Definition of non-formal learning: “Learning which is embedded in planned activities not explicitly designated as learning (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support). Non-formal learning is intentional from the learner’s point of view.”

Source: Cedefop (2008): Terminology of European education and training policy. A selection of 100 key terms. Page 133.

Back to the common grounds. What I miss is a civic dimension of non-formal learning. To my mind this is distinctive feature of it – both during the process and as an outcome.

Maybe I’m the wrong example cause I’m a social worker and I’m just finishing the postgraduate study about supervision in social work but this debate made me think how this education is different from the ones that I’m involved within NFE.
And I must say there is not that much difference:
- it s voluntary ( I have chosen to sigh in, I could choose to come or not on the „classes“, or to see which ones I will attend)
- it was done by using non-formal methodology
- we were completely active (to the fact that I wished to get some lecture to whom I could just listen)
- it id respect different kind of learning styles 8we even had a special subject on it)
- there was a balance between knowledge and development of skills
- we discussed ethical values (thou in context of supervision and relations to people involved in it)
- we had people who lead workshops from all over Europe (thou participants were only from Croatia)
- was process oriented (maybe because supervision is process oriented too)
- was learner centered (we made our individual learning plans…..)
- did involve individuals and groups
- was based on our experiences and needs
- has supportative learning environment
and then we have these:
- Grades- we had exams at the end but not exams like in primary school. Some professors just gave us all excellent just because we were there and we were active, some made a task to read something to write about it and then to discuss about it with him/her. There was actually only one exam that checked our knowledge. And this way of learning was very hard for some people.
- I’ve got an feeling they the grades are there just because FE has to have them but no one was taking them seriously. at least I didn’t
- Power relation- maybe it about me aging. But I did not feel that so much power is in professors’ hands. Maybe I did not gave them that much. Now when I think about it some of mine colleagues did see them as more important, powerful, smarter……well to be honest I can not say that the all power relations were like in training but some were. And the thing with power is that you have as much power as much people give to you.
- and that leaves the topics. we did not tackle issues like peace, tolerance, social justice, intercultural learning, gender equality. but I’m not sure that topics could be the main criteria for distinguishing FE and NFE

so, yes NFE is developing but FE is developing too. They are seeing things that have good influence on learning process and they are using it.

so it seems that the distinguishing between formal and non-formal education will be even harder to see in the future.

Another question is maybe it is time to change the present term non-formal for something else?

Totally. And why not? The kind of education you describe here

“Non-formal education is any organised educational activity which challenges existing formal systems and leading to finding alternatives, innovations and change.”

I would call that empowerment education, for example.

“Non-formal learning is a learner-centred and practice based learning process which emphasises intrinsic motivation, the usefulness of knowledge and critical thinking (rather than objective knowledge and memorizing) and aims at identity growth, social change and integration into society. Learning is voluntary, involves conscious educational aims and may be credited. It is often linked to terms like ‘experiental learning’, ‘empowerment’, ‘social pedagogy’, ‘participation’, ‘active citizenship’ and ‘social inclusion’. Non-formal learning may take place in public sector activities like social work, youth work, sports and cultural work, in working life and in civil society activities like in nongovernmental organisations, or in partnership with a variety of actors as is often the case in community work and social projects.”

As for the power relations Thanks! Andreas, they should be fair. In case of educator the power/authority should be obtained in the process of interaction with the learner. In its term the power of learner is to show dissatisfaction and to change the educator. May this be often possible in the formal education?

To my mind these have nothing to do with European non-formal youth training as society and power are universal notwithstanding the part of the world. But this is if we are talking about the features.

@Andreas
Another question is maybe it is time to change the present term non-formal for something else? The term appeared at times of education system crisis and was a response on new social/civil demands. In this regard transformation of pagan beliefs to something known as religion is also the results of non-formal learning. When the set, formal structures could not meet social/civil demands it had lead to non-formal, alternative, different, other than formal and widely accepted doctrine. The process repeated and formal religious structures were reformed. Maybe when present non-formal learning will be fully recognised it will not be non-formal anymore. May be non-formal should not be perceived negatively but as a means for alternative, creativity, innovation and change.

So Non-formal education is any organised educational activity which challenges existing formal systems and leading to finding alternatives, innovations and change.

Why do we need the definite definition of non-formal education?

There are several answers to that question—and quite possibly asking the question (thanks Nerijus!) and finding answers will contribute to possible definitions:

a. So far, non-formal education is mainly defined negatively, as being not formal education. It seems that for many educators in the field this is not sufficient any longer – and, historically, it’s also somewhat absurd.

c. Our educational approach is rooted in fair power relations between educators and learners—in distinct difference to formal education—but without a clear definition the power leverage will always be in favour of the educator. Being learner-centred should also mean being able to clearly explain why and what we do and how – not after or during an educational experience, but before.

Quite possibly, the last argument is the most important one; I would consider a clear definition to be an essential and overdue element of the empowerment of learners.

Quest to Learn – an experiment school based on games, cooperation and new technology: http://q2l.org/

Private business schools in Sweden: http://www.kunskapsskolan.se/foretaget/inenglish.4.1d32e45f86b8ae04c7fff213.html

Struggle for homeschooling in Sweden: http://sites.google.com/site/homeschoolinginsweden/
And arguments in favour of the right to homeschool: http://sites.google.com/site/homeschoolinginsweden/articles-additiona/download-main-article/HSCCMW.pdf?attredirects=0

and the movement of unschooling: http://www.unschooling.com/index.shtml

why all these links for the sake of the debate on the definition of non-formal education?

To some extent it tells me that “we” in non-formal education sector (however we define it precisely) are not so “unique” in the sense of what we offer to deliver – critical thinking, learning to learn and so on. there are examples of “formal education” contributing or at least trying to do so for critical consciousness. Secondly, it is a lot about power struggles (with different intentions probably) for the education do be “free”. Which might seem scary unless uncertainty is welcomed and appreciated. But when it comes back to “our need” to define “non-formal education”.

And I want to ask opnely why we need the definite definition of non-formal education? To understand better its essence? To be able explain it to others? To convince others? To get access to do what we believe in?

Getting lost somewhere…

Is looking at the dimensions of content, context, purpose and process of a learning situation really useful outside the small circle of European-level youth trainers – or useful beyond the perspective of the educator?

Brennan argues that NFE can be either complementary, alternative or supplementary to the formal education system, but also looks at the limitations and problems of defining something negatively, as is the case with NFE of course.

How can we approach and construct a definition of nonformal education that holds beyond the small world of European-level youth training?

Back to the common grounds. What I miss is a civic dimension of non-formal learning. To my mind this is distinctive feature of it – both during the process and as an outcome.

“From a long time ago, the crisis of the formal education was announced.
While the time went by, the effectivenes of formal education to afford social crisis, especially within the two World Wars, made obvious the needed changes at education methodologies.

At the sixties, with the social revolution to try to find out alternatives to the 19th century ideals which led us to the Wars, appears in the civil sector the concepts and methodologies to work at the area of education in skills and attitudes, which were developed beforehand at other fields like the militar and religious oriented training or the youth work.

Since then, we can consider three types of global methodologies of education, which tried to find their own space without real integration, facing nowadays the needings of bridges to merge these methodologies at the hope of produce a better education for a better society instead of an endless struggle for power” so, certainly if formal education uses for its own sake non formal methodologies without changing power-relations and the vission formal public education was born with, the utopia is useless as Andreas commented.