Este artigo pode ser copiado, distribuído, exibido, transmitido ou adaptado desde que citados, de forma clara e explícita, o nome da revista, a edição, o ano e as páginas nas quais o artigo foi publicado originalmente, mas sem sugerir que a RAM endosse a reutilização do artigo. Esse termo de licenciamento deve ser explicitado para os casos de reutilização ou distribuição para terceiros. Não é permitido o uso para fins comerciais. Summary of key results: Five categories of informal learning were identified: interpersonal relationships; work practices; sharing knowledge; unsystematic training and autonomous. Informal learning depends on: 1. interpersonal relationships, 2. plan for work practices, 3. sharing the knowledge, and 4. autodidactism. Some factors were considered facilitators and/or inhibitors and favorable and/or unfavorable to informal learning. Key considerations/conclusion: The professionals describe informal learning as something difficult to prove and that the same thing happens through practice and the exercise of their skills. For future research, it was suggested the following: 1. analyze the influence of environment variables when employing the use of informal strategies of learning; 2. relate the learning of TIC professionals to the initiatives of knowledge management in the Organization; and 3. observe the role of leadership in the process of informal learning among professionals.version) • http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-69712017/administracao.v18n1p66-95. Submission: Jan. 15, 2016. Acceptance: July 26, 2016. Evaluation system: double blind review. UNIVERSIDADE PRESBITERIANA MACKENZIE. Silvio Popadiuk (Editor), Eda Castro Lucas de Souza (Associate Editor), p. 66-95. Informal learning exercise for TIC professionals: a study at the Superior

Although the number of students with dyslexia enrolled in Italian universities is constantly growing, their presence remains relatively limited. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the choices made by students with dyslexia in relation to university studies, and the underlying reasons for their choices. This study also compares these choices for students with and without dyslexia. In all, 440 high school students and their families agreed to take part in this project. Socio‐demographic data was collected for the 47 students with dyslexia and 47 class‐matched students without dyslexia, along with information on their current schools and their future educational plans. A specially developed questionnaire was used for the students, in combination with structured interviews with their families. The results show significant differences between these groups regarding both choices for university studies and the underlying motivations for these choices. Furthermore, certain psychological and emotional factors are implicated here in the decisions of the students with dyslexia regarding both university studies and their underlying reasons. Future research is needed to further investigate these factors in the educational choices of students with dyslexia.

No abstract