Vielen Dank für die Hilfe :)

Developed by Adam Blake – Source (html)

Developed by John Anderson and Robert McCormick – Source (html) // Source (pdf)

A pdf of the dossier is available at http://insight.eun.org/…/quality_criteria.pdf.

I think at the core of this – at the core of why we need such a debate in our field – is a fear of professionalism. I’ve been in too many team-meetings, where my need to discuss in how far a proposed method was the perfect fit for content, context and purpose of that particular session within the flow of a larger course, was not met with enthusiasm. Because, quite frankly, it’s exhausting.

Also, and this is a challenge and a bliss, do we work in a field that is mixing volunteerism and professionalism. Many professional trainers today have started as volunteers. On the one hand, it’s probably hard to find a field of work where people are so enthusiastic (and self-exploiting) as in non-formal education. However, just as a hobby-chef that has worked in a restaurant kitchen might be put off by the pressure, need for precision, planning, logistics and discipline, a hobby-youth-leader might be put off when required to question their beloved energizer, whether it is the most suitable one for a certain moment and time of a training course or seminar.

So my question is – rather than becoming better in all what you wrote about above, how can our field foster the necessary attitude of professionalism that will necessarily result in contextual and purposeful design of learning environments and processes?

There are two things that you should know, for the case you prepare a second version of your text:

1. It would be better if you consider my lastname to be “Prieto-Martin”, and my name “Pedro”. It’s confusing for everybody, that we have two last names in Spain. :-)

2. The “changing views” on participation was just a reflection. But if you want to see where that reflection finished… this could be a real candidate for your 31st model: “The matrix of civic implication”.
It includes 4 dimensions (more could be added, but these were considered as the most significant). I think it is an honest attempt to learn from previous model, and try to create a “tool” tha is at the same time powerful, practical and easy to use, that allows practitioners and theorists to compare in a matter of minutes different Participatory experiences.

The model is explained in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZKuPaJrl2s

We haven’t still been able to prepare a real translation of the subtitles, but you can get the automatic english subtitles that youtube creates using Google Translate. I think it is good enough, by now, as to get the main ideas.

This model is still pending to be presented as a text. We actually thought it would be easier for people to “visualize” it if we presented it as a video.

This series of videos where included as part of the teaching materials of a course on electronic participation.

The link I provided is for the 10.b “The advent of civic implication”, and I think you will also like the schema included in the 10.a about the “Participatory activities in the XXI century”.

And… well, in general, you will probably like the rest of the materials, that for example analise what is changing by the arrival of Internet, how to empower municipal participation, and others.

Kind regards. Thanks for your work!!
Pedro
PS: If you write me an e-mail, I can provide you with the english version of the matrix

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.

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.

Few days ago I found an interesting article with some insights on both, the challenge and doubt. Suzanne Grant and Maria Humphries in their article “Critical evaluation of appreciative inquiry: Bridging an apparent paradox” (available at http://arj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/4/401) shares their thoughts of bridging the appreciative inquiry and critical theory.

They argue that by bridging two, seems opposite approaches, the outcomes are much more fruitful and enjoyable. In the article they call it “a paradox in action”. For me it gives some directions on how appreciative inquiry could include critical reflections leading towards transformative change.

Now I continue reading PhD theses of Suzanne Grant on which the article is grounded (available at http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/2583). So far it is exciting and I am willing to apply some discoveries in my educational practice.