What a wonderful discussion! And I've listened with interest - sometimes shouting agreement and at other times arguing out loud. Now work is over for another week I thought it was an opportunity to finally participate.
The thrust of the conversation appears to centre upon the aim of 'capturing' ' assessing' ' credentialing' etc. It all seems hostile to informality.
Then I thought about evaluation by who? And according to who's criteria might my informal projects and conversations be evaluated? Who's agenda is being addressed etc.
Then I thought about the social context that seems to be missed in the conversation so far. Most of my informal learning involves others as facilitators or participants. Shouldn't evaluation reflect that social dimension much more?
Then I thought about the social-cultural aspect. Here we all are informally gathered together from at least different points of the western world but even within this we have huge diversity. Evaluation may be a critical approach to work and experience that may suit some more than others. Being 'critical' is an alien concept to many in the East and West.
So my current summary is that this is a big issue. And perhaps I should stop there.
Have a good weekend wherever you are.
University of Glasgow