Jump to content

Talk:Informal learning

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request for adding two frequently cited references

[edit]

Hello everyone,

I would like to request a review regarding two references I believe would improve the article by citing recognized and frequently cited literature on informal learning. Specifically:

1. **Tannenbaum & Wolfson (2022)** – a relevant and frequently cited review on informal learning. 

  - Google Scholar link: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=de&user=JEa3A0oAAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=JEa3A0oAAAAJ:tS2w5q8j5-wC

2. **Decius, Schaper & Seifert (2019)** – a conceptual model of informal learning (“octagon model”), which is also frequently cited. 

  - Google Scholar link: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=de&user=MyHKcHEAAAAJ&citation_for_view=MyHKcHEAAAAJ:UeHWp8X0CEIC

Because I am affiliated with an institution associated with one of these authors, I want to disclose a potential conflict of interest. I’m asking for a volunteer to review these sources and confirm whether it’s appropriate to add them and appropriate descriptions to the article. Both publications are widely referenced in the field, and I believe their inclusion would offer helpful context on informal learning concepts.

Thank you very much for your assistance, and I look forward to any feedback or guidance you can provide! Juan-Lédé (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Where? PK650 (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest presenting the two models (CAM-OS Model and Octagon Model) in the “Characterizations” section. Is that what your question was aimed at? Juan-Lédé (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Specifically, I suggest these additions:
==The Octagon Model of informal learning==
According to the Octagon Model of informal learning by Decius, Schaper, and Seifert from 2019, informal learning comprises eight components.[1]The octagon model is based on the dynamic model of informal learning by Tannenbaum et al. from 2010 [2] The dynamic model contains the four factors "experience/action", "feedback", "reflection", and "learning intention". According to the model, each factor can trigger another factor and thus precede it, but can also follow any other factor. Accordingly, the model does not contain a fixed starting or ending point, which is intended to illustrate the dynamic nature of learning. The learner may go through each factor in the informal learning process one or more times. However, the learning process is considered most efficient when all four factors are involved in it.
The octagon model extends the dynamic model by dividing the four factors into two components each.[1] This allows the components of informal learning to be described more precisely. The factor "experience/action" from the dynamic model is divided into "trying and applying own ideas" (i.e., trial and error) and "model learning" (i.e., observing and adopting successful behaviors of other persons) in the octagon model. The factor "feedback" includes the components "direct feedback" (i.e., obtaining feedback on one's own behavior) and "vicarious feedback" (i.e., exchanging experiences with other people on success-critical work and life situations). The "reflection" factor includes the components "anticipatory reflection" (i.e., planning task steps while considering possible obstacles) and "subsequent reflection" (i.e., thinking about ways to improve after completing a work task). The factor "learning intention" consists of the components "Intrinsic intent to learn" (i.e., learning for the pleasure of the learning process) as well as "Extrinsic intent to learn" (i.e., learning due to external incentives such as praise from other people or—in the work context—the prospect of positive career development).
==The CAM-OS Model of informal field-based learning==
The CAM-OS framework, proposed by Tannenbaum and Wolfson in 2022, offers an organizing model for understanding and promoting informal field-based learning (IFBL) in the workplace.[3]IFBL refers to intentional, self-directed learning activities conducted outside formal training programs, focusing on work-relevant and organizationally valued content. The CAM-OS model identifies five readiness factors—Capability, Awareness, Motivation, Opportunity, and Support—that influence whether and how employees engage in productive IFBL behaviors.[3]
The CAM-OS model is structured around both personal and situational readiness. Personal readiness comprises Capability (having the skills to benefit from learning opportunities), Awareness (recognizing when and how to learn informally), and Motivation (willingness to exert effort in learning). Situational readiness involves Opportunity (access to learning-rich environments with adequate time and flexibility) and Support (encouragement from peers, managers, and organizational practices). According to the model, when employees are both personally and situationally ready, they are more likely to engage in three core IFBL behaviors: seeking feedback and reflecting on experiences, learning vicariously through others, and experimenting with new tasks or approaches. These behaviors are associated with a variety of positive outcomes, including enhanced job satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, performance improvement, and career advancement. However, not all IFBL is beneficial; the model also warns of potentially detrimental learning efforts when risks are high or support is lacking. Juan-Lédé (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Juan-Lédé, I'm good with adding in the source, but I wonder if the sections you suggested might be condensed into a couple sentences each, to not pull weight away from the rest of the article? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: Large sections of the requested text are unsourced, if the existing refs support the rest of the content I'd suggest adding a citation to it. I also agree with Likeanechointheforest's suggestion. Encoded  Talk 💬 15:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments! I have condensed the additions as suggested. I have also included the references in several places so that it should now be clear that they refer to larger sections of the text:
==The Octagon Model of Informal Learning ==
According to the Octagon Model of Informal Learning by Decius, Schaper, and Seifert from 2019[1], informal learning comprises eight components: "trying and applying own ideas", "model learning", "direct feedback", "vicarious feedback", "anticipatory reflection", "subsequent reflection", "intrinsic intent to learn", and "extrinsic intent to learn"[1].
The Octagon Model extends the Dynamic Model of Informal Learning by Tannenbaum et al. from 2010[2]. According to the Dynamic Model, the learner may go through each factor in the informal learning process one or more times, which illustrates its dynamic nature. However, the authors argue that the learning process is most effective when intention, personal experience, feedback, and reflection interact[2].
==The CAM-OS Framework of Informal Field-Based Learning==
The CAM-OS framework, proposed by Tannenbaum and Wolfson in 2022, offers an organizing model for understanding and promoting informal field-based learning (IFBL) in the workplace[3]. IFBL refers to intentional, self-directed learning activities conducted outside formal training programs, focusing on work-relevant and organizationally valued content. The CAM-OS model identifies five readiness factors—Capability, Awareness, Motivation, Opportunity, and Support—that influence whether and how employees engage in productive IFBL behaviors.
According to the framework, when employees are both personally and situationally ready, they are more likely to engage in three core IFBL behaviors associated with a variety of positive outcomes: seeking feedback and reflecting on experiences, learning vicariously through others, and experimenting with new tasks or approaches. However, not all IFBL is beneficial; the framework also warns of potentially detrimental learning efforts when risks are high or support is lacking[3]. Juan-Lédé (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Decius, Julian; Schaper, Niclas; Seifert, Andreas (2019). "Informal workplace learning: Development and validation of a measure". Human Resource Development Quarterly. 30 (4). Wiley: 495–535. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21368. ISSN 1044-8004. S2CID 201376378.
  2. ^ a b c Tannenbaum, Scott I.; Beard, Rebecca L.; McNall, Laurel A.; Salas, Eduardo (2009). "Informal Learning and Development in Organizations". In Kozlowski, Steve W. J.; Salas, Eduardo (eds.). Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations (1st ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 303–332. ISBN 9780203878385.
  3. ^ a b c d Tannenbaum, Scott I.; Wolfson, Mikhail A. (2022). "Informal (Field-Based) Learning". Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 9 (1): 391–414. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-083050.

COI edit request: Add CAM-OS & Octagon model

[edit]
  • Proposed change (Characterizations section):
Summarizing two widely cited models of informal learning.
  • Rationale: Adds brief, well-sourced summaries of two frequently cited frameworks without giving them undue weight; aligns with prior reviewer feedback to keep it concise.

The Octagon Model of Informal Learning

[edit]

According to the Octagon Model of Informal Learning by Decius, Schaper, and Seifert from 2019[1], informal learning comprises eight components: "trying and applying own ideas", "model learning", "direct feedback", "vicarious feedback", "anticipatory reflection", "subsequent reflection", "intrinsic intent to learn", and "extrinsic intent to learn"[1]. The Octagon Model extends the Dynamic Model of Informal Learning by Tannenbaum et al. from 2010[2]. According to the Dynamic Model, the learner may go through each factor in the informal learning process one or more times, which illustrates its dynamic nature. However, the authors argue that the learning process is most effective when intention, personal experience, feedback, and reflection interact[2].

The CAM-OS Framework of Informal Field-Based Learning

[edit]

The CAM-OS framework, proposed by Tannenbaum and Wolfson in 2022, offers an organizing model for understanding and promoting informal field-based learning (IFBL) in the workplace[3]. IFBL refers to intentional, self-directed learning activities conducted outside formal training programs, focusing on work-relevant and organizationally valued content. The CAM-OS model identifies five readiness factors—Capability, Awareness, Motivation, Opportunity, and Support—that influence whether and how employees engage in productive IFBL behaviors. According to the framework, when employees are both personally and situationally ready, they are more likely to engage in three core IFBL behaviors associated with a variety of positive outcomes: seeking feedback and reflecting on experiences, learning vicariously through others, and experimenting with new tasks or approaches. However, not all IFBL is beneficial; the framework also warns of potentially detrimental learning efforts when risks are high or support is lacking[3].

Juan-Lédé (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b Decius, Julian; Schaper, Niclas; Seifert, Andreas (2019). "Informal workplace learning: Development and validation of a measure". Human Resource Development Quarterly. 30 (4). Wiley: 495–535. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21368. ISSN 1044-8004. S2CID 201376378.
  2. ^ a b Tannenbaum, Scott I.; Beard, Rebecca L.; McNall, Laurel A.; Salas, Eduardo (2010). "Informal Learning and Development in Organizations". In Kozlowski, Steve W. J.; Salas, Eduardo (eds.). Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations (1st ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 303–332. ISBN 9780203878385.
  3. ^ a b Tannenbaum, Scott I.; Wolfson, Mikhail A. (2022). "Informal (Field-Based) Learning". Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 9 (1): 391–414. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-083050.

Juan-Lédé (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We typically do not write about proposals like this with only primary sourcing. Are there any secondary sources with independent authorship that write about these? MrOllie (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: Per MrOllie. These might be "well-cited", but the sources currently are primary; can take another look if secondary source coverage is found. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COI edit request: Addressing secondary-source concern

[edit]

cc: MrOllie, GoldRomean — thank you for the earlier feedback about reliance on primary sources. I’ve revised the draft below to add independently authored, peer-reviewed secondary sources and kept the summaries concise.
  • Rationale. This addresses the prior concern about primary-only sourcing by adding independently authored, peer-reviewed secondary sources (Kittel & Seufert 2023; Mitschelen & Kauffeld 2025; Amenduni et al. 2022 for the Octagon Model; Mühlenbrock et al. 2023; Webber 2023 for CAM-OS).

The Octagon Model of Informal Learning

[edit]

According to the Octagon Model of Informal Learning by Decius, Schaper, and Seifert from 2019[1], informal learning comprises eight components: "trying and applying own ideas" (also described as “experimentation”[2]), "model learning", "direct feedback", "vicarious feedback", "anticipatory reflection", "subsequent reflection", "intrinsic intent to learn", and "extrinsic intent to learn"[3]. The model also received substantial empirical support in independent research[4]. The Octagon Model extends the Dynamic Model of Informal Learning by Tannenbaum et al. from 2010[5]. According to the Dynamic Model, the learner may go through each factor in the informal learning process one or more times, which illustrates its dynamic nature. However, the authors argue that the learning process is most effective when intention, personal experience, feedback, and reflection interact[5].

The CAM-OS Framework of Informal Field-Based Learning

[edit]

The CAM-OS framework, proposed by Tannenbaum and Wolfson in 2022, offers an organizing model for understanding and promoting informal field-based learning (IFBL) in the workplace[6]. IFBL refers to intentional, self-directed learning activities conducted outside formal training programs, focusing on work-relevant and organizationally valued content. The CAM-OS model identifies five readiness factors—Capability, Awareness, Motivation, Opportunity, and Support—that influence whether and how employees engage in productive IFBL behaviors. Scholars emphasized that CAM-OS extends behavior-focused views of informal workplace learning by explicitly linking these behaviors to personal and situational readiness conditions that enable IFBL [7]. The framework has also been applied in practice—for example, to structure librarians’ informal learning in library guide design [8]. According to the framework, when employees are both personally and situationally ready, they are more likely to engage in three core IFBL behaviors associated with a variety of positive outcomes: seeking feedback and reflecting on experiences, learning vicariously through others, and experimenting with new tasks or approaches. However, not all IFBL is beneficial; the framework also warns of potentially detrimental learning efforts when risks are high or support is lacking[6].

  1. ^ Decius, Julian; Schaper, Niclas; Seifert, Andreas (2019). "Informal workplace learning: Development and validation of a measure". Human Resource Development Quarterly. 30 (4). Wiley: 495–535. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21368. ISSN 1044-8004. S2CID 201376378.
  2. ^ Mitschelen, Annabell; Kauffeld, Simone (2025). "Workplace learning during organizational onboarding: integrating formal, informal, and self-regulated workplace learning". Frontiers in Organizational Psychology. 3: Article 1569098. doi:10.3389/forgp.2025.1569098.
  3. ^ Kittel, Anne Frieda Doris; Seufert, Tina (2023). "It's all metacognitive: The relationship between informal learning and self-regulated learning in the workplace". PLOS ONE. 18 (5): e0286065. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286065. PMID 37220103.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
  4. ^ Amenduni, Francesca; Ryymin, Essi; Maetoloa, Katja; Cattaneo, Alberto (2022). "Facing Disruptive Changes With Informal Workplace Learning Strategies: The Experience of European Companies". Frontiers in Psychology. 13: 889850. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.889850.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
  5. ^ a b Tannenbaum, Scott I.; Beard, Rebecca L.; McNall, Laurel A.; Salas, Eduardo (2010). "Informal Learning and Development in Organizations". In Kozlowski, Steve W. J.; Salas, Eduardo (eds.). Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations (1st ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 303–332. ISBN 9780203878385.
  6. ^ a b Tannenbaum, Scott I.; Wolfson, Mikhail A. (2022). "Informal (Field-Based) Learning". Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 9 (1): 391–414. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-083050.
  7. ^ Mühlenbrock, Inga; Richter, Götz; Ellerkamp, Amelie; Wöhrmann, Anne Marit (2023). "How does telework modify informal workplace learning and how can supervisors provide support?". Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie. 54: 311–321. doi:10.1007/s11612-023-00692-7.
  8. ^ Webber, Nicole R. (2023). "Informal Field-Based Learning in Librarianship: A Case Study Applying the CAM-OS Framework to Library Guide Construction". Journal of New Librarianship. 8 (2): 181–197. doi:10.33011/newlibs/14/16.

Juan-Lédé (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Informal_learning&oldid=1317779109"