This article misses the point in a way that's illustrative. It defines formal learning as "planned and guided by an instructor" and informal learning as "unstructured, often unintended, and it occurs outside of a conventional learning setting." But Emma O'Neill adds, it "has no real objectives, rather it just happens naturally." Not exactly. If you just think of learning as the acquisition of content, then sure, informal learning has "no real objectives". But informal learning isn't just 'reading for fun' or some such thing. It's learning that occurs while you are in the process of trying to get something done, and what defines its success is whether you are able to do what you wanted to do. It's not a learning objective, it's a doing objective, that defines informal learning.