Factor analysis Five factors, explaining 42.77% of the variance. Feedback and knowledge acquisition (α=.90) explains 12.93% New learning approach and communication tools (α=.86) explains 9.76% Being coached (α=.82) explains 7.92% Coaching others (α=.78) explains 6.80% Information acquisition (α=.71) explains 5.31% Anova Function: All learning opportunities result in significant differences. Staff members score highest on ‘ feedback and knowlegde acquisition’ (F = 67.34, df = (3, 952), p =.000, R² =.18), ‘new learning approach and communication tools’ (F = 22.12, df = (3, 952), p =.000, R² =.07), and ‘information acquisition’ (F = 22.82, df = (3, 952), p =.000, R² =.07). - - Workers score highest on ‘being coached’ (F = 6.14, df = (3, 952), p =.000, R² =.02) and ‘coaching’ others, (F = 3.97, df = (3, 952), p =.008, R² =.01). Clercks are always situated between staff members and workers. Gender: Males score significantly higher than females for ‘new learning approach and communication tools’ (F=16.55, df = (1,962), p=.000, R²=.05). and ‘information acquisition (F=53.71, df(1,962), p=.000, R²=.05). Seniority: Significant differences for all learning opportunities, except ‘new learning approach and communication tools’. More than 10 years seniority score highest on ‘feedback and knowlegde acquisition’ (F=4.37, df=(2.955), p=.013, R²=.01), ‘coaching others’ (F=4.50, df=(2,955), p=.011, R²=01) and ‘information acquisition’ (F= 3.07, df(2,955), p=.047, R²=.01). Less than five years seniority scores the highest on ‘being coached’ (F=10.74, df=(2,955), p=.000, R²=.02). Level of education: Employees with a master’s degree score the highest on ‘feedback and knowledge acquisition ’ (F = 28.97, df = (4,950), p =.000, R² =.11 ), ‘new learning approach and communication tools ’ (F = 23.28, df = (4,950), p =.000, R² =.09) and ‘information acquisition ’ (F = 25.62, df = (4,950), p =.000, R² =.10). Employees with an elementary degree score the highest on ‘ being coached ’ (F = 4.03, df = (4,950), p =.003, R² =.02) and ‘coaching others ’ (F = 11.94, df = (4,950), p =.000, R² =.05) Remarkable: differences between the groups increase or decrease gradually according to an increase or decrease in level of education. 5. Results Instruments: Questionnaire on learning opportunities developed by Clauwaert en Van Bree (2008). Scoring of statements regarding learning opportunities on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘not agreed’ to 5 = ‘agree’. Data Analysis: An explorative factor analysis and a series of analysis of variance (Anova) were calculated. The factors were compared for the characteristics gender, seniority, level of education and function 4. Methodology Non-Formal and Informal Workplace Learning in Organisations Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Dekenstraat 2 Postbus Leuven Tel: Fax: The participants in this study were 1162 employees from 31 different companies and professional organisations. 3. Sample Prof. Dr. Filip Dochy*², Dra. Eva Kyndt* & Hanne Nijs *Centre for Research on Teaching and Training, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium ² Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning and Participation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium This research examines individual employees’ views on their non-formal and informal learning opportunities in their organisation. - To what extent is the function of an employee related to opportunities to informal workplace learning? - Which personal characteristics play a role in this process? 2. Research Questions Workplace learning has been accepted as a valuable educational and pedagogical projcet. Recently, the interest in this kind of learning has increased since most of the skills the workers develop in their working lives will occur through participation in work (Billet, 2002). For this reason, it is important that organisations offer continously new challenges and learning opportunities to employees (Ashton, 2002, Heikkillä, 2006). Formal learning has been examined several times in the past. Informal workplace learning on the other hand gets too little attention acoording to Baert (2003). Skule (2004) describes this kind of learning as a part of everyday work process which produces implicit or tacit knowledge. 1. Introduction