Schei & Nerbø (2015) PDF

The Invisible Learning Ceiling:
Informal Learning Among

Preschool Teachers and Assistants
in a Norwegian Kindergarten
Vidar Schei, Ida Nerbø
Individuals and society invest ever-increasing resources in formal

educational programs. However, informal workplace learning may
be an effective alternative source for enhancing competencies, but,
unfortunately, our knowledge about informal learning is still limited. We
extend the research on informal learning to the unexplored occupational
group of kindergarten employees. Our research questions pertain to
identifying activities that lead to informal learning, to conditions that
promote or prevent such learning, and to differences between two groups
of employees (preschool teachers and assistants). We used a qualitative
case-study approach and conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews in
a Norwegian kindergarten. The data indicated that the participants were
involved in a variety of learning activities. However, preschool teachers
and assistants differed regarding the conditions for informal learning,
with assistants perceiving greater barriers to learning in the workplace.
We argue that the assistants are easily trapped in situations in which
further learning is difficult, and, paradoxically, those employees with the
lowest formal education also seem to be disfavored with regard to informal
learning. Clever organization of the work and careful leadership might be
key actions to break through this invisible learning ceiling.
Key Words: informal learning, workplace learning, learning activities,

barriers to learning, educational level, kindergarten, preschool teachers
and assistants
The need for knowledge seems to be constantly increasing, with individuals,

organizations, and society investing enormous resources in educational pro-
grams. Even so, this kind of formal learning is only one source of developing
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 26, no. 3, Fall 2015 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21213 299
300 Schei, Nerbø
competency, as employees also learn during the execution of work. Such

informal workplace learning may take place, for example, through discus-
sions with colleagues, by experimenting with new methods, or during the
observation of others (e.g., Hoekstra, Korthagen, Brekelmans, Beijaard, &
Imants, 2009; Koopmans, Doornbos, & van Eekelen, 2006; Lohman, 2005).
Interestingly, research has estimated that as much as 80% of what employees
learn actually stems from informal workplace learning (Marsick & Watkins,
1990) and that many of the most critical skills are obtained through such
learning (Cameron & Harrison, 2012; Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999; Eraut,
1994; Leslie, Aring, & Brand, 1998). Informal learning is also far less expen-
sive than formal training (Boud & Garrick, 1999; Lohman, 2005).
However, despite the prevalence and the potential importance of infor-
mal learning, our understanding of how it occurs and what influences such
learning is still limited (Ellinger, 2005; Koopmans et al., 2006). The inten-
tion of the present study is to extend the research on informal learning to
the unexplored occupational group of kindergarten employees. Examining
informal learning among kindergarten employees is particularly interesting for
several reasons. First, despite being a large and important occupational group
in Norway—about 3.6% of all employees work in a kindergarten (Statistics
Norway, 2014)—the research on human resource development (HRD) seems
very limited in these types of organizations. Several studies have addressed
informal learning among teachers in ordinary schools (e.g., Hoekstra et al.,
2009; Koopmans et al., 2006; Lohman, 2005; Lohman & Woolf, 2001), but
it is unclear how these findings apply to kindergartens. Furthermore, kin-
dergarten employees consist of two about equally sized groups of employees
working closely together: preschool teachers (high education) and assistants
(low education), and the extensive use of assistants has been highly debated
because of their lack of formal education (Aasen, 2009). Possibly, informal
learning in the workplace may be the assistants’ best chance for developing
their competencies (cf. Sanders, Oomens, Blonk, & Hazelzet, 2011).
The current study contributes to the literature on informal learning by
addressing several calls for research. First, as informal learning is inherently
contextual (Eraut, 2004; Hager, 1998), previous research has called for stud-
ies using employees representing other occupations (Koopmans et al., 2006)
and for “future research on informal learning that explores different organiza-
tional settings” (Ellinger, 2005, p. 412). We address this by examining infor-
mal learning in a Norwegian kindergarten. Second, Ashton (2004) argued
strongly for the need to address different groups of workers within the same
organization so that the role of the organizational conditions does not fade
away. This article addresses this by exploring both preschool teachers and
assistants. Third, research on informal learning among low-educated employ-
ees has been limited, and Kyndt, Govaerts, Keunen, and Dochy (2013) explic-
itly called for research “on the informal learning of low-qualified employees
and how this informal learning can be stimulated within this specific group
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

The Invisible Learning Ceiling 301
of employees” (p. 192). We address this by studying assistants, who are low
educated (primary or secondary school) in a Norwegian context and com-
pared to preschool teachers (bachelor degree). Finally, previous research has
pointed out the need for informal learning on small firms (Rowden, 2002), as
most small firms have to rely almost completely on informal learning (Conlon,
2004) and such learning thus becomes a primary tool for developing human
resources (Hill & Stewart, 2000). The article addresses this by examining a
kindergarten with 21 employees.
Thus, the purpose of the present research is to enhance our understand-
ing of informal learning in the context described above. The study is guided
by three general research questions:
RQ1. Which activities lead to informal learning at the workplace?
RQ2. Which contextual factors promote or inhibit such learning?
RQ3. How are these activities and influencers different across groups of
employees?
We next discuss the concept of informal learning and how the current
literature can inform the study of our research questions.
Informal Learning
The term learning is one that is frequently used, both in everyday speech and
in various research traditions. In this article, the concept of learning is seen
as any process that in living organisms leads to a permanent change in capac-
ity and is not due to forgetfulness, biological maturation, or aging (Illeris,
2007). Learning can be categorized as formal or informal. Formal learning
is typically described as structured, sponsored by institutions, and having an
instructor planning and evaluating the learning that occurs (Conlon, 2004).
Informal learning, on the other hand, is learning that lacks systematic sup-
port explicitly organized to foster learning (Hoekstra et al., 2009). Informal
learning takes place in everyday situations, includes the acquisition and use
of skills and knowledge (Leslie et al., 1998), and is seen as more exploratory,
random, and accidental than formal learning (Conlon, 2004). The focus of
this article is informal learning in the workplace. Hence, our interest is learn-
ing that occurs through work activities rather than through formal on-the-job
training (Callanan, Cervantes, & Loomis, 2011; Hager, 1998; Jacobs & Park,
2009; McNally, Blake, & Reid, 2009).
The theoretical roots of the field of informal learning go back to the
beginning of the 1900s, although research began in earnest in the 1980s,
when informal and community-based settings were seen as legitimate sources
and places for learning (Conlon, 2004). The idea that learning not only occurs

302 Schei, Nerbø
in formal settings but can also happen informally during the execution of
work can be found in different traditions. For example, within the anthropo-
logical tradition, the concept of “legitimate peripheral participation” was pro-
posed by Lave and Wenger in 1991 and refers to individuals learning through
social practice and gradual inclusion in the practice community. From this
perspective, the focus is on the social arena for learning—learning from expe-
rienced colleagues and masters.
The theoretical framework of the present study derives from a more
recent conceptualization of informal learning: Marsick and Watkins’s (1997)
model of informal and incidental learning. The model is akin to a problem-
solving process in which an event triggers the need to solve a problem and
to understand the situation. The process is a continuous interaction between
the individual and the environment, where the individual’s framing of the
context is challenged by the trigger and the individual tries to interpret the
situation, develop alternative solutions and learning strategies, assess the con-
sequences, and evaluate the lessons learned. Empirical tests have largely sup-
ported the model yet shown that context is a key influence in the process.
Later reconceptualizations of the model (e.g., Marsick, Watkins, Callahan, &
Volpe, 2009) therefore explicitly emphasize the importance of context in every
part of the model. The current study thus adds to the understanding of this
model by exploring informal workplace learning in a new context (i.e., a kin-
dergarten in Norway).
The focus of our study is on informal learning activities and conditions
that affect such learning and how these activities and conditions may vary
across groups of employees. Certainly, informal learning may be achieved
through numerous activities at the workplace, and the number of work con-
text factors that may affect informal learning are almost infinite. However,
previous research on informal learning may help us to identify central aspects
that are likely to be informative for our research questions. The following
chapters on learning activities and contextual factors thus review the most
salient aspects found in past research, emphasizing findings from studies hav-
ing contexts similar to ours.
Learning Activities
Informal learning among teachers in a school context may be the context
studied that—although different—comes closest to that of our study. Hoekstra
et al. (2009) summarized the research on the informal learning of teachers
into four major categories of learning activities: (1) learning by experimenta-
tion, (2) learning by considering one’s own teaching practice, (3) learning by
getting ideas from others, and (4) learning by doing. For example, teachers
may learn by knowledge exchange in which they share and reflect on others’
practice and experiences or by active experimentation with new ideas and
techniques (Lohman & Woolf, 2001). In general, the main types of informal
learning activities seem to be reflecting on previous knowledge and actions

and talking with colleagues (Berg & Chyung, 2008). However, Gerber (1998)
studied how people in different professions learned at work and concluded
that different groups learn in different ways and that how we learn depends on
the circumstances of the learning situation. Thus, there is a need for a deeper
understanding of what activities employees learn from and what activities pro-
vide learning for specific occupations.
Lohman (2005) compared informal learning between two occupational
groups: teachers and employees in HRD. The results showed that both occu-
pational groups took part in eight informal learning activities: talking with
others, collaborating with others, observing others, sharing materials and
resources, searching the Internet, scanning magazines and journals, trial and
error, and reflecting on actions. Teachers reported that, in particular, they
collaborated with others, shared resources and materials with others, tried
and failed, and reflected. Furthermore, teachers were engaged in interactive
learning activities to a larger degree than HRD professionals, indicating that
different professional groups may have some learning activities in common,
while others may be more typical for one group than for another.
Adding to this, Koopmans et al. (2006) examined the types of interac-
tive learning activities that generate workplace learning for three occupational
groups in the Netherlands—teachers, financial advisors, and police officers—
and found five primary categories of interactive learning activities: learning
during the execution of regular work, learning through unusual work, learn-
ing when searching for information, learning by exchanging information (e.g.,
discussions), and learning by thinking of experiences (e.g., reflections). The
category in which the teachers were best represented was learning by con-
sidering the experiences of the job (cf. Berg & Chyung, 2008), which was
followed by searching for information, whereas learning during executing the
regular job and through doing more unusual things was less common among
teachers. Interestingly, unlike both financial advisors and police officers,
teachers were not found to learn from people higher up in the hierarchy than
themselves. Teachers reported more horizontal learning than the other two
groups, probably because of a flatter hierarchy. This points to the importance
of understanding context and brings us to our discussion on factors promot-
ing and inhibiting informal learning.
Factors Promoting or Inhibiting Informal Learning
Two major classes of factors that may facilitate or hinder informal learning
are the characteristics of the learner and the characteristics of the workplace
context (e.g., Choi & Jacobs, 2011). Our focus is on workplace conditions
rather than personality characteristics (Lohman, 2006), as these factors, from
an HRD perspective, may be easier to promote or prevent to stimulate infor-
mal learning (Marsick, 2009).
According to Kyndt et al. (2013), a fundamental element within the
work context is the philosophy of the organization. A philosophy or culture

304 Schei, Nerbø
supporting personal and work-related development will greatly facilitate

employees’ motivation to become involved in informal learning activities.
Furthermore, the organization’s policy must support innovation and allow
people to make errors (Kyndt et al., 2013). These aspects are aligned with
Gerber’s (1998) description of an ideal organizational structure: being par-
ticipatory and collegial, having a continuous organic development, making
decisions by consensus, and having employees who are not afraid of mak-
ing the wrong decisions. The dynamic process in these organizations means
questioning the “obvious”; hence, employees of such organizations are active
and reflective.
These ideas are largely supported by empirical research. For example,
Leslie et al. (1998) demonstrated that organizational culture is a very impor-
tant factor for informal learning (cf. Marsick & Volpe, 1999), while Jeon and
Kim (2012) found that top management leadership in human resource man-
agement as well as open communications were positively associated with
informal learning. Organizational support in general, including an organi-
zational learning culture, management support, financial support, techni-
cal support, and personnel support is also found to be essential for informal
workplace learning (Li et al., 2009). More specifically, a qualitative study by
Ellinger (2005) identified four factors that influence informal learning in a
positive direction: (1) leaders engaging in learning and encouraging risk tak-
ing, (2) a culture that encourages informal learning, (3) adequate working
tools and resources to learn, and (4) a network of people who together form
relationships for learning. Ellinger (2005) also identified several inhibiting
contextual factors, with four factors being contrasts mirroring the promoting
factors previously described. In addition, the organizational structure can hin-
der informal learning through physical barriers or because of a “silo mental-
ity,” and a lack of time and too much change that occurs too quickly may also
hinder learning. Similarly, Lohman (2005) documented that a lack of time and
proximity to colleagues’ work prevents teachers and HRD professionals from
participating in informal learning activities (cf. Lohman, 2006; Lohman &
Woolf, 2001). For teachers, a lack of financial resources prevented them from
participating in informal learning activities. Limited decision-making power
was also found to inhibit informal learning among teachers (Lohman, 2000).
Other research, examining police officers, stressed the attitude toward work-
related learning and the possibilities for collegial feedback as important facili-
tators for informal learning (Doornbos, Simons, & Denessen, 2008; Kyndt,
Dochy, & Nijs, 2009).
Another stream of research has focused more on the general character-
istics of the job, assuming that some job characteristics allow for more infor-
mal learning than others. Kyndt et al. (2013) suggested five dimensions: the
degree of autonomy, the complexity of the job, the learning potential, the task
variety, and the mobility opportunities that the job offers. Similarly, Skule
(2004) argued that some job characteristics are such that learning is required

by or arises from the work situation, such as in jobs where the technology or
methods used are constantly being replaced or in jobs that include manage-
ment responsibility. Furthermore, jobs with good opportunities to participate
in professional forums outside the workplace, as well as jobs where employ-
ees can see clear results of the work under way, facilitate informal learning
(Rausch, 2013; Skule, 2004). The strength of the job characteristics approach
is that these conditions are probably associated with informal learning regard-
less of industry, type of company, and personal characteristics.
In summary, there are many aspects related to the work context that
may influence informal learning. According to Eraut (2004), however, we
are unlikely to reach conclusions about factors that can be easily generalized
across different working contexts. He therefore suggested searching for factors
that affect learning “in a large number of contexts but [assuming] that their
relative significance and the ways in which these factors interact will differ
greatly from one context to another” (Eraut, 2004, p. 268). This implies that
which factors promote or prevent informal learning may depend heavily on
the workplace context, and it underscores the importance of specifying the
context of interest as well as the importance of adopting research designs that
allow context-rich information.
Method
The context of our study was a Norwegian kindergarten and we chose a quali-
tative research approach that helped us to get a rich understanding of the set-
ting. Next, we give a detailed description of the study design, the context, the
participants, the interviews, our analysis, and validity issues.
Design
We used a case-study design with in-depth interviews as the primary data col-
lection method to investigate our research questions. According to Yin (2003),
“case studies are the preferred strategy when ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions are
being posed” (p. 1) and when the role of context is important (Eisenhardt
& Graebner, 2007). This is the case in our research questions, as we aim to
identify informal learning activities in a specific context and explore contex-
tual conditions that may promote or prevent such learning. The case-study
approach with in-depth interviews that we use in our study is in line with
much previous research addressing similar questions about informal learning
in the workplace (e.g., Ashton, 2004; Ellinger & Cseh, 2007).
Setting
Data were collected from a relatively large municipal kindergarten in Norway
that had recently changed from a traditional departmental structure to larger
and more open spaces in which children, parents, and staff could move around
freely. According to Aasen (2009), this change presented new challenges for

306 Schei, Nerbø
management to ensure the development of the assistants’ competencies. The

kindergarten consists of three bases, each of which is led by two preschool-
teachers who have joint responsibility for four employees. Together, they form
a “base team,” and, in addition, the work is organized across generally shared
mental age groups. As a result, employees switch fairly frequently between
teams. There are a total of 21 employees in the kindergarten, of whom about
half are assistants. Preschool teachers are typically educational leaders, hav-
ing professional responsibility for their departments. Their job duties involve
planning and implementing educational activities in line with the national
curriculum for kindergartens, planning the weekly activities, implementing
gatherings with the children, and organizing activities. The job duties of the
assistants include participating in the practical implementation of activities,
such as trips and gatherings, facilitating play, being responsible for cooking
and meals, and supervising the children. The assistants can also lead groups of
children in activities and play. The kindergarten examined in the current study
participates in the municipality’s annual quality survey, and in 2010 less than
50% of parents who had children in the kindergarten were satisfied with the
staff. Compared to the average score of 73% for the municipality, this indicates
that the kindergarten has room for improvement.
Participants
The participants were recruited from a meeting in the kindergarten where
most of the employees were present. We briefly informed the employees about
the study and asked for volunteers to take part in the study. Ten participants
volunteered: six assistants and four preschool teachers (three men and seven
women). In the interests of anonymity, we refer to all respondents in the
rest of the article as if they were women. The participants’ age ranged from
approximately 25 to 55 years. All four preschool teachers had a bachelor’s
degree, whereas, among the assistants, no one had more than a secondary
school education. Information about each of the participants (e.g., education,
work experience, age, and gender) is shown in Appendix A. After about half
the interviews were completed, the data from each new interview seemed to
mostly confirm the data from the first half. Hence, the last interviews did not
change the overall impressions but were helpful in broadening and nuanc-
ing the picture. We therefore considered the theoretical saturation—i.e., “the
continuation of sampling and data collection until no new conceptual insights
are generated” (Bloor & Wood, 2006, p. 164)—to be satisfactory in relation to
our research questions. The sample size was also in line with those of recent
qualitative research studies on kindergartens in Norway (Børhaug & Lotsberg,
2010; Jernes, Alvestad, & Sinnerud, 2010).
Interviews
We interviewed the participants’ in depth using semistructured interviews.
This method is well suited for collecting comprehensive information about

how other people perceive their own situation, and it is a flexible and fluid
approach allowing the interview to be shaped by both the participants’ under-
standings and the researcher’s interests (Mason, 2004). The interview guide
(see Appendix B) was divided into three parts: an introduction with informa-
tion, a body with a total of nine themes and related issues, and a short final
section. In general, the questions were open-ended (e.g., “Please tell about
…”) with follow-up questions depending on the participants’ answers (e.g.,
asking for examples or clarifications). The interview guide was pilot tested in
advance with the help of two individuals who were well acquainted with the
context through their work in other kindergartens. All the interviews were
conducted on site by one of the authors, audiotaped, and transcribed verbatim
for further analysis, with the duration of the interviews ranging between 45
and 60 minutes. Shortly after each interview, the interviewer also recorded the
overall impressions from the interview and the observations made at the site.
In addition to the formal interviews, the interviewer also had talks with the
manager of the kindergarten and attended a planning meeting. Importantly,
the interviewer also talked with the staff in the corridors and in the break
room, overheard conversations, and made observations. These additional data
were useful to understand the context of the study and to help in the interpre-
tation of the data from the formal interviews.
Analysis
We analyzed the data from the interviews in several steps. Each transcript
was coded by one of the authors. The first step was theme based, and labels
were given to the various themes as new phenomena appeared in the mate-
rial—a process that is often referred to as categorization (Saunders, Lewis, &
Thornhill, 2009). The categories were noted in the margins of the printouts,
and a document was crafted in which the categories were defined along with
an overview of which participants belonged to each category. This registry of
codes and definitions was frequently used throughout the coding process and
helped to ensure the consistent use of categories within and between inter-
views. The procedure is similar to what is done when using data software such
as Atlas.ti and NVivo. The initial coding generated 93 categories. The next step
was to reorganize the data into fewer and more appropriate categories to make
the data more manageable. In accordance with common practice in qualitative
analysis, it was alternated between theory and data in this process, looking
especially for categories that were: emphasized by many participants, talked
about with a hint of intensity, relevant for our research questions, and found
to be relevant in earlier research. Upon discussion between the authors, some
categories were also merged and redefined if the categories were fairly similar.
The final step was to use these data to illuminate our research questions and
tell a story at a higher level of abstraction than was evident from the data after
the first encoding steps. For example, the categorized data helped us to recog-
nize better which types of learning activities were perceived to be important

308 Schei, Nerbø
in kindergarten and to compare patterns with regard to how these activities

differed between preschool teachers and assistants. The results of our analyses
will be presented using the “show and tell” technique (Golden-Biddle & Locke,
1997), meaning that we show quotes from the participants and tell how we
believe these data inform our research questions. Importantly, to help minimize
the risk of analyzing text fragments isolated from their original context, the
quotes were regularly seen in connection with the factual interview and with
the overall impression notes that were written following each interview.
Validity
Three issues are especially important when assessing the quality of data in our
study: data should be factually accurate (i.e., descriptive validity), interpreta-
tions should fit the participants’ views (i.e., interpretative validity), and other
researchers should arrive at the same conclusions when following the same
procedures (i.e., reliability) (Maxwell, 1992). We secured descriptive validity
through our verbatim transcriptions of the interviews. We secured interpretative
validity in multiple ways: first, although interviews were our primary source of
data collection, we also triangulated our approach. For example, we partici-
pated in a staff meeting before the interviews in which we presented the project
and came to know better the participants and the context, we had informal
talks with the employees, and we conducted all the interviews on site to make
observations and obtain a better view of the working situation. Moreover, we
also discussed the concepts and our interpretations with others with long-term
experience from working in kindergartens. Finally, one of the authors’ general
familiarity with the context of kindergartens also helped us to understand and
interpret the data. We secured reliability of the data by conducting thorough
audits of the research process and the findings. Thus, we kept our field notes,
raw data, and coding manuals and wrote summaries of our overall impressions
from the interviews throughout. Finally, although generalization is seldom
the aim of case-study research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), as these studies more
often attempt to generalize to theory rather than to a predefined population
(Eisenhardt, 1989), explaining the data collection process and the context of the
study and presenting many quotes from the interviews (i.e., making a “thick”
description) may help others to replicate our study in other settings.
Results
The research questions in this article are concerned with the informal learning
activities that preschool teachers and assistants in a kindergarten are engaged
in and the conditions that affect their opportunities to learn. The presentation
of the results is threefold: we first look briefly at participants’ perception of
their overall learning, then present the perceived learning activities, and finally
display conditions that the participants perceived to either promote or inhibit
informal learning.

Overall Learning
To a certain degree, an examination of how employees learn in the workplace
requires that learning actually take place. Hence, all of the participants were
asked whether they learn something at work every day, and three different
preschool teachers responded as follows:
Yes, absolutely! I learn every day.
Yes, always. No two days are alike; there are challenges every day, and that
is why it is rewarding to work in the kindergarten.
“Yes, I learn from others, … when meeting other people, and on the job,
we meet others all the time.
Thus, the preschool teachers clearly indicated that they learn on the job all
the time and have a perception of continuous learning. The preschool teachers
also answered this question with enthusiasm, thereby reinforcing the impres-
sion of their extensive and continuous learning in the workplace. Assistants did
not share the perceived continuous learning voiced by the preschool teachers,
as the assistants felt that they learned but that this learning was fragmented and
limited. For example, three different assistants were questioned as to whether
they learned every day, and the responses were as follows:
Not always, but sometimes I can learn from the kids or from the adults.
Not every day. I’m not thinking that “today I learned something new.”
I learn a little, but not every day … perhaps more weekly. It could turn up
something you learn from, but then you do not learn anymore for a long while.
In addition to stating that learning happens only occasionally, assistants

responded with more muted expressions than the preschool teachers. In
short, all the preschool teachers perceived learning to be comprehensive and
continuous, while almost all the assistants perceived learning as fragmented
and limited. Hence, there is a relatively sharp distinction between these two
groups in how they perceive overall learning in the workplace.
Learning Activities
Our first research question asked which learning activities preschool teachers
and assistants were involved in. We identified 10 activities that contributed
to informal learning, with four of these activities primarily being individual
learning activities—practicing, trial and error, reflection, and the scanning
of sources—while the six other learning activities—discussing, asking for
advice, observation, guidance, correction, and training—occur more through

310 Schei, Nerbø
Table 1. Perceived Importance of Learning Activities

Preschool
Learning Activity Teachers Assistants Total
Individual Activities
Practicing Doing something you can and 3/4 5/6 8/10
finding that it works
Reflecting Thinking through things for yourself 3/4 3/6 6/10
Trial and error Trying out new solutions and 1/4 4/6 5/10
learning if one fails
Source Finding, e.g., written material and 0/4 1/6 1/10
searching reading about topics
Interactive Activities
Discussion Talking with others and sharing 4/4 5/6 9/10
experiences and perspectives
Asking for Problem solving by asking others 3/4 4/6 7/10
advice about what you can do
Observation Seeing that others are doing smart 4/4 3/6 7/10
things and trying them oneself
Guidance Being shown something and then 3/4 1/6 4/10
trying it oneself under guidance
Correction Being told by others that you have 0/4 3/6 3/10
made a mistake
Training External experts teaching or showing 1/4 2/6 3/10
things to be learned
Note. The numbers in the table illustrate how many of the participants (out of the total participants
in the group) focused on the activity.
interaction with others. The 10 learning activities and a more detailed expla-
nation of the contents are shown in Table 1. For illustrative purposes, the
numbers in the columns show how many of the participants (of the total
participants in the group) indicated that they took part in different learning
activities. Two classes of learning activities appear to be particularly important:
one is related to conversation (e.g., discussion and asking for advice), while
the other is related to job execution (e.g., practicing skills, trial and error, and
observing others). We present these findings next.
Conversation. Almost all the interviewees mentioned “conversation” as
an informal learning activity (see Table 1); e.g., the participants talked with
others and shared experiences and perspectives through discussion. One pre-
school teacher responded to questions about when she learns from others at
work as follows:
[I learn] when they tell about how they solved a specific situation.

Question: Do you discuss things that have happened?

Answer: Yes, and usually we talk about how the day has been as well.
The excerpt from the interview illustrates that the preschool teachers
found it instructive to hear how others solved their work tasks and that they
could discuss how things can be done. In general, others’ ideas and perspec-
tives appear to be a very important source of learning, with discussions being
one way to obtain access to others’ perspectives. One assistant said:
I attend meetings and we discuss the day, and this helps me to learn about
how to run the kindergarten. … I get to know others’ opinions, which
makes me look differently at things.
Several participants also told us about discussions related to resolving

conflicts in the workplace, and these discussions seem to have been particu-
larly helpful. One of the preschool teachers said that she gained new insight
into how people experience their work situation and how she could help:
[I understood] when those who had been in conflict brought it up

afterwards, and then we talked about the situation.
In general, the stories about the discussions appear to be important for

the participants, as they described in detail their involvement, what they
learned, and why. Overall, there seems to be a consensus that discussion is a
common and important learning activity in the kindergarten.
Closely related to “discussion” is “asking for advice,” which is also among
the most common learning activities. For example, one of the preschool teach-
ers talked about what she does when facing a challenge:
If I’m struggling about how to organize something, I can ask an employee

who is good at this. Then she can give some input, as she typically sees it
from a different angle than me. That is how we can learn.
This quote illustrates that asking for advice is a more one-sided activity
than discussion because one party learns from another. The category is also
more clearly oriented towards solving defined problems that can arise at work.
Another characteristic of asking for advice is that the person being asked has
been selected based on being more knowledgeable about the subject com-
pared to the person asking, which was supported by an assistant who told
about how she learned about cooking from others in the workplace. She also
emphasized that solving problems by asking others for advice is perceived as
an important and useful source of learning:
[One of my colleagues] is great at cooking. … If I need food suggestions, I

ask her. For example, I have this much milk, and I ask what can I do? And

312 Schei, Nerbø
then she can tell me the 10 things I can do with milk. I’ve learned a lot
from her!
Job Execution. The second category of learning activities is related to

job execution. From Table 1, we can see that “practicing” skills is a common
source of informal workplace learning. As one example, a preschool teacher
spoke about how she developed her own communication skills through her
conversation with a child, which allowed her to discover that she communi-
cated in a good way:
[I discovered that] I had very good communication with the child because of
the way I said things. I think we learn from this kind of situation every day.
Another relatively common activity related to job execution is “trial and

error.” Several participants said that they try out new solutions in relation to
how they do their work and that in such situations they make mistakes or
notice that something is not working properly and they learn from it. For
example, an assistant told about how she had to change a child’s diaper for
the first time:
They just asked me if I could change the diaper. I said, “Yes, I can try.” But
it was a little like, “how do I do this?” … But I learned that pretty quickly.
In general, the assistants seem to be more involved in trial and error than
do the preschool teachers (Table 1). In an assessment of the quotes, it also
emerged that the assistants reported more learning from trial and error than did
the preschool teachers, which was demonstrated in their telling of more com-
plete and detailed experiences about trial and error. Consequently, it seems that
it is primarily assistants who learn through trial-and-error activities.
“Observation” is also a relatively common learning activity that is
largely related to job execution, in which one sees that others are doing
something smart and can choose to do so herself. One teacher said that she
has learned how to dress the children quickly and efficiently by creating
what is called “fireman’s boots,” with rubber boots and rain pants that a
child can easily jump straight into. When asked how she learned to do this,
she responded:
I know how to put on rain pants, but [my colleague] showed me a better
way when she sat in the dressing room and made them ready for a child,
and then asked him to climb up and try them out. So then, I tried it out
myself with another child.
Observation provides learning when the observer notes that the other
party does something that works, but this often requires alertness and active
thinking from the observer’s side. This was illustrated by an assistant, who saw

how a colleague was talking with three children who had broken the rules in
the kindergarten:
I learned something about the way she treated them because I felt that
she handled it in a good way and solved the problem in a very satisfactory
manner. Much of the learning I made myself by observing the situation
because I thought she had some good ideas on how you should treat the
children and how to do things, and I learned from this.
Table 1 illustrates that observation takes place in both occupational

groups, though while all preschool teachers talked about learning through
observation, this was less common among assistants. From the interviews, it
also seems that each teacher learns more from observation than the assistants.
Overall, observation therefore seems to be a learning activity primarily for
preschool teachers.
In terms of other informal learning activities, some participants men-
tioned “reflection.” For example, one teacher stated that she reflects when
she is in one of the rooms in the basement where there are no children. The
other learning activities we identified seemed to be relatively less widespread.
Nonetheless, relating to our third research question it is interesting to note
that being corrected is a learning activity that appears to be reserved for assis-
tants, while guidance primarily seems to be a learning activity reserved for
preschool teachers.
Factors Promoting or Inhibiting Informal Learning
The second research question in this article addresses factors that can promote
or inhibit informal learning in kindergarten. We identified seven promoting
and six inhibitory factors, which are shown in Table 2, together with a list
that illustrates their prevalence. Many promotional and inhibitory factors mir-
ror each other, and some factors are closely related to each other. In the fol-
lowing, we have chosen to highlight two classes of factors that appear to be
particularly important for informal learning in kindergarten, namely, those of
tranquility and responsibility.
Tranquility. The first class of factors is tranquility or peacefulness. As
shown in Table 2, almost all the participants noted that a “peaceful situation”
promoted learning, with peaceful situations characterized by calmness in time
and space. A preschool teacher said:
There is quite a fast pace in kindergarten …; there is a lot of speed and

sound, so that’s why the places where one learns are places where it is
quiet. In quiet situations, there is a better opportunity to communicate and
have room for learning.
The quote is typical in the sense that many participants pointed to a kind
of calmness or tranquility as important for learning, and many contrasted

314 Schei, Nerbø
Table 2. Perceived Importance of Influencers on Informal Learning

Preschool
Factors Teachers Assistants Total
Learning Promoting
Peaceful Experiencing that it is quiet in time 4/4 4/6 8/10
situations and space and pleasant
Experienced Learning from others more 3/4 4/6 7/10
colleagues experienced than oneself
Heterogeneous Learning from others perceived as 4/4 3/6 7/10
milieu different from oneself
Responsibility The availability to choose new tasks 0/4 5/6 5/10
expansion that lead to self-development
Supportive Involving leaders, encouraging 2/4 3/6 5/10
leaders employees to try new things
Positive culture Making everyone feel that they are 2/4 2/6 4/10
included, allowing room for errors
Good relations A joint platform together, a basis for 2/4 2/6 4/10
friendship
Learning Inhibiting
Few peaceful Few situations without children, 0/4 6/6 6/10
situations colleague meetings interrupted
Busy schedule So busy that learning is perceived as 2/4 4/6 6/10
nearly impossible
Few options Cannot choose work tasks, doing 0/4 4/6 4/10
routine work
Negative culture Feeling negativity and insecurity, do 1/4 3/6 4/10
not dare to try new things
Weak relations Do not know the others well enough 1/4 3/6 4/10
to achieve learning
Inexperienced Others have too little knowledge to 1/4 2/6 3/10
colleagues have something to learn for you
Note. The numbers in the table illustrate how many of the participants (out of the total participants
in the group) focused on the activity.
hectic situations to peaceful situations as part of the explanation for the times
in which they learn. The interviewees’ responses were unanimous when it
came to the importance of tranquility for learning, and this was repeated
several times during the interviews. The following quote from an assistant is
representative of how the participants carefully justified their answers:
It is helpful to be in a situation where you can talk about the kindergarten

without having to deal with children and situations where you suddenly

need to step in. Typically, there is so little continuity, and people are
more able to talk about things if you can leave the base without having a
tremendous time pressure. For example, being able to just sit down and talk
to other employees for 10 minutes about what has happened during the day.
From Table 2, we also see that many participants perceive a lack of

peaceful situations, which appears to be directly detrimental to learning. For
instance, the participants said that they do not talk much with each other,
despite the fact that they are usually in the same room as other employees. An
assistant said:
You cannot sit down and talk [with colleagues], so you ask whether they
have had a nice weekend, but not more than that because we cannot forget
the kids; they are the ones who are the most important.
This statement is typical of the assistants in the kindergarten, as many

said that they exchange pleasantries or “small talk” with their colleagues but
that they cannot have professional conversations in the presence of children.
Often, the conversations between the adults are also part of the work with the
children, or the children are participating in talks about everyday things. The
conversations between colleagues are also often disrupted by things that take
place inside the various bases; hence, they feel that there are few situations in
which children are not present. An assistant spoke about how conversations
may disappear:
When we stand [inside the base], we would like to talk about something
important, for example, about how the culture is among the children, but
there are always things happening. So it is very likely that the conversation
just slips away. … It happens almost every day.
When questioned about why these disorders affected learning, the assis-
tant responded:
I think you need to have the opportunity to think, just think, and not
being in constant interaction with things happening on the outside.
Especially when it comes to how things should be organized or what is
good that all of us do together and things like that. It is not possible to
think when there are things constantly coming from the outside.
Addressing our third research question, an interesting observation related

to tranquility is that the lack of a peaceful situation is a barrier to learning
perceived only by the assistants. While all of the assistants perceived this as
an obstacle to learning, none of the preschool teachers pointed to a lack of
peaceful situations as an obstacle to their learning.

316 Schei, Nerbø
Responsibility. The second class of factors related to informal learning

is associated with freedom, independence, and responsibility. One example
is the “expansion of responsibility” (Table 2), which indicates that assistants
learn when they are given the opportunity to perform new tasks, meaning that
their responsibilities are expanded. The following quotes are fairly typical of
the assistants’ statements:
I have grown the most when I have been given tasks gradually and had
options for what I wanted to do.
Now I have the responsibility for ordering food for the kids, and it’s
something I’ve learned because I’ve never done this before.
Additionally, two assistants responded as follows when questioned on

how they learn:
[When the leaders] give us tasks and we are allowed to try it out.
For example, tomorrow we will go for a walk, and [the leader has] given
you the responsibility for the trip; where will you go?
The assistants may also be given responsibility for reasons other than a
manager assigning it to them. The following quote below indicates that an
assistant must step in and take responsibility when the leader does not, and
that this extension of responsibility affects learning in a positive way:
It might sound stupid, but I learn the most from “laissez-faire leaders.”
Question: Why?
Answer: It’s because you have to find out things on your own; if you ask
them, they have no idea.
Correspondingly, many of the participants believe that “few options” is

inhibitory to learning (Table 2). A common opinion of the assistants was that
the work consisted of routines and that there may not be as many opportuni-
ties for development:
You go into certain routines and this makes it very difficult to grow, I think.
And when you have these routines, it is very difficult to get out of them.
According to the overall impression of the interviews, the assistants seem

to feel that most of what they do is decided in advance and that they have lit-
tle effect on what they do. This is supported by the following quote, in which
an assistant reported experiencing a kind of compulsion in relation to what

the day will contain and that her need for further explanation of the purpose
of tasks is not met:
What prevents me is that people tell me what to do, without explaining

the larger picture of what it is. I think that prevents me from learning. …
I want to know my roles or my functions.
Finally, it is important to note that both the “expansion of responsibility”

as an enhancing factor and “few options” as an inhibitory factor are perceived
only by the assistants (cf. our third research question). Almost all assistants
focused on these as important learning influencers (Table 2), whereas none
of the preschool teachers focused on these aspects. The pattern here is quite
clear: the degree of responsibility is a factor that seems to strongly affect the
informal learning among the assistants in the kindergarten.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore the learning activities kindergarten
employees were engaged in, the factors that promote and inhibit their infor-
mal learning, and how these activities and factors differed between preschool
teachers and assistants. Our interpretation of in-depth interviews indicates
that all the participants perceive informal learning but that learning is per-
ceived as significantly more regular and comprehensive for preschool teachers
than for assistants. We found that 10 different learning activities related to
conversation (e.g., discussions and asking for advice) and job execution (e.g.,
practicing skills, trial and error, and observation) were especially prevalent.
Furthermore, we classified the factors that were found to affect the opportuni-
ties for learning into two main categories: tranquility and responsibility. The
assistants appear to experience inhibitory factors to a greater extent than the
preschool teachers, particularly in relation to a lack of autonomy and peaceful
situations, which seem to limit their learning opportunities significantly.
Regarding our first research question about learning activities, the
results of this study indicate that the participants learn in a variety of ways
in the workplace, both individually and in interactions with others. Many
of these learning activities are known from previous studies of other profes-
sional groups, for example, practicing, asking for advice, observation, reflec-
tion, discussions, and trial and error (e.g., Hoekstra et al., 2013; Koopmans
et al., 2006; Lohman, 2005; Lohman & Woolf, 2001). Some activities, such
as “correction,” are less prominent in previous studies, and its appearance
might be attributed to our study of low-educated employees. However, being
corrected was perceived by our respondents as relatively unpleasant, and an
excessive use of this technique may lead to an unfavorable learning climate.
Interestingly, our participants (except one) did not report that they learned by
using sources such as books, the Internet, or magazines, despite the fact that

318 Schei, Nerbø
this learning activity has been commonly found in other studies (e.g., Berg &
Chyung, 2008; Gerber, 1998; Lohman, 2005). This may be explained by the
fact that work in a kindergarten is based on the premises of the children, and
no computers or magazines are readily available.
Regarding our second research question about the factors that affect the
opportunities for learning, tranquility emerged as particularly important in
our study. This is a factor that has not been directly highlighted in previous
literature on informal learning but may be related to factors such as a lack
of time (Ellinger, 2005; Lohman, 2005; Lohman, 2006) and a high degree
of autonomy (Kyndt et al., 2013; Skule, 2004). Nevertheless, the finding
expands our understanding of what can promote informal learning in this
context. In hindsight, the need for tranquility seems reasonable. Employees
working in a kindergarten have a somewhat different daily life than workers
in most other professions, as the work is strongly influenced by the presence
of children, and most of the tasks are performed in direct interaction with the
children.
The Invisible Learning Ceiling
Regarding our third research question about differences between preschool
teachers and assistants, there are substantial differences between the low-
educated assistants and the more educated preschool teachers. One of these
important differences is that preschool teachers perceived informal learning
to be comprehensive and to happen continuously, while assistants perceived
informal learning to be limited and to happen occasionally. This may indi-
cate that learning is unevenly distributed in the workplace and that assis-
tants are the losers in this distribution, supporting the theoretical assumption
that unskilled workers may have fewer opportunities for informal learn-
ing (Rainbird, 2000; Skule, 2004). Our finding is particularly interesting
because these two groups are working closely together in the same context
(Ashton, 2004). Why does one group’s experience differ so strongly from
the other’s when they both work essentially in the same work environment?
Understanding the causes of the differences between the low educated and
others is important because uneven learning opportunities can have large con-
sequences for the disadvantaged groups and for society at large (Burdett &
Smith, 2002; Illeris, 2004; Leslie et al., 1998).
Preschool teachers and assistants have several learning activities in com-
mon. Nevertheless, our data indicate important differences. While the pre-
school teachers, relative to the assistants, seem to learn to a great extent from
discussion, reflection, observation, and guidance, assistants seem to learn
from more “reactive” activities such as correction and trial and error. One
likely reason for these differences is that, compared to preschool teachers,
assistants often work alone. For instance, assistants are responsible for most of
the “practical” work in kindergarten. In these situations, the assistant performs
the tasks alone, and because of the task and location, the assistants rarely

get the opportunity to observe colleagues. In addition, the assistants cannot

easily leave the children to get help or seek information, and if a problem
occurs, they are pretty much forced to find a solution themselves. This prob-
ably results in more learning by trial and error. By contrast, preschool teachers
have far more freedom in their work; for example, they can move more freely
between different rooms in the kindergarten and to a greater degree choose
between being alone or working with others. Hence, it seems reasonable to
assume that the preschool teachers have a wider range of learning activities to
choose from than the assistants, as the assistants are more “trapped” in tasks,
time, and space.
Assistants also seem to differ clearly from preschool teachers in that
they are hampered by the lack of peaceful situations, making less room for
important learning activities such as reflection. This echoes the fact that their
working days are more stressful than those of preschool teachers and that
the assistants have fewer opportunities to manage their own day since their
task is, to a certain extent, to follow the instructions of preschool teachers.
The sum of these factors constitutes a demanding work schedule, with few
opportunities for breaks, emphasizing that limitations in their role as assis-
tants contribute to an inability to benefit from learning activities in the same
way as the preschool teachers.
The degree of freedom was another factor that the assistants—but not the
preschool teachers—were concerned with. The assistants’ role is initially nar-
row in terms of the decisions and initiatives they have the authority to make, a
situation that is generally found to hamper informal learning (Lohman, 2000).
If a new activity is to be introduced, it is natural that the preschool teach-
ers organize it, although our overall impression from the kindergarten is that
the assistants are just waiting for the opportunity to take more responsibility.
When they get opportunities to try new things, it creates a need to discuss
them with others. It also appears that responsibility is a “door opener” or a
trigger (Marsick & Watkins, 1997), leading to more contact with colleagues
when trying to solve a problem. In other words, extending responsibility may
give autonomy and provide a legitimate reason to step out of the routines,
characteristics of the situation that are assumed to be important for informal
learning (e.g., Kyndt et al., 2013; Rausch, 2013; Skule, 2004). At the same
time, this increased responsibility may provide access to more peaceful situa-
tions, which enhances opportunities for further learning—and in the end, the
invisible learning ceiling can be broken.
Implications
This study may have interesting implications for our practice and thinking
about HRD. Above all, the study clearly points to the importance of studying
informal learning in context, indicating that different groups of employees—
in the same workplace—have different learning activities and are constricted
by different contextual factors. Developing human resources through informal

320 Schei, Nerbø
learning may therefore require tailoring at the group level or even at the
individual level to be successful. Being aware of various forms of informal
learning and the conditions that facilitate and prevent such learning may be
a first step to reap the benefits of such learning. As Marsick and Volpe (1999)
put it, “People learn more when they continually scan their environment,
heighten their awareness around learning, pay attention to goals and turn-
ing points, and develop skills of reflection while taking action” (p. 1). More
concretely, such awareness could be built by creating arenas where the role of
informal learning, potential learning activities, and conditions for learning are
discussed (Ellinger & Cseh, 2007).
Furthermore, the organization of work can be designed to promote learn-
ing. A central finding from our study is that different opportunities for infor-
mal learning seem to arise due to the organization of work, as well as from
the roles and division of responsibility between the two groups. Preschool
teachers may be well equipped to take responsibility for their own learning,
as increased awareness will probably be enough to improve the quality of the
learning activities that preschool teachers already have access to. However,
the assistants have less influence on their own work situation. Thus, at the
organizational level, the managers of the kindergarten could design learn-
ing venues in which assistants can participate. For example, the assistants
could be given better access to peaceful situations where they can talk with
colleagues and ask each other for advice. This would also be consistent with
Lohman’s (2006) finding that a lack of proximity to colleagues’ work inhib-
its informal learning. At a broader level, this also relates to the use of teams
(Aasen, 2010)—especially diverse ones including both low-educated and
high-educated members—in which team members are given the opportunity
to discuss, observe, and give and receive feedback (Ellinger, 2005; Doornbos
et al., 2008).
Finally, careful leadership at the individual level may be of great impor-
tance. Small organizations often rely on informal learning and need sup-
port from leaders or colleagues because “unless there is a strong mentor or
supportive colleague to help one learn at the job, a ‘sink-or-swim’ approach
can cause unnecessary burnout and frustration” (Conlon, 2004, p. 289).
Consistent with the findings in our study, leaders can identify the types and
extent of the responsibility that workers can be given while working system-
atically to expand the responsibility of the individuals in accordance with
their development. This may help in making the assistants’ jobs less rou-
tine driven and give them the authority to become more actively involved in
informal learning activities. A positive side effect of this is that more delega-
tion of practical tasks will free up time for the preschool teacher, which they
reported they need to learn more in the workplace. In general, organizational
support is important for informal learning to take place, but the support
needed depends highly on the core business processes of the organization
(Li et al., 2009).

Limitations and Further Research

Our study is based on self-reports from the participants, in which they talked
about learning based on their memory. It is therefore conceivable that some
informal learning that is unconscious or impulsive has not been fully dealt
with in this study. This is a general challenge for research on informal work-
place learning, as such learning is somewhat unconscious, unintended, or
unplanned (Berings, Doornbos, & Simons, 2006). Hence, it is often difficult
for respondents to articulate how they learn and what affects their learning
(Garrick, 1998). Additionally, the result of learning is not always obvious, and
it sometimes may take a long time from the initial learning until one realizes
what one has learned. Another challenge may be related to the use of the word
learning when conducting interviews, as this word may have negative con-
notations for some participants (e.g., Kyndt et al., 2013). Our impression is,
however, that the participants had a rather positive attitude toward learning.
Nevertheless, future studies may take advantage of different interviewing tech-
niques as well as other methods (Sawchuk, 2010), for example, observations,
discourse analysis (Jurasaite-Harbinson, 2009), and logs (diaries) (Rausch,
2013). In particular, having rich observational data in addition to interview
data may be especially valuable in confirming or refuting the findings from the
participants’ self-reports.
Second, some people may be less capable or willing than others to reflect
on their learning. That a few participants are less informative than others may
not be particularly problematic unless there are systematic differences across
the groups we are investigating. Thus, can the differences found between pre-
school teachers and assistants in our study reflect the degree of awareness
around their own learning? Preschool teachers are educated in a subject in
which learning literature is central; hence, one could argue that their aca-
demic background makes them more likely to be aware of their own learn-
ing. However, the concept of informal learning is typically not discussed in
formal training programs, and our experience from the interviews was clearly
that assistants and preschool teachers appeared to be equally reflective when
discussing learning activities and learning conditions. Moreover, our data
indicate that the assistants were able to identify learning activities similar to
the preschool teachers; however, they seemed to be less engaged in many of
the identified activities, which might mainly be because the conditions pre-
vented them from gaining access to these learning situations/conditions. We
therefore believe that formal education in the identification or reporting of
informal learning was not prominent in this study, as we found no evidence
for systematic differences in awareness of learning across preschool teachers
and assistants.
Third, in this study, we cannot precisely measure the quality or strength
of learning or the outcomes of the various learning activities. Nonetheless, in
the interviews, many participants drew upon the learning episodes they said
were most important to them. Typical stories mentioned the “milestones” in

322 Schei, Nerbø
their development at work or situations in which they learned something that

they were able to make good use of later. The overall impression received
from these stories is that learning that occurs in interactions with others tends
to be of higher quality than learning that takes place alone, which is in line
with Enos, Kehrhahn, and Bell’s (2003) finding that informal learning is a
predominantly social process (Boud, 1999; Garrick, 1998). A more precise
understanding of this, however, requires further study of the effects of infor-
mal learning (e.g., Park & Jacobs, 2011).
Finally, further research should also be done, of course, to reveal whether
our main conclusions are valid in similar and other contexts. First, as our
sample is rather small, other studies of informal learning in kindergartens
would be welcome to see how robust our findings are. A larger sample could
also better reveal the potential effects of gender or work experience—effects
not seen in our study. Moreover, examining low-educated employees in con-
texts other than kindergarten would be highly warranted given the impor-
tance of context found in research on informal learning (Eraut, 2004). In a
wider context, we must also consider the cultural system in which the study is
done. For example, although the assistants in our study are low educated rela-
tive to others in Norway, they may not be very low educated in absolute terms
or in comparison to other cultural systems. Differences between contexts in
this regard may affect the results and subsequent recommendations.
Conclusion
This article illustrates how the employees in a kindergarten can develop their
skills through a variety of learning activities. However, while the educated
preschool teachers in our study reported that their informal learning occurs
regularly and is substantial, the low-educated assistants perceived learning as
more fragmented and limited and felt far more inhibitory learning conditions
than the preschool teachers. The differences in informal learning may in part
be explained by the fact that the preschool teachers are freer to create and seek
out situations in which there is time and space to engage in different types of
learning activities. This is not the case for the assistants, whose role involves
limited responsibility and freedom. Therefore, assistants are often caught in
situations in which they are busy, alone, and unable to leave. As a result, the
assistants’ work makes it difficult to have discussions with others and to ask
for advice. However, the assistants’ informal learning seems to be triggered
when responsibility increases, as this gives a better possibility to initiate or
participate in learning activities.
The assistants have a lower starting point for informal learning than the
preschool teachers, and the organization of work supports learning for those
who know the most from before. Paradoxically, then, those who may be most
in need for improving their competencies are those that have the worst con-
ditions for doing so. The bad news is that the low-educated assistants seem

to be facing a learning ceiling, where they are trapped in roles and tasks that
impede further development. Fortunately, we believe that this ceiling can be
broken with small changes in the organizational structure and by careful lead-
ership of the low-educated employees.
References
Aasen, W. (2009). Kindergarten with bases means new leadership challenges. First Step: Journal
for Preschool Teachers, 4, 8–11.
Aasen, W. (2010). The preschool teacher as a team leader and a partner: Management dilemmas
in the kindergarten. Norwegian Educational Journal, 94, 293–305.
Ashton, D. (2004). The impact of organizational structure and practices on learning in the work-
place. International Journal of Training and Development, 8, 43–53.
Berg, S. A., & Chyung, S. Y. (2008). Factors that influence informal learning in the workplace.
Journal of Workplace Learning, 20, 229–244.
Berings, M. G., Doornbos, A. J., & Simons, P. R. (2006). Methodological practices in on-the-job
learning research. Human Resource Development International, 9, 333–336.
Bloor, M., & Wood, F. (2006). Keywords in qualitative methods: A vocabulary of research concepts.
London, England: Sage.
Børhaug, K., & Lotsberg, D. Ø. (2010). Kindergarten management is changing. Nordic
Kindergarten Research, 3, 79–94.
Boud, D. (1999). Situating academic development in professional work: Using peer learning.
International Journal for Academic Development, 4, 3–10.
Boud, D., & Garrick, J. (1999) Understanding learning at work. London, England: Routledge.
Burdett, K., & Smith, E. (2002). The low skill trap. European Economic Review, 46, 1439–1451.
Callanan, M., Cervantes, C., & Loomis, M. (2011). Informal learning. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2, 646–655.
Cameron, R., & Harrison, J. L. (2012). The interrelatedness of formal, non-formal and infor-
mal learning: Evidence from labour market program participants. Australian Journal of Adult
Learning, 52, 277–309.
Choi, W., & Jacobs, R. L. (2011). Influences of formal learning, personal learning orientation,
and supportive learning environment on informal learning. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 22, 239–257.
Conlon, T. J. (2004). A review of informal learning literature, theory and implications for practice in
developing global professional competence. Journal of European Industrial Training, 28, 283–295.
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework:
From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522–537.
Doornbos, A. J., Simons, R., & Denessen, E. (2008). Relations between characteristics of work-
place practices and types of informal work-related learning: A survey study among Dutch
police. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19, 129–151.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
Review, 14, 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and
challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 25–32.
Ellinger, A. D. (2005). Contextual factors influencing informal learning in a workplace set-
ting: The case of “Reinventing Itself Company.” Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16,
389–415.
Ellinger, A. D., & Cseh, M. (2007). Contextual factors influencing the facilitation of others’
learning through everyday work experiences. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19, 435–452.
Enos, M. D., Kehrhahn, M. T., & Bell, A. (2003). Informal learning and the transfer of learn-
ing: How managers develop proficiency. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 369–387.

324 Schei, Nerbø
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London, England: Farmer
Press.
Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26,
247–273.
Garrick, J. (1998). Informal learning in corporate workplaces. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 9, 129–144.
Gerber, R. (1998). How do workers learn in their work? The Learning Organization, 5, 168–175.
Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. D. (1997). Composing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Hager, P. (1998). Recognition of informal learning: Challenges and issues. Journal of Vocational
Education & Training, 50, 521–535.
Hill, R., & Stewart, J. (2000). Human resource development in small organizations. Journal of
European Industrial Training, 24,105–117.
Hoekstra, A., Korthagen, F., Brekelmans, M., Beijaard, D., & Imants, J. (2009). Experienced
teachers’ informal workplace learning and perceptions of workplace conditions. Journal of
Workplace Learning, 21, 276–298.
Illeris, K. (2004). Learning in the worklife (1st ed.). Roskilde, Denmark: Roskilde
Universitetsforlag.
Illeris, K. (2007). How we learn: Learning and non-learning in school and beyond. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Jacobs, R. L., & Park, Y. (2009). A proposed conceptual framework of workplace learning:
Implications for theory development and research in human resource development. Human
Resource Development Review, 8, 133–150.
Jeon, K. S., & Kim, K. (2012). How do organizational and task factors influence informal learn-
ing in the workplace? Human Resource Development International, 15, 209–226.
Jernes, M., Alvestad, M., & Sinnerud, M. (2010). “Is it good, or?” Educational tension when
facing digital tools in Norwegian kindergartens. Nordic Kindergarten Research, 3, 115–131.
Jurasaite-Harbinson, E. (2009). Teachers’ workplace learning within informal contexts of school
cultures in the United States and Lithuania. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21, 299–321.
Koopmans, H., Doornbos, A. J., & van Eekelen, I. M. (2006). Learning in interactive work
situations: It takes two to tango; why not invite both partners to dance? Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 17, 135–158.
Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., & Nijs, H. (2009). Learning conditions for non-formal and informal
workplace learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21, 369–389.
Kyndt, E., Govaerts, N., Keunen, L., & Dochy, F. (2013). Examining the learning intentions
of low-qualified employees: A mixed method study. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25,
178–197.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Leslie, B., Aring, M. K., & Brand, B. (1998). Informal learning: The new frontier of employee &
organizational development. Economic Development Review, 15, 12–18.
Li, J., Brake, G., Champion, A., Fuller, T., Gabel, S., & Hatcher-Busch, L. (2009). Workplace
learning: The roles of knowledge accessibility and management. Journal of Workplace Learning,
21, 347–364.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lohman, M. C. (2000). Environmental inhibitors to informal learning in the workplace: A case
study of public school teachers. Adult Education Quarterly, 50, 83–101.
Lohman, M. C. (2005). A survey of factors influencing the engagement of two professional
groups in informal workplace learning activities. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16,
501–526.
Lohman, M. C. (2006). Factors influencing teachers’ engagement in informal learning activities.

Lohman, M. C., & Woolf, N. H. (2001). Self-initiated learning activities of experienced pub-
lic school teachers: Methods, sources, and relevant organizational influences. Teachers and
Teaching: Theory and Practice, 7, 59–74.
Marsick, V. J. (2009). Toward a unifying framework to support informal learning theory, research
and practice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21, 265–275.
Marsick, V. J., & Volpe, M. (1999). The nature and need for informal learning. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 1, 1–9.
Marsick, V., & Watkins, K. E. (1990). Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. New York,
NY: Routledge and Keagan Paul.
Marsick, V., & Watkins, K. E. (1997). Lessons from informal an incidental learning. In I.
Burgoyne, & M. Reynolds (Eds.), Management learning: Integrating perspectives in theory and
practice (pp. 295–311). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Marsick, V. J., Watkins, K. E., Callahan, M. W., & Volpe, M. (2009). Informal and incidental
learning in the workplace. In M. C. Smith & N. DeFrates-Densch (Eds.), Handbook of research
on adult learning and development (pp. 570–600). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mason, J. (2004). Semistructured interview. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational
Review, 62, 279–301.
McNally, J., Blake, A., & Reid, A. (2009). The informal learning of new teachers in school.
Park. Y, & Jacobs, R. L. (2011). The influence of investment in workplace learning on learning
outcomes and organizational performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 437–458.
Rainbird, H. (2000). Skilling the unskilled: Access to work-based learning and the lifelong learn-
ing agenda. Journal of Education and Work, 13, 183–197.
Rausch, A. (2013). Task characteristics and learning potentials: Empirical results of three diary
studies on workplace learning. Vocations and Learning, 6, 55–79.
Rowden, R. W. (2002). The relationship between workplace learning and job satisfaction in U.S.
small to midsize business. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 407–425.
Sanders, J., Oomens, S., Blonk, R. W. B., & Hazelzet, A. (2011). Explaining lower educated
workers’ training intentions. Journal of Workplace Learning, 31, 402–416.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5th ed.
Essex, England: Pearson Education.
Sawchuk, P. H. (2010). Theories and methods for research on informal learning and work:
Towards cross-fertilization. Studies in Continuing Education, 32, 1–16.
Skule, S. (2004). Learning conditions at work: A framework to understand and assess informal
learning in the workplace. International Journal of Training and Development, 8, 8–20.
Statistics Norway. (2014). Kindergartens, 2013, final numbers. Retrieved from http://www.ssb.
no/barnehager/; and Labor Force Survey, 1st quarter, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.ssb.
no/aku/
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vidar Schei is a Professor in the Department of Strategy and Management, NHH

Norwegian School of Economics.
Ida Nerbø is self-employed, and was a student at NHH Norwegian School of Economics at
the time of the study.
Corresponding author:
Vidar Schei can be contacted at vidar.schei@nhh.no.

326 Schei, Nerbø
Appendix A. Participants
Participant Category Education Work Age Gender
1 Assistant Primary School 1 25 Female
4 Assistant Secondary School 9 35 Female
5 Assistant Secondary School 2 25 Male
6 Assistant Secondary School 3 25 Male
7 Preschool Teacher Bachelor Preschool Teacher 6 30 Female
9 Preschool Teacher Bachelor Preschool Teacher 6 30 Male
Note. Education refers to the highest finished education. Work refers to the approximate working
experience in kindergartens. Age refers to the observed approximate age. All participants were
ethnic Norwegian. Participant #4 had a certificate in child and youth work from secondary school.
Participants #7–9 were hired as educational leaders and #10 as a support teacher.
Appendix B. Interview Schedule

1. Introduction
1.1 Information
• About the interviewer
• About the task; general information about the topic of workplace learning
• About consent regarding audio-recording, printing of interview, use of quotes.
• About confidentiality and anonymity
• About time; approximately 1 hour
• Thank you for attending
1.2 Personal information
• (Gender)
• (Age)
• About employment and workplace
• About background/experience
2. Questions
2.1 About own learning
• Can you tell me about a typical day at work?
• Where are you?
• What are you doing?
• Do you think that you learn something new at work every day?
• How?
• Can you tell me about one time that you learned something at work?
(e.g., got advice, found out something myself)
• Has the way you work changed during the time you have been here?
• How?

2.2. Learning together with others

• Where are you alone?
• Where are you with others?
• Who are you with then?
• Where do you tend to talk?
• Do you have meetings?
• What do you discuss in meetings?
2.3 Learning from others
• Do you find that you learn from the other employees?
• Who?
• Do you learn from the other educational leaders/assistants?
• Can you tell me about a time you learned something from someone else at
work?
• Where were you then?
• What did you do?
2.4 The work
• What are your responsibilities?
• Does anyone have the same responsibility?
• Who are you working with?
• What routines or procedures do you have?
• Are there any challenges with them?
• Can you tell me more about it?
2.5 Situations
• Do you have a story from your practice when you faced a challenge at the
workplace?
• Did you get any help?
• Did you learn anything?
• Where were you?
2.6 Teaching in the kindergarten
• Do you think that the others learn on the job?
• Can you tell me about a time you felt that someone else learned something?
(e.g., a new employee learning to change diapers)
• Where were you?
2.7 Experience of strategy
• Do you feel that you work in an organization where you learn something new
every day?
• What do you think is the manager’s strategy for learning?
• What do you do as an educational teacher so that your assistants learn?
• Can you tell us more?
2.8 Organization in bases
• What would you say characterizes the organization in bases at this working
place? (rooms, planning, cooperation)
• How has your job changed compared to that in a more traditional department
structure? (to those who have worked elsewhere before)
• What are the main challenges with organization in bases, in your opinion?
• Do you think the bases affect your ability to learn on the job?
• Can you explain this further?

328 Schei, Nerbø
2.9 Barriers
• What prevents you from learning in the workplace, as you see it?
• Can you give an example?
• Think of your ideal situation for your own learning; what would be different
from today?
• Why?
3. Closure
• Other opinions?
• What do you think about the questions?
• Thank you for attending the interview.

Schei & Nerbø (2015) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Schei & Nerbø (2015) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Invisible Learning Ceiling:

Informal Learning Among

Vidar Schei, Ida Nerbø

Individuals and society invest ever-increasing resources in formal

Key Words: informal learning, workplace learning, learning activities,

The need for knowledge seems to be constantly increasing, with individuals,

competency, as employees also learn during the execution of work. Such

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

RQ1. Which activities lead to informal learning at the workplace?

RQ2. Which contextual factors promote or inhibit such learning?

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

supporting personal and work-related development will greatly facilitate

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

management to ensure the development of the assistants’ competencies. The

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

in kindergarten and to compare patterns with regard to how these activities

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Yes, absolutely! I learn every day.

In addition to stating that learning happens only occasionally, assistants

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Table 1. Perceived Importance of Learning Activities

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Question: Do you discuss things that have happened?

Several participants also told us about discussions related to resolving

[I understood] when those who had been in conﬂict brought it up

In general, the stories about the discussions appear to be important for

If I’m struggling about how to organize something, I can ask an employee

[One of my colleagues] is great at cooking. … If I need food suggestions, I

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Job Execution. The second category of learning activities is related to

Another relatively common activity related to job execution is “trial and

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Table 1 illustrates that observation takes place in both occupational

There is quite a fast pace in kindergarten …; there is a lot of speed and

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Table 2. Perceived Importance of Inﬂuencers on Informal Learning

It is helpful to be in a situation where you can talk about the kindergarten

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

From Table 2, we also see that many participants perceive a lack of

This statement is typical of the assistants in the kindergarten, as many

Addressing our third research question, an interesting observation related

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Responsibility. The second class of factors related to informal learning

Additionally, two assistants responded as follows when questioned on

Correspondingly, many of the participants believe that “few options” is

According to the overall impression of the interviews, the assistants seem

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

What prevents me is that people tell me what to do, without explaining

Finally, it is important to note that both the “expansion of responsibility”

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

get the opportunity to observe colleagues. In addition, the assistants cannot

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

Limitations and Further Research

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

their development at work or situations in which they learned something that

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq