» Is intercultural learning still useful today?

(Originally posted on November 29, 2007 – updated on July 3, 2009)

10 years ago, the «Ten Theses on the correlation between European youth encounters, intercultural learning and demands on full and part-time staff in these encounters» were published by Dr. Hendrik Otten of the «Institute for Applied Communication Research – IKAB».

Since 1997, these ten theses (pdf) have informed the discourse about intercultural learning in youth work.

At the occasion of the 2007 seminar of the Council of Europe’s Directorate of Youth and Sport entitled «Intercultural learning – which ways forward?», Dr. Hendrik Otten was invited to revisit, de-construct and re-construct the ten theses. And we recorded his intervention as a podcast for the world out there!

Download the podcast below to find out why intercultural learning has failed as a concept to balance cultures, why we will have to accept more unsatisfactory compromises while constructing a shared system of justice, why the ability for intercultural discourse has to be connected with a developed understanding of human rights, how intercultural learning can be used to help people live with dilemmas and ambiguity – and whether intercultural learning has a role and chance in addressing our inner-societal wars.

Enjoy listening, and stay tuned!

In case you need some help with what to do:

A podcast is nothing else than a digital recording of a radio broadcast or a similar programme which is then made available on the internet. While the name is coming from both broadcasting and iPod, a podcast is not restricted to an iPod or any other media player, in fact. You can listen to it easily, using one of many different ways.

If you wanna know more about podcasting, head over to Wikipedia.

The only thing that you need is a computer which can play mp3-files. Millions of programmes do that for you – Windows Media Player (or Jetaudio if you are on the outlook for a better and free alternative) on PC computers or Quicktime on MAC machines or iTunes on both.

Normally your computer knows very well what to do anyway, so just go ahead and download the mp3 file — your machine will take it from there, most likely. If not, ask a geeky character in your vicinity.

Just be aware that audio podcasts are usually not the smallest files (also true for ours: 13 Megabytes), so download might take a moment or two. The good news: It happens in the background, so you can continue to work away!

For you iTunes users out there, we have also included the iTunes link. For you nerdy friends of ours, we also have a more modern version of the soundfile available. And for all friends of RSS and feed readers, we also have a link especially for our podcasts.

Isn’t that absurd?

The learner-centredness of web 2.0 technology and the learner-centredness of non-formal education seem like such a perfect match.

And yet, we are to be found at the back of the digital revolution. Sitting there, not even really watching.

Here are ten reasons why youth professionals should be blogging:

UNDERSTANDING. Young people are leading the way in which technology is changing our world. Last year, I worked with 20 Europeans – all younger than 25 – who went on a trip to explore the new EU member states Romania and Bulgaria. They reported live from their journeys – magically with tools most of us still exclusively use for typing reports and making phone calls.

Your own blog will not only help you to begin to understand why all that stuff has become so normal to young people. Blogging yourself is the only way to discover the educational potential – and challenges – of blogging. And all the rest…

VELOCITY. When you hit the magic button [publish], your thoughts will be online. There is no editing, no waiting for weeks for some layouter to be finished, no authorisation procedure before the printing – eh, no printing! It’s instantaneous: the moment you want it to be published, it will be published. No fears of being outdated when others can finally read you!

INFORMALITY. On a blog, you can write what comes to mind. There are no requirements or demands on form, structure, contents, arguments, or the logical flow… You decide what gets out there, you set the standards. And with the informality of your style, you make it much easier for people to respond to your thinking – because it doesn’t require colleagues to come up with a fancy answer, they can just fire away with comments on your blog. No humming thousands of songs before reading a response in the next magazine :o)

VARIETY. You are one of the Unspeakables? You don’t like writing? Or you simply prefer photography or radio spots or short videos as a means of expression? This is your lucky time! There are many cool photoblogs and videoblogs and podcastblogs around already, and the scenes of youth work, youth policy, youth training and youth research would all largely benefit from the variety you bring in. Hell, there are even moblogs, and it doesn’t stop there – endless opportunities!

SPONTANEITY. Modern technology allows you to blog quickly, if you want. There is Twitter for being extremely short – you can just sign up for it, and twitter away – or Tumblr, if you prefer a lightweight blogging application. Wordpress takes a little longer to set up, but you can do pretty much anything you want with the beautiful beast.

NETWORKING. Through your blog, through sharing your thoughts and giving colleagues the opportunity to discuss and engage with your ideas, you can build up a network that is less dependent on physical meetings, which happen very rarely and are often overloaded with too many things already anyway. Little time is left for professional consideration of fundamental issues that are core to our work – a blog might be the place for you to have such a dialogue.

LEARNING. As a blogger, you don’t write yourself all the time. You also read a lot and get exposed to the views, ideas and experiences of other professionals in the field. Over time, a network can develop and the power and wisdom of crowds has time and space to develop its full potential. As a professional on learning, blogging will help you to become a learning professional.

ORGANISATION. A blog can help to organise your own resources. How many links, documents, papers, researches, resolutions, reports, sessions, documentations, and pictures do you have? Thousands. Admittedly, my own blog is not the best example for a well organised resource section (it will come, one day, it will come), but one can still dream…

SHARING. By making your stuff available to colleagues (and anyone who is interested, really), you make a visible contribution to the quality of the field. Others will happily follow your example and gladly join in to share their own resources, too.

After a while, you might get an extremely powerful, decentralised and distributed network of quality resources at all our fingertips. And the best thing of all: since nobody owns it but the community, nobody can shut it down. If one blog disappears, there will still be many others. We create a community of practice – all by ourselves :)

VISIBILITY. Blogging about our work not only makes problems more transparent or provides innovation through collective exchange and dialogue, it also – plainly and simply – gives the work we do with and for young people a medium, a voice, a platform. Such visibility and accessibility is badly needed – and we know it. We have known it for a long time. And complained about it for a long time, too. Shouldn’t we do something about it ourselves, then?

Are you prepared to share what you are doing –
and make that sharing a part of what you are doing?

All cartoons once more by the spectacular Hugh MacLeod of gapingvoid.

In 2005, a discussion document on intercultural learning was published in follow-up to the Council of Europe’s Directorate of Youth and Sports Long Term Training Course “Intercultural Learning” — LTTC ICL (the paper is available here).

In this document, Dr Gavan Titley argues that, while intercultural learning has become a key work area in European youth training during the last fifteen years, approaches that have been consolidated and widely reproduced during this period are no longer adequate to the realities in which young people live and practice youth work.

At the occasion of the DYS seminar entitled «Intercultural learning – which ways forward?», Gavan was invited to revisit the paper and its main conclusions and bring it in relation to the current educational practice of intercultural learning. Again, we recorded his intervention as a podcast for the world out there.

Download the podcast below to find out why using culture as a concept is dangerous and often inherently racist, why Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay has an intercultural policy and what this means for intercultural learning in non-formal education (and probably elsewhere, too!).

standard version | mp3 version | Podcast Feed | iTunes Link

Enjoy listening, and stay tuned!

In case you need some help with what to do:

A podcast is nothing else than a digital recording of a radio broadcast or a similar programme which is then made available on the internet. While the name is coming from both broadcasting and iPod, a podcast is not restricted to an iPod or any other media player, in fact. You can listen to it easily, using one of many different ways.

If you wanna know more about podcasting, head over to Wikipedia.

The only thing that you need is a computer which can play mp3-files. Millions of programmes do that for you – Windows Media Player (or Jetaudio if you are on the outlook for a better and free alternative) on PC computers or Quicktime on MAC machines or iTunes on both.

Normally your computer knows very well what to do anyway, so just go ahead and download the mp3 file — your machine will take it from there, most likely. If not, ask a geeky character in your vicinity.

Just be aware that audio podcasts are usually not the smallest files (also true for ours: 21 Megabytes), so download might take a moment or two. The good news: It happens in the background, so you can continue to work away!

For you iTunes users out there, we have also included the iTunes link. For you nerdy friends of ours, we also have a more modern version of the soundfile available. And for all friends of RSS and feed readers, we also have a link especially for our podcasts.

» An attempt to develop project characteristics

Some words of caution

European Citizenship is a term cherished by many and is being used in a wide range of contexts – to an extent that it probably qualifies as one of the discursive impossibilities of our times.

Much is done with, for and about European Citizenship. Youth work is only one part of the larger picture (arguably an important one), and so is community work in non-formal education contexts. At European level, they come together in a number of settings, some of which are institutionalised and others provided by civil society. The «Youth in Action» programme of the European Union certainly is a key scheme in support of non-formal youth work on European Citizenship, and is the reference framework for this text.

Back in 1998, the EU partnered with the Council of Europe to run a series of pilot courses and modules on European Citizenship. It is from this experience that we try to highlight some basic characteristics of non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship.

Obviously, much more could be said on such projects than we can say on these pages. We had to make choices, and warmly invite you to challenge our preferences. Other selections could be made, and we are not only open to discuss alternatives but also encourage you to explore these in practice.

We know that no generalisation we can make will ever apply perfectly: the richness of youth work is elaborate beyond imagining. Yet, the discourse on recognition and valorisation of non-formal learning and youth work remains a political priority and continues with or without practitioners. Hence we better start discussing characteristics of youth work within the community of practitioners and contribute our own experiences from reality, before others define criteria for our work on our behalf without our voice being heard.

You are currently reading a contribution of Frankly Speaking to the many discourses and discussions on quality, recognition and validation of non-formal education and learning.

If you prefer to read a paper version, please download the pdf-version [500 kb].

The starting point

The European Union youth programme «Youth in Action» has just entered its third generation and spans over 7 years from 2007 to 2013.

Under its Priority 1 «European Citizenship» it brings together four spheres or fields in a specific constellation, namely youth work, non-formal education, intercultural learning, and European citizenship. All of these four areas can evidently stand on their own and in themselves are huge and diverse themes to explore.

In other words: When we speak of basic characteristics of non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship, we only mean projects combining all four areas in their approach – not to discredit any other kind of youth work or non-formal education, but rather to remain in the realm of the «Youth in Action» programme. That said, we believe our thinking and the suggested model deriving from our thoughts could easily be applied to other contexts and constellations, but this is for the future.

On importance, relevance and antagonism

We believe that in a non-formal youth work project on European Citizenship, none of the four spheres is more important than the others and that the fields of youth work, non-formal education, intercultural learning, and European citizenship are related to one another (and indeed, to a certain extent also overlapping) and therefore are not in antagonistic competition but rather complementary. We have chosen to visualise this by means of a wheel (or ring or circle):

This graphic and the underlying assumption both imply that only when all four aspects are considered equally and brought together successfully, can a project be considered a non-formal youth work project on European Citizenship – in this particular framework.

Again, this is not a set of quality criteria suggesting that any other youth work, non-formal activity, or community work on European Citizenship is not high-quality. It merely is a set of characteristics operationalising the principles and foundations of the «Youth in Action» programme and its first priority.

Most importantly we want to underline and acknowledge that there are too many situations in which people are trapped in realities so restrictive, so despairing, that applying our ideal-case scenario does not arise at all.

That our model excludes youth work under such desperate circumstances, does not de-value the courageous work done there – on the contrary, it simply shows the limits of this particular approach (some of which we look at in more detail later).

On principles and values

It is often suggested that non-formal youth work on European Citizenship is based on a shared belief in common principles and values – in fact, that non-formal education and youth work as a whole are based on such commonalities. We argue that this, if you so want, collective philosophy does indeed exist and can best be described by the notions of human rights (as the main foundational principle of the Council of Europe), democracy (as the voluntarily chosen form of government in respect of human rights within and beyond the European Union) and peace (as the main initial motivation for the co-operation in Europe since 1945).

Clearly, all three notions are associated with different histories and carry diverse connotations in particular contexts. But while, to take but one example, the value of a singular human right might be under scrutiny, the principle of human rights as both a system of belief and a set of legal instruments is not questioned fundamentally – and therefore can be considered an essential element of what could be called the collective philosophy (or the common principles and values) of non-formal youth work on European Citizenship.

Hence, the wheel looks now like this, exemplifying that human rights, democracy and peace are not only the principles of our work, but also inform its implementation and practice and are, at the same time, also aim of our work in the sense that all three notions need constant renewal and reaffirmation, to which non-formal youth work on European Citizenship contributes:

On European Citizenship

In a nutshell, we consider European Citizenship a notion based on shared values (which we argued before can be subsumed under human rights, democracy and peace); disassociated from belonging to a particular territory and connected with voluntarily chosen belongings to value-based communities of practice; a complementary rather than an exclusive identity; an ongoing process of re-negotiating power structures and relations (rights and responsibilities, theories and practices) among and between citizens themselves as well as citizens and institutions; an active role of citizens in their different communities across social, cultural, economic and political domains; locally rooted practice and collective work in progress.

In our context (in particular Priority 1 of the «Youth in Action» programme), European Citizenship is not only part of the practice we look at; it also is an aim. The projects we consider here aim at actively and collaboratively constructing and developing European Citizenship through non-formal youth work.

Thus, to begin with, the wheel should be adjusted accordingly to reflect this double meaning (see the graphic on the right).

From our understanding of European Citizenship as a conceptual notion (see our specific paper on European Citizenship), five basic characteristics can be drawn. On that basis, non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship should (in no specific order of priority):

• be collective (encourage and work with European communities of practice),
• be inclusive (take up and take in diverse forms of active, democratic citizenship),
• be holistic (address values and beliefs as well as attitudes, knowledge and skills),
• be multi-dimensional (include several dimensions of identity, belonging, practice),
• be power-conscious (locate interactions with larger frameworks of power).

Evidently, more characteristics could be thought of, significantly that non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship should lead to action and transformation – how could youth work projects otherwise construct European Citizenship at the same time as exploring European Citizenship?

Some of these characteristics (also this specific one) we do take up in other areas, and we usually have done so by informed choice (for example, not only youth work on European Citizenship, but all youth work should be transformative). As we have emphasized before, the areas and the characteristics are related and therefore necessarily intersect.

On non-formal education

The working paper «Pathways towards validation and recognition of education, training and learning in the youth field», a joint discussion document by the European Commission’s Youth Unit and the Council of Europe’s Youth Department commissioned in early 2004, states that:

“Principles in the field of non-formal and informal learning in youth activities are manifold:

• the voluntary and often self-organised character of learning, the intrinsic motivation of participants;
• the close link to young people’s aspirations and interests, the participative and learner-centred approach;
• the open character and structure, the transparency and flexibility of the underlying curricular construction;
• the evaluation of success and failure in a collective process and without judgement on individual success or failure, the ‘right to make mistakes’;
• a supportive learning environment;
• a preparation and staging of activities with a professional attitude, regardless of whether the activity is run by professional or voluntary youth workers and trainers;
• the sharing of results with the interested public and a planned follow-up.”

Pathways towards validation and recognition of education, training and learning in the youth field. Working paper by the Youth Unit of the Directorate ‘Youth, Civil Society, Communication’ in the Directorate General ‘Education and Culture’ of the European Commission and the Youth Department of the Directorate ‘Youth and Sport’ in the Directorate General ‘Education, Culture and Heritage, Youth and Sport’ of the Council of Europe. Strasbourg and Brussels, February 2004: p. 6.

We suggest to derive five characteristics from this and argue that non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship should be (in no specific order of priority):

• be accessible (make results available, have a planned follow-up, valorise outcome),
• be learner-centred (based on participants’ needs and co-constructed with them),
• be evaluated (assessed in a collective process without judgement on individuals),
• be voluntary (based on the intrinsic motivation and self-responsibility of learners),
• be experiential (based on collective and individual experiences of people).

On youth work

In a discussion paper written in May 2006, Peter Lauritzen described youth work like this:

“The main objective of youth work is to provide opportunities for young people to shape their own futures.

Youth work is a summary expression for activities with and for young people of a social, cultural, educational or political nature. Increasingly, youth work activities also include sports and services for young people. Youth work belongs to the domain of ‘out-of-school’ education, most commonly referred to as either non-formal or informal learning.

The general aims of youth work are the integration and inclusion of young people in society. It may also aim towards the personal and social emancipation of young people from dependency and exploitation.

Youth Work belongs both to the social welfare and to the educational systems. In some countries it is regulated by law and administered by state civil servants, in particular at local level. However, there exists an important relation between these professional and voluntary workers, which is at times antagonistic, and at others, cooperative.

The definition of youth work is diverse. While it is recognised, promoted and financed by public authorities in many European countries, it has only a marginal status in others where it remains of an entirely voluntary nature. What is considered in one country to be the work of traditional ‘youth workers’ – be it professionals or volunteers – may be carried out by consultants in another, or by neighbourhoods and families in yet another country or, indeed, not at all in many places.

Today, the difficulty within state systems to adequately ensure global access to education and the labour market, means that youth work increasingly deals with unemployment, educational failure, marginalisation and social exclusion.

Increasingly, youth work overlaps with the area of social services previously undertaken by the Welfare State. It, therefore, includes work on aspects such as education, employment, assistance and guidance, housing, mobility, criminal justice and health, as well as the more traditional areas of participation, youth politics, cultural activities, scouting, leisure and sports.

Youth work often seeks to reach out to particular groups of young people such as disadvantaged youth in socially deprived neighbourhoods, or immigrant youth including refugees and asylum seekers. Youth work may at times be organised around a particular religious tradition.”

On the basis of that description, we suggest the following set of five characteristics for non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship, which should (in no specific order of priority):

• be contextualised (rooted in local, authentic situations, communities and needs),
• be transformative (improving life situations of people, leading to action and change),
• be participatory (with progressive involvement and empowerment of young people),
• be informed (by relating to current discourses and research on issues related to the project),
• be informing (providing information and feedback to policy, practice and research).

On intercultural learning

In a 2005 discussion paper on culture and intercultural learning, Gavan Titley argues that

“[while] intercultural learning has become a key work area in European youth training during the last fifteen years, [...] approaches that have been consolidated and widely reproduced during this period are no longer adequate to the realities in which young people live and practice youth work.”

The paper “contends that widely-utilised notions of culture, and the methodologies that propagate them, are both analytically and politically inadequate,” and puts forward a number of recommendations for educational practice.

Based on the considerations discussed there and elsewhere, we suggest that non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship should (in no specific order of priority):

• be plastic (exploring cultural realities and conceptual understandings of culture),
• be political (conscious of contesting discourses on culture and their political relevance),
• be contingent (aware of the contexts and purposes of intercultural dialogue processes),
• be sensitive (to culture as a ubiquitous, de-politicised concept in need of re-calibration),
• be complex (explore identity and connectivity beyond culture, individuals and Europe).

On open questions

This is a first version of the «Wheel of European Citizenship». Clearly, the jury is still out on whether the approach developed here is relevant and useful at all: discussions with trainers will validate our experiences against a wider spectrum; training courses will show whether the model holds up in dialogue with practitioners. Beyond these foreseeable fora for exchange we invite everyone to share their thoughts, concerns, questions and critiques with us. Two questions, to get you started:

1) Have we captured the essence of non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship?

2) If you are inclined to follow our approach of characterising projects descriptively by using adjectives: what about features like being concrete, diverse, relevant, empowering, interactive, critical, reflexive – to name but a few…?

The Wheel of European Citizenship

Bringing the different parts of the wheel together gives you this overview of non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship, which should combine:

and in doing so, have the following characteristics (in no specific order of priority):

The final «Wheel of European Citizenship» is bringing the different thoughts and characteristics together in one coherent, visual model:

Conclusion
C O N C L U S I O N

This article contends that non-formal youth work in the framework of the «Youth in Action» programme actively constructs European Citizenship for, with and through value-based European communities of practice by facilitating intercultural learning and dialogue through projects based on the principles of youth work and non-formal education.

For each of the four spheres (youth work, non-formal education, intercultural learning, and European citizenship) we present five basic project characteristics (some of which are as intersecting and interrelated as the four themes necessarily are) and hence put forward a set of twenty features for non-formal youth work projects on European Citizenship, visualised as the «Wheel of European Citizenship».

We suggest that the wheel may well be used as a tool for project planning and, potentially, project management as well as an indicative instrument for the valorisation of project results.

But the model presented here also has clear limitations: Firstly, characteristics are descriptive and not measurable; they are neither quality criteria nor project indicators. It will require substantial effort to develop our approach further before it can become a meaningful tool for the recognition and validation of non-formal learning. Secondly, there is an entire range of other youth and community work out there that the model disregards; though we believe it would be possible with manageable effort to adapt the wheel accordingly.

Our thoughts and proposals are mainly based on the extensive experiences from a range of activities on European Citizenship run by the Council of Europe and the European Commission in partnership between 1998 and 2006. Clearly, there is more relevant experience available, and – being aware of this – we warmly invite you to share your comments and considerations on what we have developed here.

Note on the context of this paper

This text was put together by Andreas Karsten inspired by discussions with Paola Bortini, Florian Cescon, Rui Gomes, Erzsebet Kovacs and Tatiana State in the framework of the development of a new network training course on European Citizenship for the «Youth in Action» programme. Please consider it as what it is: a working document and the personal opinion of the author.

The graphics contained in this document are all self-made by the author specifically for this text and can be used unchanged, given that the source is quoted.

Sources and resources
Sources and resources

All documentations, reports and evaluations in relation to pilot courses and training modules on European Citizenship between 1998 and 2006, and in addition:

Brocke, Hartmut and Karsten, Andreas (eds) (2007): Towards a common culture of co-operation between civil society and local authorities. Human Rights Education and youth participation. Centre Francais de Berlin, Berlin.

Castells, Manuel (1997): The Power of Identity. Blackwell, London.

Chisholm, Lynne and Hoskins, Bryony (2005): Trading up. Potential and performance in non-formal learning. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Colley, Helen et al (2003): Informality and formality in learning. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London.

Cummings, Andrew (2003): Youth work’s contribution to non-formal education. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

DG EAC (2007): Youth in Action Programme 2007-2013. Users Guide. European Commission, Brussels.

Erle, Jacob (2005): Multilayered Democracy and European Citizenship. International Academy for Education and Democracy, Copenhagen.

Freire, Paulo (1972): Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Freire, Paulo and Shor, Ira (1987): A Pedagogy for Liberation. Dialogues on transforming education. Greenwood Press, Westport.

Holder, Sharon and Titley, Gavan (2004): Resituating culture – seminar reflections. In Coyote Vol 8 2004. Council of Europe and European Commission, Strasbourg and Brussels.

Jeffs, Tony and Smith, Mark (2005): Informal education: conversation, democracy and learning. Educational Heretics Press, Nottingham.

Karsten, Andreas (2007): 12 characteristics of successful co-operation projects. In: Brocke and Karsten (ibid).

Karsten, Andreas (2003): Better youth workers? Better citizens? The impact of the pilot courses on European Citizenship. Partnership, Strasbourg.

Karsten, Andreas (2000): Staying alive: the non-formal education domain in Europe. European Youth Forum, Brussels.

Kovacs, Erzsebet (2007): European Citizenship. Unpublished working document.

Küntzel, Bastian and Karsten, Andreas (2007): Forum on Intercultural Dialogue. Discussion paper based on the Forum. INGO Assembly of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Lauritzen, Peter (2006): Defining youth work. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Lauritzen, Peter (2006): The role of research. Podcast, Youth Debate and Nonformality.

Lauritzen, Peter et al (2004): Pathways towards validation and recognition of education, training and learning in the youth field. Working paper. Council of Europe, Strasbourg and European Union, Brussels.

Martinelli, Silvio and Taylor, Mark (eds) (2000): Intercultural Learning T-Kit. Council of Europe and European Commission, Strasbourg and Brussels.

Merry, Peter (ed) (2003): Under construction. European Citizenship T-Kit. Council of Europe and European Commission, Strasbourg and Brussels.

Otten, Hendrik (2006): Quality on European youth work and youth policy. Conference conclusions. Bonn, 2006.

Otten, Hendrik (ed) (2004): Interkulturelles Lernen in Theorie und Praxis. Ein Handbuch für Jugendarbeit und Weiterbildung. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.

Otten, Hendrik and Lauritzen, Peter (eds) (2004): Jugendarbeit und Jugendpolitik in Europa. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.

Rogers, Alan (2003): Inside youth work. YMCA College, London.

Sahlberg, Pali (1999): Bridges for learning: conceptualising non-formal education. European Youth Forum, Brussels.

Smith, Linda and McNeil, Bethia (2004): Success factors in informal learning. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London.

Smith, Mark J. (2001): Culture. Reinventing the Social Sciences. Open University Press, Buckingham.

Titley, Gavan (2005): Plastic, Political and Contingent. Culture and Intercultural Learning in DYS activities. Discussion document based on the evaluation of the LTTC Intercultural Learning and recent research activities. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Titley, Gavan (ed) (2004): Resituating Culture. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Tucket, Allan (2004): Recognising and recording progress and achievement in non-accredited learning. Learning and Skills Development Agency, London.

Welsch, Wolfgang (1999): Transculturality: the puzzling forms of cultures today. In: Featherstone and Lash (eds): Space of Culture. Sage, London.

“Le Portfolio européen pour travailleurs et animateurs de jeunesse vise à augmenter la reconnaissance de l’éducation non formelle et du travail de la jeunesse!”

S’il échoue, personne ne pourra prétendre qu’il n’était pas suffisamment ambitieux…

Mais répondons tout d’abord à quelques questions de base, telles que : qu’est-ce que le Portfolio, pourquoi a-t-il été conçu, qui l’a conçu, pour qui a-t-il été conçu, que peut-on en faire, que se passe-t-il en ce moment et comment pouvez-vous vous impliquer?

Le Portfolio est un outil qui permet à ses utilisateurs d’évaluer et décrire leurs compétences sur la base d’un ensemble de standards de qualité européens.

Du moins c’est ce que le Conseil de l’Europe décrit sur son site web, bien que vous ne trouverez nulle part la mention de standards de qualité dans le Portfolio…

Le Portfolio se veut être un instrument, un outil, un livre d’actuellement 52 pages qui tend à aider des travailleurs et animateurs de jeunesse opérant dans le contexte de l’éducation non formelle à élaborer un ensemble de standards de qualité européens et à:

• identifier, évaluer et enregistrer leurs compétences
• décrire leurs compétences à d’autres personnes, et
• à se fixer leurs propres objectifs d’apprentissage de développement.

C’est pour ces raisons que le Portfolio a été conçu – dans un contexte politique qui de plus en plus soutient et reconnaît l’éducation non formelle, requérant dans un même temps une approche plus structurée et plus transparente en ce qui concerne la garantie et les contrôles de qualité.

Dans le contexte du Conseil de l’Europe, cet historique politique a été exprimé par le Comité des ministres à travers sa recommandation N° 2003 (8) au sujet de la promotion et la reconnaissance de l’éducation/de l’apprentissage non formel des jeunes, dans laquelle il indique:

“Le Comité des ministres, (…) convaincu que l’apprentissage non-formel peut contribuer à garantir le savoir et les capacités dont les jeunes ont besoin afin de réussir au sein de nos sociétés contemporaines (…), recommande que les gouvernements des Etats membres (…) soutiennent la création et l’utilisation d’un Portfolio européen en tant qu’outil descriptif visant à consigner les expériences, les capacités et les savoirs (résultats d’apprentissage) acquis à travers l’éducation/l’apprentissage non formel (…)”

Basé sur cette décision politique substantielle et constitutive prise à un niveau élevé, le Conseil de l’Europe a invité un groupe d’experts à examiner la « praticabilité » de produire un tel instrument pour tous les jeunes. Après avoir apprécié les options envisagées, le group en est arrivé à la conclusion qu’il serait plus efficace dans un premier temps de se concentrer sur des travailleurs et animateurs de jeunesse. Ceci a conduit à la formation d’un nouveau groupe qui a alors défini les objectifs plus détaillés du Portfolio:

Le groupe a réalisé une analyse fonctionnelle de ce que les travailleurs et animateurs de jeunesse devraient être et devraient faire, ce qui a permit d’élaborer un cadre de compétences que des individus sont invités à a) utiliser en tant qu’outil d’auto-évaluation, et puis b) demander un feed-back de leur pairs et collègues.

Le Portfolio est destiné à être utilisé par les travailleurs et animateurs de jeunesse. Le groupe d’experts entends par animateurs de jeunesse des jeunes adultes assumant une responsabilité dans une organisation de jeunesse, réseau ou autre structure de jeunesse essentiellement sur une base volontaire. Les travailleurs de jeunesse assument le même type de responsabilités, mais essentiellement sur une base professionnelle.

Dès lors, que trouvent ces travailleurs et animateurs de jeunesse dans le Portfolio – ainsi que tout être humain intéressé, en fait ? Laissez-moi vous montrer un autre graphique qui illustre le contenu:

Plusieurs personnes ont été consultées durant le développement du Portfolio, permettant l’apport d’un large éventail d’expertise et de perspectives que le groupe d’experts (petit afin d’être plus opérationnel) ne pourrait fournir. Si ceci a mené à quelque chose d’utile et pratique ou non reste à voir dans la pratique.

Ce explique pourquoi, essentiellement, une phase test a été mise en place jusqu’en juillet 2006. Durant cette période vous tous – si vous êtes un travailleur ou un animateur de jeunesse tel que décrit plus haut – êtes chaleureusement invité à utiliser le Portfolio – en complétant les tableaux de compétences, obtenant un feed-back d’autres personnes élaborant un plan futur – et surtout, prenant le temps de fournir un feed-back pertinent au groupe d’experts. Ce qu’ils recherchent sont des personnes qui ont vraiment une volonté d’UTILISER le Portfolio – ils ont déjà eu assez de feed-back de personnes qui l’ont juste lu!

Les objectifs sont-ils appropriés? Sont-ils appropriés au niveau européen seulement ou applicables dans des contextes locaux? Le Portfolio satisfait-il une demande pratique – ou est-il simplement un outil politique? Les praticiens sont-ils motivés à l’utiliser? Le contexte est-il compréhensible? Le contenu est-il accessible? Le cadre de compétences est-il assez et générique, et spécifique afin d’être universel mais précis? L’investissement du temps et de la réflexion est-il adéquat? Les pairs peuvent-ils comprendre votre auto-évaluation? Le cadre de travail pour leur feed-back est-il utile? Qu’est-ce qui devrait être changé d’une façon générale au sujet du Portfolio, ainsi que par rapport aux parties spécifiques de son contenu?

Celles-ci sont certaines des questions auxquelles le groupe d’experts cherche des réponses. Afin d’en donner certaines basées sur votre expérience lors de l’utilisation du Portfolio, vous êtes joyeusement invité à employer le formulaire d’évaluation supplémentaire –développé dans ce but- que vous trouvez ici en format pdf ou ici en format doc – selon votre préférence.

Évidemment, tous les commentaire et pensées que vous avez peuvent également être partagés ici sur « Nonformality » en tant que commentaire à cet article, qui sera transmis.

D’une manière ou d’une autre: mille merci!

Liens et documents relatifs

Le Portfolio (pdf, 7.5 MB)

Le Formulaire d’évaluation (pdf)
Le Formulaire d’évaluation (doc)

Le site Web du Portfolio (www.coe.int/youthportfolio)

Note:

Évidemment, vous trouverez également d’autres documents sur ce site Web du Conseil de l’Europe, où ils sont librement disponibles pour le téléchargement. Il est contre nos normes éthiques, en tant que bloggers de marcher sur les plates-bandes des autres sans qu’ils le sachent, raison pour laquelle nous vous offrons le téléchargement directement de notre emplacement.

Indépendamment de cela, la propriété de et le crédit du Portfolio appartiennent seulement à la Direction de la Jeunesse et des Sports du Conseil de l’Europe – qui a une longue tradition de partage de sa connaissance avec une plus large communauté, tradition que nous accueillons, honorons et respectons.

Written by Andreas Karsten (andreas@nonformality.org) with assistance from Mark Taylor, consultant for the portfolio (brazavil.training@yahoo.com).

Many thanks to Gisèle Evrard for the translation!

The main objective of youth work is to provide opportunities for young people to shape their own futures.

Youth work is a summary expression for activities with and for young people of a social, cultural, educational or political nature. Increasingly, youth work activities also include sports and services for young people. Youth work belongs to the domain of ‘out-of-school’ education, most commonly referred to as either non-formal or informal learning.

The general aims of youth work are the integration and inclusion of young people in society. It may also aim towards the personal and social emancipation of young people from dependency and exploitation.

Youth Work belongs both to the social welfare and to the educational systems. In some countries it is regulated by law and administered by state civil servants, in particular at local level. However, there exists an important relation between these professional and voluntary workers which is at times antagonistic, and at others, cooperative.

The definition of youth work is diverse. While it is recognised, promoted and financed by public authorities in many European countries, it has only a marginal status in others where it remains of an entirely voluntary nature. What is considered in one country to be the work of traditional ‘youth workers’ – be it professionals or volunteers – may be carried out by consultants in another, or by neighbourhoods and families in yet another country or, indeed, not at all in many places.

Today, the difficulty within state systems to adequately ensure global access to education and the labour market, means that youth work increasingly deals with unemployment, educational failure, marginalisation and social exclusion. Increasingly, youth work overlaps with the area of social services previously undertaken by the Welfare State. It, therefore, includes work on aspects such as education, employment, assistance and guidance, housing, mobility, criminal justice and health, as well as the more traditional areas of participation, youth politics, cultural activities, career guidance, leisure and sports.

Youth work often seeks to reach out to particular groups of young people such as disadvantaged youth in socially deprived neighbourhoods, or immigrant youth including refugees and asylum seekers. Youth work may at times be organised around a particular religious tradition.

Peter Lauritzen works at the Council of Europe’s Directorate of Youth and Sport as the Head of the Youth Unit.

You disagree? Have something to add? Wanna argue? Fire away!

“The European Portfolio for Youth Workers and Youth Leaders aims to increase the recognition of non-formal education and youth work.”

If the Portfolio fails, nobody will be able to claim it wasn’t ambitious enough I’d say…

But let’s answer some basic questions first, such as: what is the portfolio, why was it designed, who designed it, for whom was it designed, what can be done with it, what’s happening right now and how can you get involved?

The portfolio is a tool to enable its users to assess and describe their competences on the basis of a core set of European quality standards.

At least that’s what the Council of Europe describe it as on their website, although you won’t find mention of quality standards in the portfolio itself…

The portfolio understands itself as an instrument, a tool, a book of presently 52 pages which wants to help youth workers and youth leaders working in non-formal learning environments to

• identify, assess and record their competences,
• describe their competences to others, and to
• set their own learning and development goals.

This is what the portfolio has been designed for — against a political backdrop which increasingly supports and recognises non-formal education and, at the same time, calls for a more structured and transparent approach towards quality assurance and quality control.

In the context of the Council of Europe, this political background was expressed by the Committee of Ministers in its recommendation N° 2003 (8) on the promotion and the recognition of non-formal education / learning of young people, where it says:

“The Committee of Ministers, (…) convinced that non-formal learning can contribute to secure all the knowledge and capacities which young people need to succeed in contemporary societies (…), recommends that the governments of member states (…) support the creation and use of a European portfolio as a description tool aiming to record experiences, skills and knowledge (learning outcomes) acquired through non-formal education/learning (…)”

Based on this high-level substantial and constitutive political decision, the Council of Europe invited an expert group to look at the feasibility of producing such an instrument for all young people. After looking at the options, they came to the conclusion that it would be more effective as a first step to concentrate on youth workers and leaders. This led to a new group being formed which defined then the more detailed aims of the portfolio:

The group performed a functional analysis of what youth workers and leaders should be and do and from this drew up a framework of competences which individuals are invited to a) use as a self-assessment tool and then b) to gain feedback from their peers and colleagues.

The portfolio is intended for the use of youth leaders and youth workers. The expert group understands youth leaders as young adults holding a responsibility in a youth organisation, network or any other youth structure, mainly on a voluntary basis. Youth workers are, then, holding the same kind of responsibility mainly on a professional basis.

So what do these youth leaders and youth workers find inside the portfolio — and any other interested human being as a matter of fact? Let me show you another graphic to illustrate the contents:

Quite a few people were consulted during the development of the portfolio, bringing in expertise and perspectives from a wider range than the (small to be operational) expert group could provide. Whether or not this has led to something useful and practical, remains to be seen in practice.

Which is why, essentially, a test phase has been put in place which runs until July 2006. During this time you all — whether or not you are a youth leader or youth worker in the understanding described above — are warmly invited to have a go at using the portfolio — completing the competence tables, getting feedback from others and making a plan for the future — and, most importantly, take the time to provide some qualified feedback to the expert group. What they are looking for are people who really have a go at USING the portfolio – they have enough feedback from those who have just read it!

Are the aims relevant? Are they relevant for European level only or applicable in local contexts? Is the portfolio meeting any demand from practice – or is it just a political tool? Is motivation out there amongst practitioners to use it? Is the context understandable? Are the contents approachable? Is the competence framework both generic and specific enough to be universal but precise? Is the investment of time and thought adequate? Are peers able to understand your self-assessment? Is the framework for their feedback useful? What should be changed about the portfolio, both in general terms and in relation to specific parts of its contents?

These are but some of the questions for which the expert group is seeking answers. To give some based on your experience of using the portfolio, you are happily invited to use the extra-for-this-purpose-developed evaluation form which you find here either in pdf-format or here in doc-format — as you wish. Just send the form by email to youthportfolio@coe.int.

Obviously, any comments and thoughts you have can also come in here on Nonformality as a comment to this article which will be passed on.

Either way: Thanks a million!

Related links and documents

The Portfolio (pdf, 4 MB)

Evaluation Form (pdf)
Evaluation Form (doc)

COE Youth Portfolio Website (www.coe.int/youthportfolio)

Note:

Obviously, you will also find all the documents at this website of the Council of Europe, where they are freely available for download. It is against our ethical standards as bloggers to steal bandwidth from other people without them knowing it, which is why we offer you the download directly from our site.

Independent of that, ownership of and credit for the Portfolio belong solely to the Youth and Sport Directorate of the Council of Europe — which has a long tradition in sharing its knowledge with the wider community, a tradition we honour, respect and welcome.

Written by Andreas Karsten (andreas@nonformality.org) with assistance from Mark Taylor, consultant for the portfolio (brazavil.training@yahoo.com).

Common sense, experience and research all show the same: If the budget is fixed, and the deadline as well, the scope of the project must be negotiable. If the scope isn’t flexible and neither is the deadline, the available budget has to be. If neither budget nor scope are negotiable, the deadline has to be bend.

Something has to give. Try getting all three, and in the end every stakeholder will be disappointed and annoyed. It is like trying to square the circle.

Yet, there seems to be a growing number of exceptions. I have the very personal and subjective feeling that more and more of my projects have to be quick, fast and cheap — all at the same time.

Just a few examples:

• In educational activities, paid days for preparation decrease. Preparation at home has mutated into an unknown concept. At the same time, you are expected to be much better prepared than a couple of years ago — working later than midnight, excuse me?!
• Co-ordination and administration of activities are increasingly outsourced, but funds for administrational expenses are cut down or cut out. At the same time, communication problems are not allowed. Cultural differences — what’s that?!
• The length of educational activities is cut, sometimes by half. The aims and objectives are not. Five days have to be enough, after all. When after such a course not much happens — what do you mean the time was too short?!
• The number of days paid for publications, documentations, evaluations are permanently cut. Yet, you are expected to do everything at least twice as good as the person who has done a similar project last time — with twice the payment.

Based on these (rather frustrating) experiences, if you think positive and apply the pick-two-trilemma to educational work, it could probably be someting like:

If the budget is fixed, and the expected quality is not negotiable, the number of participants will have to be smaller. If the participants are fixed and the quality as well, you better come with a flexible budget. If neither your budget nor the number of participants is negotiable, I would suggest you lower your quality standards.

Yet, we are all increasingly faced with situations in which partners try to grab all three things at once. Strikingly enough, this is often the case when the (perceived) power relations are highly unequal and unbalanced.

We are being pushed around.

For how long?

Do you know how good non-formal education really is? I mean, it must be good, naturally – there is an ever-growing demand for it, people feel good and enjoy themselves much more than at school or university, and one can feel, sometimes even see the impact. But do you really know just how good it truly is?

You don’t? I don’t either. And I don’t believe anyone who says they do. Like many good things in life, non-formal education is slightly absurd: One reason it’s so good is that nobody is tested to demonstrate their learning. No tests, no grades. It puts people’s minds at rest and makes participation a choice rather than a duty. That freedom has a price, though: It makes it rather difficult to analyse the level of quality of learning.

That’s the crux of non-formal education. You cannot start giving people grades to show how impressively well they have done in your training, because if you did they wouldn’t do well anymore. Yet, as more money and hope flows into the sector, pressure and demand are increasing to prove how good this whole non-formal education business is.

For quite some time these questions have been at the centre of discussions in pubs and meetings alike. Where else could the debate progress better than in Leuven, the city of beer, at “Bridges for Recognition”, the latest conference to promote recognition of youth work across Europe? Consequently it was right there and then for more than 45 trainers to agree to voice their own opinion more strongly.

We the trainers, and our qualifications, have been discussed for quite some time. Irritated and agitated, we reluctantly followed the process, usually pointing out that defining quality standards (not to speak of quality assessment!) is against the nature of non-formal education. After all, what good is non-formal learning when it all becomes formalised?

On the other hand we claim that trainers and teachers are alike — at least in the sense that both have an enormous amount of responsibility as educators. Responsibility for the money they spend and others invest, of course. But we especially mean the educational responsibility, constituting a power which is easily misused and sometimes even abused.

Who can blame the rest of the world for wanting just a “hunch” of accountability? We tell parents that something magical is going to happen to their kids, asking them to entrust their children to us for training courses, youth exchanges, and even outdoor education activities. We tell funders that non-formal education stabilises democracy, promotes human rights and human dignity, facilitates intercultural communication and produces mature young people with social skills unheard of, inviting them to finance our educational programmes. We tell politicians that our work is complementing formal education to a near-perfect match, calling for more recognition and support.

Our calling has been heard: The sector of non-formal education has grown in terms of financial investment, political recognition and educational influence. This, in return, has brought up a demand hardly anyone of us thought of in the beginning and almost everyone tried to ignore for a long time. It brought up the demand to prove that our work is as good as we say – and made others believe.

It is a demand no one can sensibly argue, it’s by all means justifiable. People want to see that their money is money well spent, and that their trust in our educational skills is based on fact rather than hope. From this point of view it seems just a little inconsistent to me to radically refuse accountability for the trust requested so loudly before. My feeling grew stronger that the youth movement, once so successfully lobbying for the recognition of non-formal education, was disconnecting itself from the change and progress of the past years.

But in the spirit of Alan Kay, the trainers attending “Bridges for Recognition” decided to predict the future by inventing it themselves. After all, who is better qualified and trained to set quality standards and criteria for non-formal youth trainers than us?

Our ad-hoc hot issue workshop was joined by a surprising number of stakeholders: researchers, trainers, and representatives from international institutions, national agencies, the European Youth Forum and national government. The support was certainly there for the idea!

And the result is not bad either: The workshop developed a proposal for an open, transparent and inclusive process to create an occupational profile of non-formal youth trainers – a first at European level and a proposal to the Training Partnership between the Council of Europe and the European Commission which won’t be ignored.

Naturally this proposal, which can be read and discussed on the you@etv virtual platform can not provide answers to all the questions opening up. Neither can I, to be honest with you – I don’t even know all the questions which have to be asked and answered. But I believe in the truth of the following words by Sir Arthur Charles Clarke: “The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible.”

It may seem impossible today to think of a reliable and adequate set of quality standards and a just and open system of quality assessment in non-formal education. But the day will come when we know better.

Reference: Clarke, Arthur Charles (1962): Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible.

Also published as a print article in Coyote Magazin 10.