A concerted collective effort is currently underway to define non-formal education and non-formal learning.

It is exciting and informative, but at times, it almost seems like a catch-22…

Defining the meaning of words is essential to begin to understand the different contexts and connotations. Definitions, though, must be universal: they must apply to all aspects and meanings of the definiendum…

Definitions in European—let alone global—contexts can, therefore, not be normative (in the philosophical meaning of the word), but can only attempt to be descriptive and explanatory – while avoiding ambiguity through

getting lost in details.

If definitions are understood as explanatory statements that capture the meaning, the use, the function and the essence of a term or a concept – how can definitions of non-formal education and learning be produced that hold true for so many heterogeneous contexts?

Defining NFE – Catch-22?
Photo by buriednexttoyou

One way or the other, it seems necessary and adequate to not cling to any of the established classes of definitions – such as, say, stipulative, or ostensive.

Most of the elements of definitions for non-formal education and non-formal learning variedly include several elements: some are more reportive (i.e. attempting to capture the essence of a concept as in use today), others are more stipulative (i.e. give a term a new or expanding meaning in a European or global context), and most are a combination of these two.

I am quite curious what definitions will be constructed from this collective undertaking of TALE and TOT and NONFORMALITY.

Join the fray if you like!

Their upcoming Conference “Vision not Division – Learning for all in the 21st Century,” jointly organised amongst others with Futurelab – Innovation in Education, focuses on

“the increasingly significant contribution that non-formal learning is likely to have to play in the future provision of education and learning in the 21st Century.”

The conference brings together seminal figures from the British sphere of non-formal learning – researchers, practitioners and policy makers alike.

In preparation and anticipation of the conference, their consultation planning group looked at recent definitions of non-formal learning to identify some common ground through characteristics of non-formal learning spanning across several definitions:

• a commitment to
  viagra cheap

  the ‘agency of the learner’

• purposeful and intentional learning but most often a voluntary commitment by the learner
• reliant on a set of values/beliefs about learning rather than an organizational setting
• learner-centred
• requiring a flexibility in learning styles, tending towards experiential and reflective
• provides for accreditation of learning if required by the learner
• takes place in a wide range of environments and settings covering a broad range of subjects and
  buy viagra

  activities

• delivers an integral aspect of Life Long Learning

They also say that, in their view,

“non-formal learning occupies the space that separates formal and informal learning and permeates both these arenas, when utilised by skilled and expert practitioners.” [Source]

The definitions considered are well-known and widely referred to – including the European Commission’s Communication “Making a European Area of Lifeling Learning a Reality (2001),” the shared Commission & Council Working Paper “Pathways towards validation and recognition of education, training & learning in the youth field (2004)” and the Salto Report “Promoting recognition of youth work across Europe (2005).”

(Sidenote of interest: the people behind the definitions in these reports are no other than Lynne Chisholm and Peter Lauritzen. Andreas)

What do you think about this common ground?

Something missing, something wrong?

Contribution to the European Commission and Council of Europe Partnership Expert Workshop on Non-formal Learning in cooperation with the Youth in Action National Agency for the Czech Republic, Prague, 9 June 2008. Available as pdf.

A report of the workshop will be available on the Partnership website.

This workshop is being held under the title ‘Continue the pathway towards recognition’, but I would like to begin by saying that I would always prefer the plural, that is ‘pathways’. I asked myself whether perhaps the singular was used in the title to suggest that it is important that people work together to move forward on achieving specific aims, so that energies are not dissipated by going off in different directions. On the other hand we also know very well that there is more than one pathway to recognition – a phrase which you can approach at different levels and in different dimensions. I would prefer to say that there are several relevant pathways; we have to identify them and to work in a coordinated way to pursue them in coherent ways, each contributing from our own corners.

What follows is not the ‘Ten Commandments’, but two sets of five points that I would like to make. The first five points are of a general nature, in response to the task of giving the point of view of researchers. The second five points are areas of action that may be worth considering in continuing the pathway towards recognition.

In brief digression at the outset, I am sorry to say that I shall be unable to stay for the whole workshop: formal educational institutions and those who work and study in them cannot always be as flexible as we might ideally wish, so that it is extremely difficult to re-arrange one’s term-time lecturing schedule once the semester has begun. The main reason for this is because today’s university students cannot easily change their daily and weekly time schedules – at least this is so for those studying educational sciences (who will become, or already are, community education workers, youth workers, counsellors, educational administrators and similar). Many of

our students take up degree studies in education after having several years work experience, either in educational and social fields or in quite different fields of work; some of them will already have begun degree studies in another subject, some will have completed a degree in a different field altogether. For a range of reasons they will have decided somewhere in the middle of their lives that they want to change their occupation, or perhaps to begin a serious career for the first time. So, many of our students are older than average and many have to juggle family, employment and studies all at once. But those who are younger and do not have family responsibilities are still very likely to have to earn money to finance their studies. Our students’ lives are busy and complicated; when they have organised their course schedule for the semester, they usually find it very difficult to shift pieces around if their professor has to go somewhere else at the time when the course is usually held.

I mention all this because it is indicative of what it means to be a young adult today – being young does not stop when you reach the age of majority at 18, after all, which is one reason researchers have begun to use the term ‘young adults’ to signify a period of life that stretches across ‘youth’ and ‘adulthood’. Juggling with many unknowns, contingencies and incoherencies is a complex game – constructing a life that puts all the pieces together, at least provisionally, is a major challenge. This has consequences for what young people experience and learn as they are growing into young adulthood – and it therefore has consequences for what young people need to learn and to be able to do in order to construct and manage a life in a very complex society. We should be thinking about the exploding discussions on competence and competences, both as a concept and as lists drawn up by experts and policymakers, from this point of view – from the perspective of the real-life conditions in which young people are positioned and with which they must negotiate and come to terms, hopefully positively and creatively.

Take five: researchers’ point of view

1 Who are the researchers in the first place?

The request to contribute with the researchers’ point of view made me feel rather helpless, because I am not sure who the researchers would be or whose point of view I am supposed to be expressing. I certainly do not know of any collective view of what researchers might think, so I can only really say what I think, which might provide some clues, having worked with lots of other researchers for many years. To be honest, the best answer I can offer with respect to researchers’ point of view on the recognition of non-formal learning in the youth field is to reply: ‘I draw a blank’. There is no clear group of researchers who address themselves to this issue. There are individual researchers working in many different disciplines in many different kinds of institutions with many different kinds of interests. Sometimes those things all come together, but most of the time they do not. You could surmise that this is an inevitable characteristic of any specialist field as it develops – it takes time to differentiate out into definable thematic sub-fields – as, for example, in the case of European youth research, whose first twenty years or so have been spent establishing the field as such. On the other hand, one would have thought that by now, the topic of non-formal learning would have become a distinct thematic specialism within youth research, rather than just a few individuals who are involved with the topic, but not necessarily as the main focus of their research and writing.

On reflection, I think one reason could be that few youth researchers are specialists in educational science; the majority come from sociology, social psychology and political science – this is also true for me, I am a sociologist who has always worked in education, but in fact most sociology of education is about formal education and training settings, processes and outcomes. On the whole, few youth researchers are centrally interested in educational questions at all, so very few are likely to place non-formal learning at the centre of their activities.

It has also proven very difficult to recruit young and upcoming researchers to specialise in this field, because it does not deliver the opportunities and rewards they need to build an academic career. For example, the SCI (Science Citation Index) is becoming an increasingly powerful indicator for evaluating where researchers stand in relation to each other – it provides a ‘points system’ for publications in specific peer-reviewed journals according to their (apparent) professional prestige, as adjudicated by senior academics. It is not relevant in all disciplines, but it is very important in some (such as psychology) and it is increasingly used in universities and ministries to evaluate individual and institutional performance and quality. These kinds of indicators can make a real difference to whether someone is able to get and keep a job or not – most young researchers are on temporary contracts and must ensure they fulfil a set of formal expectations, typically in competition with their peers, in order to stay in the game. To put it simply and clearly: a journal like Coyote is not even on the list of SCI-reputable journals – but nor are the peer-reviewed youth research journals that are the main orientation points for European youth research, whereas a publication with the Council of Europe or the European Commission may count amongst the real specialists, but is meaningless for most standard research assessment exercises, whether individual or institutional.

In effect, young youth researchers who invest in and engage with the field are unlikely to receive professional rewards for doing so; this is a demotivation to stay in the field. In a feasibility study I undertook last year for the youth affairs department of the Austrian Ministry for Health, Family and Youth, analysis of the authorship of reports and articles showed that most people had contributed to only one or two research or writing projects and had then disappeared from the youth research field altogether. My hypothesis is that the situation is similar in most, if not all countries in Europe. With the lack of a clear and stable reference group, with the lack of rewards and prospects, it is difficult to establish a stable professional community of belonging and identity – except amongst those who are already well-established and do not have to worry about the SCI or the next month’s income.

If I reflect on the four years that have passed since the first ‘Pathways’ document, then it is quite correct to identify an enormous dynamism, so much so that it is fully justified to ask whether things are happening so quickly that there is hardly time to digest and understand what is happening and what should now happen. The statement is correct with respect to policy and practice in the field of non-formal learning and its recognition. It is incorrect with respect to research into non-formal learning and its recognition. Little serious research has taken place and no coordinated research as taken place. The immediate reason is that there is little dedicated funding to do so, but the more important point is to ask why the priority attached to this topic is so low that little funding is made available. What lies behind the fact that there is little concern to establish a credible evidence base?

Read the full text here in pdf-format.

At first sight, the famous circle of chairs pretends that non-formal education is an orderly system, full of predictable harmony. What an illusion!

» Non-formal education is chaos at its best.

The contrast between the image and the core of nonformal learning is a wonderful illustration of the dialectics between order and chaos, harmony and disorder. And indeed, educators have much to gain from chaos theory.

In Greek mythology, the world wide web reveals to us, khaos meant “gaping void” or “nothingness” and was — at least by some — thought to be the primary source of all things.

In contemporary mathematics, chaos describes dynamical systems with a sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

More commonly, this is described as the butterfly effect, a term coined by mathematician and meterologist Edward Lorenz:

«Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?»

Lorenz described how small changes in the variables of his computer weather model grossly changed the predicted weather patterns and developed a model to calculate how even the tiniest variations of initial conditions can amplify and induce large variations in a system’s behaviour.

With his discovery he — according to the committee that awarded him the 1991 Kyoto Prize for basic sciences —

«profoundly influenced a wide range of basic sciences and brought about one of the most dramatic changes in mankind’s view of nature since Sir Isaac Newton.»

Discovered by Henri Poincaré in 1890, chaos boomed after Lorenz stumbled over it with his attempts at weather prediction in the 1960-ies. Chaos is now believed to have been observed in fluid dynamics, in magnetic fields, in molecular vibrations, and the solar system.

» Nonformal education needs to added to the list.

What makes a system chaotic?

To be classified as chaotic, a system needs to be not only sensitive to initial conditions, but also nonlinear. What is a nonlinear system you ask?

That might be understood easiest by looking at linear systems, so by looking at what nonlinear systems are not. A linear system always responds predictably: at a given place and time, several independent impulses always trigger the same reaction — whether they were applied separately or jointly. The sum of the responses is equal to the sum of the stimuli.

In nonlinear systems, this is not the case. The response of a system largely depends on the timing, order and combination of inputs. Clearly, for nonformal education this is the case.

Another way to approach the differentiation between linear and nonlinear systems is by their appearance. Linear systems appear the same, no matter how they are looked at. Nonlinear systems look different depending on your perspective. Again, this is true for any learning situation — how close or distant you are, or how involved or excluded in the proceedings, greatly determines how it all looks.

Nonlinear dynamical systems often behave in ways that seem completely random and are (seemingly) unpredictable — at least we cannot predict their behaviour with what we know. This unpredictability is called chaos.

To the day, weather systems remain a perfect example for such dynamics. Weather forecasts also help to clarify a common misperception of chaotic systems: chaos can, many people believe, not be determined. After all, how often has it rained when Mr Weatherman told us it wouldn’t?

But chaos can be understood. Or could be — if we knew enough about initial conditions, stimuli and responses; and if our knowledge was precise enough. Theoretically, chaotic systems are completely deterministic!

Again, this holds true for non-formal education. If we knew enough about the people in advance — say about their history, their patterns of behaviour, and their ways of thinking, to name but a few aspects of relevance — we might be able to determine how a learning situation evolves.

To a certain extent we try this, of course: we ask particular questions in application forms, we develop pre-course questionnaires, we build curricula in certain ways and run complex, challenging activities not on the first day of an activity.

As in mathematics, we are not trying to find precise solutions or perfect responses (how hopeless would that be!), but rather to determine how the system depends on (which) initial conditions and whether the system can be transformed to a steady state, whatever that may look.

If we knew exactly the personalities and behavorial patterns of participants AND the entire range of external influences AND the complete diversity of deterministic factors, we might be able to predict better how a learning situation evolves.

But how silly would that be? Nobody wants that. And even if we ever knew all these things, we would still only know the starting point — approximately. Our knowledge of the complete set of influential conditions for a learning system will never be exact enough; the complexity is simply too large.

I am not complaining: one of the principles of non-formal education is anyway to not control, but facilitate; to not demand, but offer; to not enforce, but enable.

In other words: prediction is, in our work, not only theoretically impossible, it is also philosophically not wanted. Nonformal education is deliberately fortuitous. But while things may be chaotic, they are certainly not random.

What can we learn from all this?

First thoughts go to the attempts of defining quality factors of non-formal education.

Seeing the wide range of factors that influence any learning situation — and there is not even agreement on what these factors are, not to speak of what their influence may be — it seems almost silly (and certainly vain) trying to define an endless list of quality criteria.

Can this be done at all?

Some people, for example, pay great attention to the quality of the venue. But haven’t we all experienced shitty courses in gritty places, and witty courses in shitty places?

Second thoughts go to toolboxes and the attempt to standardise educational methodology.

Keeping the unpredictability of learning systems in mind: can our response really be to have a limited set of tools at the ready?

I think not. A criteria for quality — returning to the previous question — emerging from this discussion may well be the ability of teams to develop new methodological approaches in response to a particular situation.

Third thoughts go to attitudes of educators.

What we do, at all times, is chaos control — no more, no less. Don’t we too often pretend we control the entire situation? We do not; we merely influence some aspects of a learning system’s chaotic behaviour.

A new, appreciative openness to surprises is needed. But being open to the unexpected is not enough: the unexpected is part of any learning system’s inherent logic — it makes these complex systems functional.

Final thoughts go to evaluation.

A defining characteristic of chaos is that the sum of the total is

not equal to the sum of its different parts and their interaction. There is more to chaos than the naked eye can see.

Why then, do I ask, do we continue
to dissect educational activities?

Why then do we continue to look at the different aspects of a training — aims, objectives, outcomes, competences, methodology, support — and pretend that all of this taken together fully captures the activity?

It doesn’t; and according to chaos theory it never can.

It is the chaos of learning that makes our work so difficult and beautiful, and it is the ability to deal with chaos, complexity and ambiguity that makes for a good educator.

Chaos is a multidisciplinary science — it has been useful in such diverse disciplines as biology, economics, chemistry, physics, and more — and I believe that education has much to learn from (and give to) chaos theory.

How do you approach and experience chaos in learning?

On May 30 and 31, the Estonian National Agency of the Youth in Action Programme is hosting a networking seminar for people who bring non-formal education and the world wide web together (or are planning to do so) in Tallinn.

It is, we believe, an exciting opportunity to dream about and shape the online future of non-formal education… And we want to keep this invitation as open as possible!

Here is the application form – shorter and sweeter than most, it’s almost enjoyable! After only a few minutes you will be ready to return it to us… Not bad eh?

Here comes some more info…

The people – for who?

You have a website, a portal, a network, a photoblog, a journal, a vlog or any other form of internet-based expression on non-formal education? You are welcome to apply.

You are from a team, a group, a project, a non-governmental organisation, an institu-tion, something in between or even on your own? You are welcome to apply.

As long as you are doing something to bring non-formal education and the world wide web together – or are planning to do so – you really are most welcome at this seminar.

The context – why?

Non-formal education is an exciting way to learn: full of opportunities to be discovered – but not very well recognised at times. The internet is an exciting place to learn, too: full of different opportunities to be discovered – but also quite lonely and confusing at times. Imagine the power unfolding when the two come together!

This networking seminar wants to offer time and space to people, groups, teams, initiatives, projects, and organisations who bring together non-formal education and the world wide web. There is surely something we can learn from each other! And there might be something we could do together, too…

The timing – why now?

In recent weeks and months, more and more websites have emerged about and around non-formal education and learning. It seems to be the right time for bringing them together for an exchange of experience and some dreams about the future!

The aims – what for?

The networking seminar aims to offer space and time

• to get acquainted with different web-projects and -initiatives about or for (raising awareness on) non-formal education and learning,
• to discuss the role and potential of these projects and initatives for the recognition and valorisation of non-formal education and learning, and
• to explore needs, potentials and strategies for co-operation between such initiatives and projects in the future.

The people – who with and by who?

We hope to bring together a variety of different actors – people behind webportals or blogs, networks or vlogs – from projects, groups, individual initiatives, non-governmental organisations, and institutions.

We run mitteformaalne.ee and nonformality.org, and our own work has a strong focus in youth work and youth training based on intercultural learning and non-formal education, which is not meant to limit the seminar to that. But to be fair, you can expect the majority of participants to have a background in youth work – be that training, research, policy, community work or a mixture of these.

The seminar is hosted by the Estonian National Agency of the «Youth in Action» Programme of the European Union. While quite a few people invest some work for this seminar to happen, it is coordinated and will be facilitated by these three:

(Kristiina Pernits, Andreas Karsten, Marit Kannelmäe)

The time and place – where and when?

The seminar will take place in Tallinn, Estonia on May 30 and 31, 2008. You are expected to arrive on May 29 and to depart on June 1.

The conditions – which restrictions?

There are only three simple conditions:

• You are doing something with non-formal education and the internet,
• You are able and willing to work in English during the seminar,
• You have time to attend both working days fully.

The financial conditions – who pays?

We are covering board and lodging during

your stay in Estonia, as long as you arrive not earlier than May 29 and don’t leave later than June 1. Anything beyond these dates is on your own budget.

Regarding your travel expenses, we kindly ask that you get in touch with your National Agency of the “Youth in Action” programme. They are aware of this seminar, and might be willing to cover your travel. This is subject to negotiation, of course, and you might be asked for a participation fee or to prepare a report on the seminar for the agency.

If you are not from one of the 31 programme countries of the “Youth in Action” pro-gramme, we hope that you will find some clever way of covering your travel expenses. Should you have trouble with that, and think you really should be at this seminar, get in touch by email.

The application – how does it work?

It’s quite simple, really, and pretty normal as well – we have thought of a couple of questions to help us choose from the applications and select a group with a constellation that reflects the variety of approaches and experiences that are around.

We will make the selection of participants at our preparatory meeting in the beginning of April, and let you know before April 15. Should you not be selected, please don’t misinterpret this as a quality judgement of your work – because it isn’t.

Ok, here are our questions – hope to see you soon!

The shortest and sweetest application form ever…

Part of the «talking-point» article previously known as the address is a dialogue which I have encountered too many times in too many situations; I could immediately sympathise…

Here it is, slightly adjusted for our context:

People constantly ask me: «But what do you teach?»

I would reply that I did not actually teach but that I organised educational activities for people.

«What kind of activities?» they would ask.

«Things like a series of meetings, seminars and training courses on European Citizenship or Human Rights,» I would reply.

«Oh, you teach philosophy,» they would say.

A lot of my work has to do with capacity building in the world of NGOs: Programmes on recruiting and managing volunteers, organising workplaces, running meetings, speaking effectively, campaigning, funding and managing projects. I remember persons looking in horror at me and saying: «You don’t actually teach them to do that, do you?»

And when I started to train trainers and educators and people asked me what I did, I would reply: «I am training trainers and educators.»

«Oh,» they would say, «and what do you teach?»

«I train on youth and adult education.»

«No, I meant, what is your subject?»

«Well, I educate educators.»

«Yes, but you must have a subject like history, or maths, or science, or English literature?»

«I teach people about the processes of learning and organising learning.»

«Yes, of course you do,» they would say, «but what do you teach?»

Head over to infed to read the whole article which, admittedly, goes much beyond this dialogue to look at adult education and the role of adult educators.

It is an interesting read!