It is hard to put a finger on what the "learning" is anyhow, but moving beyond that Philip what you are doing is to move the goal posts. Shame on you!!! :)
The issue about emergent learning (or whatever you want to call it) is that it escapes the prior definitions we have worked with in the field. There are three reactions, and they are present in this debate.
One tries to lassoo the coltish concept and drag it back within the fold. Once the emergent learning generates evidence it becomes manageable within a system that fails fundamentally to trust the individual (this is so ingrained we mostly dont even notice it).
Another notices emergent learning as an interesting anomaly, something worth studying, and of course measuring, and scoping and observing. Welcome of course, but I dare say, eternally marginal.
Then there is the view (not a new view) that understands emergent learning, once it is recognised as existing, as a fundamental and profound challenge to the way our society understands learning, knowledge and socialisation. If you recognise it you have to rethink education.
In this rethink as Philip puts it, it is all about the learner and her reaction to the environment, that interaction is central. Schools are a relatively limited part of it, and most of the influences that shape our society could be construed as emergent (though in many cases not accidental). There is an urgent need to address the issue.
I would be interested in building footprints of emergent learning experiences around events such as any episode of the X factor :) or CNN news.