Formatvorlage LeskeA5.DOT fr Word fr Windows 6.0

Norm Friesen

Informal Learning in Canada

Canada possesses a 50-year history of research in the area of informal learning, with a particular concentration on adult and work-place forms. In addition to offering internationally significant theory and research in the area of informal learning, this history has also produced rich data-sets for informal learning as it is both conceptualized and realized in Canada. This chapter provides an overview of the history of this research and also summarizes some broadly contemporary findings about informal learning in Canada. It begins by briefly painting a backdrop for these overviews by describing education, work and educational governance in Canada.

Geographically the second largest nation in the world, but with only about 36 million inhabitants, Canada is considered a developed country, with decentralized educational administration. Reflecting Canadas founding as a nation-state by two different European peoples (French and English), and in keeping with the diversity of its First Nations (indigenous) peoples, formal education at all levels in Canada falls exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. There is no federal ministry that has the word education in its title nor formal education in its remit. However, there is a federal ministry for Industry and for Human Resources and Social Development, and these (and others) have served as both funders and eager consumers of research into informal adult learning and workplace-related training. Canadas educational outcomes are highly ranked (generally in the top 10 in PISA scores), in the company of nations and jurisdictions that have much more centralized educational systems (e.g., Japan and South Korea).

Despite a reliance on natural resource extraction that is unusual for a developed economy, Canadas service sector is by far the largest employer in Canada. This sector is followed in rank by manufacturing and construction. In addition, Canada, like postwar Germany, has had a relatively well-developed network of public sector social services, including ones focusing on citizen employability and economic development retraining. Together with active contributions by the ministries focusing on economic employment mentioned above, these circumstances have fostered scholarship in the area of informal learning in Canada that may seem out of proportion to the overall size of its population.

1.1967-1999 Allan Tough on intentional learning and change

The history of scholarship in informal learning goes back at least as far as the 1960s, although at this time this type of learning and its study were identified using rather different terms. Early landmark texts include Allan Toughs 1967 Learning without a Teacher: A study of tasks and assistance during adult self-teaching projects and also his 1971 The Adult's Learning Projects: A fresh approach to theory and practice in adult learning. Based at the University of Toronto for the duration of his prolific career, Tough opens his early study of self-teaching by outlining concerns and terminology which were to inform his work, and that of others, for over three decades:

Self-teaching has also been called self-instruction, self-education, independent study, individual study, and self-directed study. [] [P]robably every adolescent and adult sometimes engages in self-teaching, though some do so only rarely and briefly. [] In this study, the term self-teaching project refers to a persons deliberate attempt to learn some specific knowledge and skill if (a) he spent at least eight hours doing so during the year prior to the interview and (b) he himself, rather than any professional teacher or organized group, assumed the primary responsibility for planning, controlling, and supervising the entire project (1967, p. 3).As these criteria and definitions suggest, Toughs central focus during most of his career is on highly deliberate efforts to learn (Tough 1971, p. 1) rather than on the broad spectrum of circumstantial and sometimes accidental manifestations which are generally included in informal learning today. Nevertheless, Toughs 1967 study found that these highly deliberate forms of extra-institutional self-instruction were both varied and widespread. The number of people initially sampled in this study was small (only 44), but the depth of Toughs interviewing of the forty participants actually found to be self-teaching was appreciable. Tough discovered that of those sampled, fully 95% had conducted at least one self-teaching project during the previous year (1967, p. 39). Of the forty actually investigated through in-depth interviews and questionnaires, 12 had undertaken learning projects related to their full time employment, while smaller numbers (between three and four) focused on learning about care for a new baby, improving their knowledge and abilities in cooking, home or yard maintenance, or a new sport (e.g. tennis, skiing). At the same time, however, Tough found it was necessary to actively prompt and guide interviewees in speaking about their learning, noting in a later publication that probing questions and handout sheets [had to be used] in an attempt to help people recall their learning efforts (1971, p. 16).The sample sizes and subject matter both expanded in Toughs later research of informal learning. By 1980 he published the results of an in-depth study of 330 individuals who had engaged in intentional changes in their lives for example developing self-awareness, becoming physically fit choosing a new job, and growing spiritually. These later, expanded studies, as well as Toughs earlier efforts, however, were subject to a number of critiques. For example, David W. Livingstone (see also below) noted that [m]uch of the early research Tough reports was done in the Toronto area, starting with graduate students who did case studies with various small groups (1999, p. 3). Acknowledging in 1981 that Toughs work represents one of the most significant adult education research endeavors of the past two decades (p. 110) American adult educator Stephen Brookfield noted related problems with Toughs earliest work. For example, Brookfield observes that almost all of

Toughs subjects have attained an educational level well above the average. The thirty-five adults in the [1968] Why Adults Learn survey for example, all completed at least six months of further education after grade 12 with twenty-one of them having one or more college degrees (1981, p. 116).Brookfield further questions Toughs reliance on probing and prompting in his interviews, stating that such techniques run the risk of forcing the researcher's notion of what are admissible and appropriate substantive concerns onto the discussion to the exclusion of subjects own definitions of relevance (1981, p. 115).

In a 1999 presentation to the Canadian Research Network on New Approaches to Lifelong Learning, Tough provides a kind of informal overview of the findings he had produced over his 30-35 year career and identifies the challenges and opportunities presented by the future. Now referring to his area of study as informal adult learning, and citing results the 1998 First Canadian Survey of Informal Learning Practices undertaken by David W. Livingstone (see below), Tough confirms his early findings that the practice of this type of learning has consistent and considerable breadth and depth. It is undertaken by the vast majority of adults, somewhere around 90%, and these adults, Tough adds, are spending 15 hours a week at it [their learning] on average (1999, p. 2). Despite later changes in research approaches and sample sizes, these numbers on the prevalence and extent of informal learning remain fairly stable in subsequent Canadian studies.

Tough concludes by explaining the metaphor at the center of his talk, one he coined as far back as the 1970s, and that recurs in subsequent Canadian research: The metaphor of informal learning as an iceberg. Tough emphasizes the fundamental invisibility of informal learning, describing it as a kind of learning that lays submerged beneath the tiny fragment of formal and structured learning that actually is visible:

So and this is part of the iceberg phenomenon not only are we as a society (or as educators) oblivious to informal learning, we dont even notice our own. Thats right, people dont even notice their own informal learning. So what do we do about this? I think its really empowering and helpful and supportive to encourage people to look at their own learning (emphases in original; p. 7).Tough thus concludes there remains much work to do. He also adds, presciently, that the Worldwide Web (then less than a decade old) represents the most exciting development in adult education in the entirety of his career (p. 7). As this chapter goes on to show, Canadian efforts to realize the potential of the Web for adult informal, intentional learning were later to gain considerable international intention but curiously, were to find little purchase among established Canadian scholars of informal and workplace learning.

2.David W. Livingstone: Conceptual and Empirical Expansion and Refinement

Toughs legacy at the University of Toronto has been built upon both closely and substantially by an equally prominent Canadian proponent of the study and support of informal learning, sociologist David W. Livingstone. As if to eliminate all doubt regarding his debt to Tough, Livingstone titled his 1999 report on the aforementioned 1998 survey of informal learning practices, Exploring the Icebergs of Adult Learning. Referencing one of the studys principle findings cited above that 95% of adults engage in informal learning Livingstone highlights the implications of the metaphor not only for research and general awareness, but also as a warning for formal educators and policy makers:

In the light of this finding, if the crews of our big education and training ships do not increasingly look out for the massive, detectable icebergs of informal learning, many of their programs may sink into Titanic irrelevancy (1999, p. 2).Certainly overstated in hindsight, such dire warnings were of course not uncommon at a time when prominent figures such as Peter Drucker saw the educational potential of the Web turning big university campuses [into] relics (as quoted in Lenzer and Johnson 1997). Nevertheless, Livingstones report does do much to strengthen and expand the study of informal learning in Canada and elsewhere. Unlike Tough, whose concern was with larger informal learning projects, often associated with life change, Livingstone casts a much wider net, resulting in a specification for informal learning that sounds rather contemporary:

Informal learning is any activity involving the pursuit of understanding, knowledge or skill which occurs outside the curricula of educational institutions, or the courses or workshops offered by educational or social agencies. The basic terms of informal learning (e.g., objectives, content, means and processes of acquisition, duration, evaluation of outcomes, applications) are determined by the individuals and groups that choose to engage in it (1999, p. 4).Besides helpfully showing how many key instructional terms and processes are quite radically redefined through informal learning, this definition clearly aligns with characterizations common today which insist, for example, that informal learning constitutes all learning that takes place out of school (Norman 2001, n.p.) and that it, as such, represents the workhorse of the knowledge economy (Cross 2007, p. xiii). However, rather than indulging in hyperbole concerning the power and ubiquity granted to informal learning by new definitions, Livingstones report considers their conceptual implications and challenges. He emphasizes that a definition of informal learning such as the one he provides brings into play a dimension that while seen as indispensable today is neglected in earlier work by Tough and others. This is the implicit or tacit dimension of informal learning. Livingstone discusses this type of learning by speaking in terms of its opposite, learning that is informal but explicit:

Explicit informal learning is distinguished from everyday perceptions, general socialization and other tacit learning by peoples conscious identification of the activity as significant learning. The important criteria that distinguish explicit informal learning [from implicit learning] are the retrospective recognition of both a new significant form of knowledge, understanding or skill acquired on one's own initiative and also recognition of the process of acquisition. This guideline distinguishes explicit informal learning from all of the other tacit forms of learning through everyday activities. (1999, p. 4; emphasis added)

Livingstone understands tacit informal learning primarily in terms of socialization, those activities, indistinguishable from everyday life, through which we acquire skills, values and forms of behaviour typically associated with competent membership or participation in society. In addition, Livingstone also helpfully differentiates between formal education (i.e., school, college and/or university) and what he calls further education, which he uses to cover all other organized educational activities (emphasis added). These include any courses, training or workshops offered under institutional auspices. Typically, Livingstone adds, these are individual courses offered to adults on a part-time, short-term basis, and often voluntarily chosen (1999, p. 3).

Livingstone notes further that the distinction between tacit and explicit learning shows the close association of the type of episodic, project-based learning studied so closely by Tough with in moments of significant personal change or transformation:

Much of the most important learning adults do occurs in these moments of transition (whether it happens to be a birth, death, marriage, divorce, transition between careers or locations, or some other major influential event) which provoke a concentrated period of informal learning. The most significant informal learning continues to occur in these irregular, intense moments of peoples lives (1999, p. 9).Mobilizing these insights and distinctions, and showing how the 1999 survey addresses some of the limitations of Toughs research, Livingstone highlights findings that strongly confirm and also extend those of Tough. Besides the finding that roughly 95% of respondents engage in informal types of learning, and that this occurs for an average of 15 hours a week, Livingstones later work provides a more detailed picture. It shows (as discussed below) how such learning is distributed among areas of interest, including computer technology, and how it compares quantitatively to formal and further education.

3.2000-2010: Work and Lifelong Learning Research

2000 to 2010 can be said to mark a period of expansion, diversification and flux in the study of informal learning in Canada. Livingstones contributions are significant throughout this timeframe, but he is joined by a panoply of others, particularly in the context of a large-scale research project he led, funded by a grant from aforementioned federal ministry, Industry Canada.

The Work and Lifelong Learning Research (WALL) network, funded from 2003-2008, was formed as a part of the nation-wide collaborative research initiative, titled Changing Nature of Work and Lifelong Learning in the New Economy: National Survey and Case Study Perspectives. This research network and initiative produced well over a dozen book publications and more than 200 papers, book chapters, and reports, as well as datasets, protocols and other materials, many of which cast in sharp relief myriad issues concerning learning and education in Canada (for an extensive listing of publications, see: Livingstone/Raykov, 2010). The key initiative and data source in this work is the 2004 Canadian Work and Lifelong Research Learning Survey, carried out with a large representative national sample (N=9.063) of the adult Canadian population. In addition, a smaller WALL survey was carried out in 2010 (N=2.028), using the same questions and designs, but presented with considerably less analysis. Together, these three sets of findings particularly those of the comprehensive 2004 study present the best picture of informal learning available for Canada at present. As such, these findings are covered here in some detail.

The 2004 and 2010 WALL surveys included an array of adult learning forms and types, such as job-related informal training and non-taught informal learning, and cross tabulated manifestations of informal learning with demographic and other data. The data gathering methods, sampling techniques, and other methodological aspects of the 2004 WALL survey are explained in detail in extensive documentation; by all appearances, the 2010 survey also conforms to the same design (Livingstone 2012). Among the sampling decisions accounted for is the deliberate over-representation of respondents from selected urban areas a step undertaken to ensure adequate representation of non-white and recent immigrant groups (Northrup 2004, p. 2). Northrup further explains modified random digit dialing (RDD) procedures were utilized to select households (Northrup 2004, p. 2), and within households, respondents were chosen by the most recent birthday method. This latter technique approximates randomness by asking the initial respondent to speak with the adult with the most recent birthday in the household. Notably (and unlike much of the earlier research discussed above), these surveys included French speaking respondents from Quebec. Despite these innovations, the survey design does not seem to address the unique profiles of Canadas First Nations or indigenous populations.

The survey methods produce data showing not only that the vast majority of adults spend considerable time in informal learning, but that measures of this engagement have remained fairly constant since 1998 indeed, since Toughs earlier studies as well. The three surveys offer a more detailed picture of the amount of time adults spend on informal learning per week, and show the amount of time devoted to intentional informal learning per week is around 15 hours (Livingstone 2012, p. 56). The 2004 survey indicates this amount is distributed among the sample as follows: around a third of participants [spent] less than 5 hours a week and 20 percent spending over 20 hours (Livingstone/Scholtz 2006, p. 9). Perhaps unsurprisingly, this pervasive informal learning is often closely associated with the workplace. For example, the 2004 survey showed that

over 80 percent of the employed labour force report involvement in some form of job-related informal learning including, most commonly, new general knowledge in their field, new job tasks, computers, general problem solving and health and safety. Those pursuing job-related informal learning average over 5 hours per week (2006, p. 61).All three surveys investigated the topics covered in the context of informal learning, both general and job-related forms, including the use of computers in both categories. The findings show a clear decline in the percentages of those reporting time spent learning informally about computers, dropping between 1998 and 2010 from 61% to 48% for job-related learning and from 50% to 42% for informal learning in general. The three surveys also broke down job-related informal learning by educational level, finding that large percentages of adults of all educational backgrounds spend similar amounts of time learning informally. Only those who had not completed compulsory schooling fell below the mid-90% mark, but still registered in the 80%-range in all three surveys. A similarly large majority (about 80%) of adults were found to be involved in informal learning related to housework, volunteer work or general interest activities.

The 2004 study in particular also produced detailed data concerning learning connected to the under-represented category of housework:

Since more people do household work than any other form of work household work-related informal learning is probably the most widespread type of unpaid work-related learning, albeit the least studied. The findings [] suggest that most participants recognize significant intentional learning in at least some of their household work. The more in-depth [2004] WALL project on household work and learning has found such learning to be both continual and often complex (Livingstone 2012, p. 58).Finally, the findings of the WALL surveys have provided an opportunity for comparison with similar studies recently undertaken in other jurisdictions, particularly those in the Anglo-American world. Such a comparison, undertaken briefly in a 2011 report by Wihak and Hall, shows the percentages of adults engaged in informal learning internationally falls far below consistent Canadian measures. Two broadly contemporaneous surveys in the US, for example, found 75% of employed adults engaged in informal learning, and only 63% of adults generally were so engaged. 79% of employed adults were found to be engaged in this type of learning in Australia. Similar surveys undertaken in Wales and Scotland found, respectively, only 65% and 67% of adults engaged in informal learning in the previous three years (Wihak/Hall 2011, p. 19). Given the consistency of findings in Canada, the discrepancies with other jurisdictions might lead one to wonder more about the consistency of methods and designs across jurisdictions, rather than about self-discipline or inquisitiveness particular to Canadians. 4.2006-2014 The Web and Informal Learning

Despite Toughs 1999 prediction concerning the Webs importance for adult informal learning, Canadian scholarship in this area has largely failed to establish clear connections with ongoing, rapid and relevant developments in online technologies. This has become particularly evident with the rise of the participatory or read-write Web in the last half of the first decade of the 2000s. This period provides many high profile examples of the convergence of technology and practices of both formal and informal learning, and also involves signal Canadian contributions. Notably, these contributions were made by Canadians outside circles of adult learning scholars, but are internationally prominent. Services and technologies such as blogs, YouTube, Flickr, Twitter and Google groups were embraced and combined by Canadian (and other) practitioners and promoters in sometimes audacious experiments in individual and collaborative learning. However, their plans and results, like the experiments themselves, were promulgated online, and in ways and forums not typically affiliated with academic research and dissemination. This can go some way towards explaining the apparent absence of mutual recognition between these practitioners and most scholars of adult learning, despite their common commitment to informal adult learning. Among the most well-known of these practitioners or experimenters is Stephen Downes, researcher at the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada, and George Siemens, adjunct professor at Athabasca University, Alberta, Canada. History is most likely to remember Downes and Siemens as the originators of the now widely-adopted MOOC (Massively Open Online Course) format. A MOOC typically allows hundreds or thousands of participants to be involved in an otherwise conventional online academic course, usually offered openly at no cost but generally without credit or credentialing. Perhaps ironically, this can be seen to represent a significant contribution not so much to informal learning, but to what Livingstone has already identified as further education: institutional courses offered on a part-time, short-term basis, and often voluntarily chosen (1999, p. 3).

The contribution of Downes and Siemens to informal learning lies in their promotion and elaboration of the concept of the Personal Learning Environment (PLE). This is a notion that received attention in academic literature, generally in the computer sciences and in technologically oriented educational literature, between 2008 and 2012. For his part, Downes discusses this type of learning environment at some length in one of the few peer-reviewed pieces to be credited to either him or Siemens. This article is titled New Technology Supporting Informal Learning, and appeared in 2010 in the Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence. The PLE, Downes explains, is a concept developed in 2005 in conversations with and among members of JISC [the UKs Joint Information Systems Committees] CETIS [Centre for Educational Technology, Interoperability and Standards], and their friends and associates. The idea of the personal learning environment, Downes continues, is that it performs many of the functions of a content management system (2010, pp. 29-30). However, it is important that the PLE is at once more and less than this. The PLE is generally conceptualized as a loose or disaggregated collection of otherwise independent tools and services (e.g., a blog, Twitter and other feeds, as well as connections with multimedia services like YouTube and Flickr). The PLE concept, Downes further explains, sees the student, learner or his/her environment at the centre of such a collection of loosely-joined pieces:

The PLE merges the function of the content management system with the social network service, and does so from the perspective of individual students. Hence the PLE could be depicted as being a node at the centre of a network, connected [] to content and other services across the web (2010, p. 30).Downes has been involved in efforts to produce a PLE software package called Plearn, designed specifically to facilitate the formation and use of these networks. This package, developed at the National Research Council, was seen as enabling the learner to bring together (or aggregate) information and communication from a wide variety of sources, to arrange (remix and repurpose) the content according to the users own learning purposes and projects, and thus create new content. Finally the tool was seen as also allowing the learner to share (feed forward) what is thus collected and combined with other learners. Emphasizing technical terms and possibilities for achieving these functions, Downes explains:

The functionality of the PLE is depicted in four major stages: to aggregate, that is, to collect content from the individual's and other online content service providers, where aggregation includes elements of recommendation, data mining and automated metadata extraction; to remix, or to organize content from several different sources in different ways, including through automated clustering; to repurpose, or edit, localize, or otherwise modify or create new content; and to feed forward, or send the content to subscribers and other web services (2010, pp. 30-31).Some five years after its inauguration in 2009, a beta version of the Plearn has been completed. It has not been publically released, but instead, is itself to be repurposed in the context of a new project. In a recent press release, the NRC explains that Downes PLE project is to be rechristened Learning and Performance Support Systems. The same press release contextualizes or justifies this new effort in terms of an ongoing skilled labour shortage across all major sectors of the [Canadian] economy (NRC 2015). The implication is that the NRC hopes to address this social and labour market issue through systems that would support both informal learning and on-the-job performance, providing learning to the worker on a task-integrated, as-needed basis. In this sense, this new version of the PLE project seeks to bridge the aforementioned gap in informal learning between the results of formal empirical research and less formalized technological and pedagogical innovation. At the same time, this new initiative can also be seen to make this gap, and questions associated with it, particularly conspicuous.

Now that the widest range of adult learning opportunities and projects are addressed by online resources and services from supporting the task of changing a lightbulb to the completion of entire courses or degree programs many further questions arise. Thinking of the Canadian situation, and the nature of the WALL surveys in particular, these questions might include: How has the use of the Web as a medium or source in informal learning changed? Or at least, what is its status today as such a source? More specifically, one might ask: How do MOOCs and related resources from the world of formal education serve both formal and less explicitly formal learning needs? Perhaps even more urgently, one might inquire into new configurations of job-related informal learning that may have evolved and flourished in the context of the multimedia and participatory Web. Have some configurations and technologies shown themselves to be more effective and widespread than others? Answers to such basic, empirical questions could help to orient and inform bold new experiments on the Web. Much could be gained in Canada and elsewhere by efforts to bridge the gap between pragmatic, technological experimentation on the one hand, and an eminent academic tradition of empirical research on the other.

References

Brookfield, S. (1981). The adult education learning iceberg. Adult Education, 54(2), 110-118.

Cross, J. (2007). Informal learning: rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and performance. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Downes, S. (2010). New technology supporting informal learning. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence 2(1), 27-33.Holmes, J. (1976). Thoughts on research methodology, Studies in Adult Education 8(2). 149-163.Lenzer, R. and Johnson, S.S. (10.3.1997). Seeing things as they really are. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1997/0310/5905122a.html.

Livingstone, D. W. (1981). (pp. 110, 116)Livingstone, D. W. (1999). Exploring the Icebergs of Adult Learning: Findings of the First Canadian Survey of Informal Learning Practices. WALL Working Paper No.10. Toronto: Centre for the Study of Education and Work, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/retrieve/4451.Livingstone, D. W. (2012). Probing the Icebergs of Adult Learning: Comparative Findings and Implications of the 1998, 2004, and 2010 Canadian Surveys of Formal and Informal Learning Practices. The Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education/La Revue canadienne pour ltude de lducation des adultes 25(1), 4771.

Livingstone, D. W., Raykov, M., (2010). WALL Papers. Resources from the SSHRC collaborative research initiative on the changing nature of work and lifelong learning in the new economy: national survey and case study perspectives. Toronto: Centre for the Study of Education and Work, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/24562/1/Livingstone_Raykov_WALLPapers_2010.pdf.Livingstone D. W. & Scholtz, A. (2006). Work and Lifelong Learning in Canada: Basic Findings of the 2004 WALL Survey. Resources from the SSHRC collaborative research initiative on the changing nature of work and lifelong learning in the new economy: national survey and case study perspectives. Toronto, [Ont.: Centre for the Study of Education and Work, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. http://wall.oise.utoronto.ca/resources/WALL_Survey_Findings05.pdf.National Research Council (2015). Learning and Performance Support Systems. http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/solutions/collaborative/lpss.html.Norman, D. (2001). The Future of Education: Lessons Learned from Video Games and Museum Exhibits. http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/the_future_of_educat.html.Northrup, D. A. (2004). The 2003/4 National Survey of Learning and Work: the WALL Survey. Technical Documentation. Resources from the SSHRC collaborative research initiative on the changing nature of work and lifelong learning in the new economy: national survey and case study perspectives. Toronto: Centre for the Study of Education and Work, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. http://wall.oise.utoronto.ca/resources/WALLISRtechrpt.pdf.Tough, A. (1967). Learning Without a Teacher: a study of tasks and assistance during adult self-teaching projects. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Tough A. (1971) The Adult's Learning Projects: a fresh approach to theory and practice in adult learning Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Tough, A. (1999). The Iceberg of Informal Adult Learning NALL Working Paper # 49. Wihak/Hall (2011). (p. 19)

Content

1Informal Learning in Canada

21.1967-1999 Allan Tough on intentional learning and change

42.David W. Livingstone: Conceptual and Empirical Expansion and Refinement

73.2000-2010: Work and Lifelong Learning Research

94.2006-2014 The Web and Informal Learning

12References

45