able to make well-considered choices for the next step in the development of professionals, which is in extension to what already has been learnt and what is needed for the success of the organization. (Participant 4)
Although the importance of a close relationship might seem to be obvious, several
statements that came across during the interviews show that cooperation between formal trainers, employees and their organization is absent. For example, participant 9 explained: ‘In our
organization, it is very traditional: your supervisor decides whether you need training or not’. In
addition, participant 4 stated: ‘It happens very often that employees come back from a course and
there is no room for them to try new things. Instead their colleagues are asking sarcastically: Have you been to a course? Welcome back to normal’. As a result, participants did not get the
29 reported that the way his organization is structured does not allow employees to reflect and learn:
‘Every department is busy achieving their targets’.
Since a cultural change, in which learning and improving takes a central place in the organization, does not arise by itself, an important and guiding role is reserved for professional educational training institutes. Participant 1 explained: ‘You need to make sure that an
organization knows what learning is about and which forms it involves. (…) You need to convince managers that they should invest in reflecting because that is where learning starts’.
Furthermore, HR employees addressed that it should be natural for formal training to incorporate mechanisms, such as ‘train the trainer’, that enables trainers to educate potential instructors at the work place to deliver the learning material to others in their organization. In this way, it is ensured that what has been learnt can be continued in the organization, even after the training is finished.
Finally, HR employees reported that in this culture of learning it is very important that employees are responsible for their own learning. By giving employees an active role in
formulating their own learning goals and assignments in a formal setting, they could eventually make a constant active and critical learning attitude their own. In other words, when participants are used to think and reflect about their own learning process, they automatically demonstrate critical reflective working behavior.
Our corporate culture is top-down. However, what the employee wants or needs should be the starting point. They should not follow training because it is part of the job. They should choose for a certain course because that enables them to do their work better and with more fun. That is a totally different motivation. (…) For trainers, it is important to help employees to become aware of their responsibility of their own learning process. You could ask them: What do you want to learn? What will make you better in your field of work? (Participant 1)
In other words, it is seen as important not to impose employees, in a top-down way, to follow formal training, but enable them to consider their options and make choices for training on their own. By helping employees to reflect on their work practices, they critically choose for formal training, which is tailored to and aligned with their individual interest and professional needs. In this sense, not only the employee but also the organization will benefit.
30 Discussion
Due to the rapid changes in society, learning has gained critical importance for individual employee development and organizational success. In the ongoing development of employees the inter-relatedness between formal and informal learning is stressed (Jacobs & Park, 2009; Slotte et al., 2004; Svensson et al., 2004). It is acknowledged that both types of learning are complementary in terms of learning goals and essential for professional development. Therefore, it is crucial to identify and understand how formal and informal learning are, or should be
integrated in the professional development of employees. In this study the concept of critical reflective working behavior (Van Woerkom et al., 2002) is used as theoretical conceptualization of integrating formal and informal learning, because it is supposed that informal and formal learning meet each other in the light of critical reflection. For instance, integration involves the support of informal learning at work via formal training, which eventually leads to reflective practices. Moreover, in this study it has been explored what characteristics of formal training are experienced by employees as contributing to the integration between formal and informal
learning and hence stimulate their critical reflective working behavior.
First of all, the study identified how employees experienced integration between formal and informal learning. Although participants had some difficulty, they provided examples of reflexive and parallel integrations, on both sides of the informal-formal continuum. For example, formal settings (e.g., congresses or training courses), which included informal episodes,
moments in which employees (were invited to) share their own experiences or accidently learn different things than intended, were considered as integration. Engaging in intervision (peer review meetings) and solving work cases, in which employees both used (acquainted knowledge from) formal and informal learning activities, were named as other experienced examples of integration between formal and informal learning. These findings are in line with Colley et al. (2003), who argued that all learning situations contain both formal and informal learning
attributes. Notwithstanding, participants also regularly described integration between formal and informal learning as putting theory into practice; examples of a one-way relationship in which reflexive or parallel connection between formal and informal learning is supposed to be absent.
In relation to how formal and informal learning should be integrated, formal training was considered as very important for expressing critical reflective working behavior. Employees addressed that due to formal training they were able to critically reflect on their work practices
31 (from a distance) because they had learnt new perspectives to handle work related tasks or
problems, they had gotten the opportunity to experiment with new ideas or methods and had become more confident to suggest improvements. These findings support the assumptions and arguments in theoretical papers about the complementary role of both informal and formal learning in the professional development of employees (Jacobs & Park, 2009; Slotte et al., 2004; Svensson et al., 2004; Tynjäla, 2008). Moreover, in contrast to what is often done, it confirms the idea that informal and formal learning should not be seen as two separate entities and should not be discussed in contrast with each other.
In relation to how critical reflective working behavior should be stimulated, becoming aware of your own (informal) learning process was seen as an initial first step towards critical reflection. In terms of Eraut (2000), participants suggested to make the informal learning more deliberate, so that employees actively needed to reflect on their (work) practices and transfer their acquainted knowledge. In this, formal training could play a facilitating role. Also in the study of Høyrup (2004), it has been stressed that support for reflection is essential. For example, practical assignments were a characteristic of formal training that was believed to contribute to integration between formal and informal learning and hence stimulate participation in critical reflective working behavior activities. Practical assignments gave employees the opportunity to experiment with new ideas and put these ideas into (their own work) practice. One way to explain this result is that previous studies found that challenging tasks had a positive impact on employees’ participation in informal learning activities (Ellström, 2001; Jeon & Kim, 2012). Practical assignments could be experienced as challenging tasks and hence stimulate critical reflective working behavior. According to Nieuwenhuis and Van Woerkom (2007), this type of learning can be referred to as the transformative goal rationality. In other words, practical assignments call for double-loop learning, in which employees should incorporate acquainted information into their own work practices and changes their routines and habits.
Other characteristics of formal training that were experienced as contributing to employees’ critical reflective working behavior were related to the didactic methods of the course and the role of the trainer. More precisely, it involved interactive didactic methods that call for an active attitude of employees and that stimulate discussing with other course members. By voicing themselves and sharing their thoughts with others, employees first needed to reflect on their own work practices. After discussing, employees became familiar with new
32 perspectives, which helped them to look at their own work practices in a different way.
Moreover, by asking critical questions, the trainer could guide employees to think and reflect on their own work practices. Hence, a coaching and guiding role of the trainer was seen as very important by almost all of the participants. These findings are in line with Billett (2002b), who argued that employees need to be guided in order to realize the full potential of their socially embedded learning at the workplace. Furthermore, follow-up meetings, in which employees could receive feedback on their assignments or could reflect on or share their experiences after the training was finished, were also seen as contributing didactic methods. Besides follow-up meetings, feedback in general was not often explicitly mentioned as formal driver to critical reflective behavior during the interviews. This is in contrast to previous research, which addressed the impact of feedback in learning at the workplace (Ellström, 2001). A possible explanation for why feedback is not found to be a formal driver of critical reflective working behavior in this study is that it is debatable whether giving or receiving feedback is a formal or informal way of learning. In other words, giving and receiving feedback differ in the extent to which it is structured and planned.
Next, a safe environment was found to be another feature of formal training that could contribute to employees’ critical reflective working behavior. Participants reported that in a safe learning environment they felt safe to make mistakes, try new things, and be critically and open about their own work practices. This result is in line with the study by Schürmann and Beausaert (2016), which also found that employees needed ‘psychological safety’ in order to have a sound reflection during informal learning activities. Moreover, the study of Van Woerkom and
Nieuwenhuis (2002) it has been described that expressing critical reflective working behavior depends on self-efficacy, employees’ beliefs in their own capabilities; if employees have high self-efficacy, they have the courage to critically reflect on their work practices. In line with this, the results of this study suggested that a safe formal learning environment could strengthen employees’ beliefs in their own capabilities. In addition to previous studies, the results of this study showed that formal training could play a facilitating role in encouraging employees to feel safe and confident about their capabilities to critically reflect on their work places.
With regard to the understanding of (stimulating) integration between formal and informal learning, the findings of this study showed a big difference in the depth of
