introduction about informal education

Informal education

Informal education encompasses learning that occurs outside the formal academic system, through everyday activities, experiences, and social interactions. It is not structured by standard curricula or formal teaching methods but is an ongoing process that contributes significantly to an individual's knowledge and understanding of the world.

Related terms

Lifelong Learning : The continuous, voluntary pursuit of knowledge for personal or professional reasons throughout an individual’s life.

Non : formal Education - Organized educational activities that take place outside the formal academic system, designed for specific learners' needs.

Socialization : The process through which individuals learn and internalize the values, beliefs, and norms of their society or culture, contributing to their personal development and social identity

" Informal education " appears in:

Study guides ( 1 ).

• Intro to Sociology - 16.1 Education around the World

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

Ap® and sat® are trademarks registered by the college board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website..

The Different Types of Informal Education

• By Emily Summers
• December 16, 2019

In our last set of articles, we discussed the different levels of formal education and the different types of education . When we talk about informal education, however, we can’t really talk about it in the same method because it doesn’t have the structure formal education has. Because unlike formal education that has clear-cut levels and standards, informal education is not as easy to see from an educational standpoint.

Formal vs. Informal

Before we can discuss what informal education is, we need to briefly explain what formal education is . It’s basically the standard classroom setting provided by people specifically trained to teach a certain subject. And unlike informal education, formal education is divided into stages depending on how much information a student is likely to understand.

Formal education starts from the age of six (it can differ in other countries) and begins with basic skills like learning how to read and write, and it can go all the way to post-secondary education and post-graduate studies.

Informal education, on the other hand, does not have the structure and levels that formal schools have. It’s more natural and spontaneous, meaning the information you learn through this form of education comes from learning from experience. This range from visiting places like museums, libraries, and other educational facilities that aren’t traditional schools, or simply by looking at scenarios that allow a person to learn important information.

For example, formal education can teach you about fire and physics and, in more advanced classes, thermodynamics. But informal education is when you see a person burning their hand when they touch a pot handle without a potholder and you learn that the heat from the stove transferred to the pot handle, so you should be careful when you handle your cooking ware.

That’s not to confuse formal and informal with a third type of education: non-formal. Non-formal learning doesn’t always have the structure of formal education but isn’t as spontaneous as informal education. Examples include after-school organizations, non-credit education courses, seminars, and conferences.

Characteristics of Informal Education

Unlike formal education where learning is timed and scheduled, informal learning is much more spontaneous. It is possible for people of all backgrounds to undergo informal education even before they enter preschool as long as they are currently learning from everything around them.

Informal learning has no guidelines, curriculums, or standards. While lessons like teaching your child how to brush your teeth have some acceptable standards, there’s no right or wrong way to go about teaching your child which part of your teeth to brush first. And because there is no curriculum or standardized tests, it is difficult to quantify or put into test how well a learner understands – it’s either they understand or they don’t.

Because informal learning isn’t mandatory, people who learn have to want to learn how to do so. If you teach a child how to tie a shoelace, if they aren’t interested to learn how to do it on their own, it can be difficult to get them to remember how to do it.

Informal learning can come from a licensed teacher if they teach you something outside of the curriculum, but under informal education, anyone can be a teacher regardless of credentials or whether or not they have a teaching license. In fact, it’s most likely that your first informal teachers are your parents and the people you lived with growing up.

And unlike formal education which stops at a certain age or until you graduate or decide to leave an educational institution, it is possible for you to continue learning informally. Even fully-grown middle-aged adults can continue to benefit from informal learning as long as they are willing to learn for their own benefit. For example, an older person learning how to use a touchscreen phone from a younger person is a type of informal learning setting. Or a person who asks for directions is another type of informal education.

Does Informal Education Have the Same Bearing as Formal Education?

Unfortunately, it does not. Going through formal education to become a doctor (pre-med bachelor’s degree, medical school, residency, licensure) takes years and is not the same as watching a few seasons of The Good Doctor and Grey’s Anatomy or spending a day talking to a doctor. While you do get to pick up a few cool facts about medicine and how the industry operates, you will not be allowed to practice medicine because you do not have a license – you can even be arrested for impersonating a doctor.

That’s not to say, however, that informal education is completely useless. While informal education does not qualify as experience or education in most places of employment, it can count in some situations.

For example, if a child grows up watching their parent who works as an auto mechanic and grows up helping their parent, reading books, and watching shows and videos about car maintenance, they can be qualified to work in an auto mechanic shop themselves if the owner sees they are experienced enough.

Also, some important lessons and skills in life are actually taught outside the classroom. For example, it’s much more practical to teach a child how to tie their shoelaces within five minutes rather than a structured classroom setting.

Informal learning can be very helpful to those always open and willing to learn. While it may not be considered valid learning by some, there are some things you can learn better in the real world rather than studying it within the four walls of a classroom. That’s not to invalidate formal learning entirely, but it shows how both formal and informal learning go hand in hand to create an educated person who learns both inside the classroom and whatever scenario they’re in. Plato’s philosophy on education was that it was a lifelong process that happened regardless of the location but instead came from a persons’ curiosity and desire to learn.

About the Author

Emily summers.

Things to Know About Developmental Disability Services

Roofing 101 Essential Education for Future Industry Professionals

Educational Insights on Molecular Sieve Adsorbents Selectivity and Industrial Applications

What is the Difference Between Reverse Osmosis and Ultrafiltration

Debunking the Myth of Roberto Nevilis: Who Really Invented Homework?

Is the D Important in Pharmacy? Why Pharm.D or RPh Degrees Shouldn’t Matter

How to Email a Professor: Guide on How to Start and End an Email Conversation

Everything You Need to Know About Getting a Post-Secondary Education

Grammar Corner: What’s The Difference Between Analysis vs Analyses?

Informal Education, Childhood and Youth

Geographies, Histories, Practices

• © 2014
• Sarah Mills 0 ,
• Peter Kraftl 1

Department of Geography, Loughborough University, UK

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

Department of Geography, University of Leicester, UK

15k Accesses

84 Citations

27 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

About this book

Similar content being viewed by others.

Informal Educational Infrastructure: Citizenship Formation, Informal Education, and Youth Work Practice

Informal Education as a Derridean Gift: a Deconstructive Reading of the Principles Guiding Youth Work Practice Within Neoliberal Policy Regimes

• childhood and youth
• environment
• learning and instruction

Table of contents (19 chapters)

Front matter, introduction: geographies, histories and practices of informal education.

• Sarah Mills, Peter Kraftl

Nature Spaces

Inside-out: connecting indoor and outdoor spaces of informal education through the extraordinary geographies of the boys’ brigade camp.

• Richard G. Kyle

‘Like a Scout Does … Like a Guide Does …’: The Scout or Guide Camp’s Lessons of Identity

• Catherine Bannister

‘Alternative’ Education Spaces and Local Community Connections: A Case Study of Care Farming in the United Kingdom

Peter Kraftl

‘A Powerful Educational Instrument’: The Woodcraft Folk and Indoor/Outdoor ‘Nature’, 1925–75

Sarah Mills

Negotiating In/formal Education Spaces

People, places and spaces: education in robert owen’s new society.

• Ian Donnachie

The Tarpaulin and the Tablecloth: Cover and Non-Traditional Education in Traditional Spaces of Schooling

• Stephen T. Sadlier

Limiting Spaces of Informal Learning among Street Children in Perú

• Dena Aufseeser

Learning How to Behave in School: A Study of the Experiences of Children and Young People with Socio-emotional Differences

• Sophie Bowlby, Jennifer Lea, Louise Holt

Education, Technology and the Disruptive Innovations Challenging the Formal/Informal Education Divide

• Kate Edwards

Youth Work Spaces

Rehearsal spaces as children’s spaces considering the place of non-formal music education.

• Luke Dickens, Douglas Lonie

Managing the Spaces of Freedom: Mid-twentieth-Century Youth Work

• Simon Bradford

Feminism and Informal Education in Youth Work with Girls and Young Women, 1975–85

• Jean Spence

After School: The Disruptive Work of Informal Education

• Richard Davies

Youth-Led Spaces

Catalysing cultural change: youth-led cultural development as informal education.

• Shanene Ditton

“This innovative book has a clear focus on informal educational practices, explored through a number of examples from both historical and geographical contexts. … Each critical debate is contextualised within the literature, effectively referencing key figures from each field, providing directions for further exploratory learning. … I thoroughly enjoyed reading the book, and have happily found a place for it to nestle in my bookcase, providing a useful reference source for both my teaching, and my research.” (Tracy Hayes, Children's Geographies, January, 2016)

“Useful for anyone considering how informal education can or could have been experienced. … the book has certainly accomplished its aim of opening up new ways of examining informal education across a range of disciplines. … Mills and Kraftl have been able to build a consistent set of themes to bridge these contributions without having to resort to tentative links between chapters, resulting in an enjoyable read with thepotential to influence a wide range of research.” (Edward Whiffin, History of Education, 2016)

"Informal Education, Childhood and Youth is an extremely incisive and timely intervention into broader debates around the geographies, sociologies and historical precedents of contemporary educational practices. Indeed, it positions itself at the forefront of these debates, recognising the diverse meanings and spaces of 'education', and the multiple social functions it serves. It is a treasure trove of rich empirical research on 'informal education', as well as pushing the boundaries of scholarship in this area, theoretically. The book will be of interest to academics and students working within geography, education, sociology, anthropology and politics, as well as educational practitioners and policy makers." - Johanna L. Waters, University of Oxford, UK

"This timely and innovative collection weaves together the geographies and histories of informal education in fresh and thought-provoking ways. Its broad scope and contemporary relevance make an important contribution to the literature and highlight the value of cross-disciplinary approaches. The book's distinctive perspectives offer stimulating new insights which should have wide appeal." - Melanie Tebbutt, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK

Editors and Affiliations

About the editors.

Sarah Mills is a Lecturer in Human Geography at the Department of Geography, Loughborough University, UK. Peter Kraftl is a Reader in Human Geography at the Department of Geography, University of Leicester, UK. He has previously published Geographies of Alternative Education and Critical Geographies of Childhood and Youth .

Dena Aufseeser, University of Washington, USA

Catherine Bannister, University of Sheffield, UK

Mireia Baylina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain

Sophie Bowlby, University of Reading, UK

Simon Bradford, Brunel University, UK

Richard Davies, Aberystwyth University, UK

Luke Dickens, The Open University, UK

Shanene Ditton, Griffith University, Australia

Gregory Donovan, Macaulay Honors College, USA

Kate Edwards, Pearson Education, UK

Denise Goerisch, San Diego State University, USA

Louise Holt, Loughborough University, UK

Richard G Kyle, University of Stirling, UK

Douglas Lonie, National Foundation for Youth Music, UK

Maria Rodó-de-Zárate, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain

Stephen T. Sadlier, University of Washington Educational Outreach, USA

Jean Spence, Durham University, UK

Bibliographic Information

Book Title : Informal Education, Childhood and Youth

Book Subtitle : Geographies, Histories, Practices

Editors : Sarah Mills, Peter Kraftl

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137027733

Publisher : Palgrave Macmillan London

eBook Packages : Palgrave Education Collection , Education (R0)

Copyright Information : Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2014

Hardcover ISBN : 978-1-137-02772-6 Published: 27 March 2014

Softcover ISBN : 978-1-349-43972-0 Published: 27 March 2014

eBook ISBN : 978-1-137-02773-3 Published: 25 March 2014

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XV, 310

Topics : Sociology of Family, Youth and Aging , Learning & Instruction , History of Education , Sociology of Education , Sociology of Education , Human Geography

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Thinkific Plus

Formal and informal education: understanding the differences, similarities, and how to use both, share this article.

75% of workplace learning is informal.

That means the majority of learning takes place outside of official training courses or classrooms and instead happens naturally and spontaneously, often in social settings.

To maximize learning and development in training, it’s important to encourage both formal and informal education and learning as much as possible. Here’s what you need to know about formal and informal education – including the key differences, similarities, and how to use both to train members of an organization.

Skip ahead:

Formal education

Informal education, formal vs informal learning comparison, what is the difference between formal and informal education , similarities between formal and informal education, examples of formal and informal education, how to use both formal and informal education for best results in training , formal and informal education definitions.

First up – what do we mean when we talk about formal and informal education? Here are the definitions.

Formal learning is learning that’s delivered in a controlled, systematic way and guided by an educator or instructor. In a formal learning environment – either online or in-person – learning follows a structured learning path with a definitive goal like achieving a certification or degree. Formal learning includes school teaching, university courses, employee training , health and safety training, and much more.

Unlike formal education, informal education doesn’t follow any specific structure or system. Informal learning usually takes place outside of formal learning settings and is self-directed, so it usually happens spontaneously and naturally. 

When it comes to informal learning, the learner has no specific goal in mind – and may not even realize that learning is taking place. For example, informal learning can happen while watching a video on social media, chatting with a colleague, or reading an article you find online. The learning isn’t necessarily deliberate – but you still gain new knowledge on a specific topic.

Here are 4 key differences between formal and informal education you need to know.

The biggest difference between formal and informal education is the structure that both forms of learning take. Formal education is systematic and organized – meaning learning is structured around achieving specific learning goals. For example, client onboarding might have the goal of helping new clients utilize key product features. The learning path is built with this goal in mind.

Informal learning is unstructured and unplanned. Unlike formal learning, it doesn’t follow any formal system – instead, learning is shaped by the learners’ individual decisions and actions, rather than a pre-set path. 

For example, let’s say a conversation starts between two colleagues about how they organize their email inboxes for better productivity. If the learner is interested in the topic, they might ask questions to learn more about the topic or seek out other resources like listening to a podcast or reading a blog. The conversation is unstructured and doesn’t have a specific goal in mind – but learning is taking place.

Teaching Methods

It’s easy to tell the difference between formal and informal education by looking at the teaching methods – essentially, formal education includes teaching and informal education doesn’t. 

Formal education is structured and taught by an educator like a teacher, professor, course instructor or coach. The teaching might happen face-to-face or online. Even if the learning is self-directed, formal education is designed, created, and delivered by an educator.

Informal learning doesn’t include any formal teaching. That means there’s no set educator or instructor. Learners may learn from a specific person – who may be an expert in their field – but there is no fixed teaching or lessons.

Learning Environment

As formal education takes a structured approach to learning, it often takes place in a formal learning environment – either in-person or online. Learning happens in a specific learning space like a classroom, a Zoom meeting room, or via an LMS.

Informal learning happens without any learning purpose in mind, so it can happen anywhere – including in formal learning environments like schools and universities but it also outside in the ‘real-world’. Informal learning can happen on the bus, in a cafe, on vacation, and anywhere else.

Assessment and Accreditation

A key characteristic of formal education is that it usually includes assessments such as exams, quizzes, and formal assignments. At the end of a course, it’s common for learners to receive a certification or accreditation to mark their completion.

Informal learning doesn’t include any assessments or accreditations because it is unplanned – no one gives you a certificate for chatting with your colleagues. It happens outside of formal learning settings and learners’ knowledge isn’t tested or rewarded.

While there are key differences between formal and informal education, there are also some similarities between the two learning formats. Here are 3 of the most important.

Social interaction

Humans are social animals. We learn by observing and interacting with the people around us.

Both formal and informal education are enhanced by social interactions. In formal education, learners benefit from social interaction with their course instructors, community moderators, and other learners in their cohort. 

Informal learning takes a less structured approach to social learning, but it tends to be a social rather than an individual activity. Think about the times that you’ve  learnt through conversations with colleagues and friends, participation in online forums and communities, and spending time on social media. These are all examples of social interactions where informal learning is taking place.

Input from teachers and facilitators

Formal and informal education both include teachers of some kind – but while formal education is controlled and delivered by educators, informal education happens naturally. 

Imagine an in-person employee training program taught by an instructor in a classroom. The course itself is the formal education element but informal education can also happen through casual conversations between learners and their instructor, for example. Just spending time with someone who’s an expert in their field can result in informal education opportunities – even without either person realizing it.

Lifelong learning

Learning is a lifelong process. While formal education occurs at specific times – such as at school, university, and at work – both formal and informal education can happen at any time throughout our lives. Informal learning is spontaneous and continuous , but formal learning can also happen at any point. As soon as you choose to watch an educational video series, enroll in an online course, or take part in a training session, you’re taking part in a form of formal learning.

It’s common for formal and informal education to take place alongside each other – and blending the two can lead to the best outcomes for learners. Here are some examples of how it works.

Learning a second language

Imagine you decide to relocate to a new country and you choose to enroll in a language course to learn the language of your host country. 

The course will probably take the form of face-to-face lessons in a classroom and follow a structured approach to learning – teaching you about specific vocabulary and grammar rules, and include assessments. This is an example of formal learning.

Informal learning will happen when you leave the classroom and go to work or to the supermarket, for example. Then you’re surrounded by people speaking the new language and labels and phrases written in that language. You will naturally listen and learn the language by absorbing information from the world around you, as well as by talking to the cashier and the other shoppers. 

This is an example of informal learning – but it’s just as important and useful as the formal education you’re receiving too.

Employee management training

Employees often engage in formal and informal education at work. Management training is a great example – an employee might be put forward for a formal management training course where they complete online modules and courses taught by an instructor with the goal of qualifying to be a manager in their organization. This is the formal education element.

But outside of the formal training program, that employee may also learn how to be a good leader and an effective manager by observing other managers in their organization, as well as through conversations with c-suite executives, and after-work events with colleagues. This is an example of informal learning that’s helping to enhance and reinforce the formal education of the company training program.

To improve learning outcomes in your organization, it’s important to encourage both formal and informal education. Here are 3 ways to facilitate both learning types.

• Build learning communities: Learning is often a social activity – so maximize both formal and informal learning by providing opportunities for discussions outside of the classroom. Choose a corporate LMS that lets you build learning communities, including forums, online discussion boards, and chat functions to help learners interact and engage with training content.
• Assign mentors and buddies: To increase informal learning opportunities, pair learners with mentors or buddies to facilitate learning outside of the classroom and provide a more dynamic learning experience.
• Find strategies to increase engagement: Engaged learners are more hungry for knowledge – and more likely to take part in both formal and informal learning. Structure training for maximum engagement by adding videos, quizzes, gamification, and extra resources for additional learning beyond the course content.

Ready to take advantage of formal and informal education?

If you’re looking to improve learning outcomes in your organization, it’s important to understand the difference between formal and informal education – and how to leverage both forms of education for best results.

Take your education program to the next level.  Whether you’re navigating the complexities of formal education or exploring the flexibility of informal learning, our tailored solutions are designed to scale with your needs. 

Request a solutions call with our experts today and discover how we can help you transform your educational approach, drive engagement, and achieve success. 

Daniela Ochoa is the go-to Content Marketing Specialist at Thinkific Plus. With years of experience in marketing and communications, she is passionate about helping businesses grow through strategic customer education, content marketing, and online learning at scale.

• Best Enterprise LMS System Options (2023 Update)
• The Top 7 Best Corporate LMS To Deliver & Manage Your Training
• Training Proposal Template (+ Tips For Writing A Successful Proposal)
• Your Guide to Bringing Your Classroom Online Quickly and Effectively
• Education At Scale: How Online Courses Can Help You Grow Your Business Revenue

Related Articles

Make health tech education easy with an lms.

Learn how you can make health tech education easy for your customers and increase product adoption with a learning management system.

Remote Work Tools: Top 21 Tools To Empower Your Workforce

Looking for the best remote work tools to get your team online? Here's a list of the top tools for project management, team collaboration, and video conferencing.

Mastering Customer Experience Metrics: A Guide with Framework Template

Unlock the secrets of customer experience metrics with our comprehensive guide. and downloadable framework template.

Try Thinkific for yourself!

Accomplish your course creation and student success goals faster with thinkific..

Download this guide and start building your online program!

It is on its way to your inbox

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Principles and Practice of Informal Education

DOI link for Principles and Practice of Informal Education

Get Citation

This new and exciting text is aimed at informal educators involved in youth work, community work and adult education and health promotion. The contributors explore the principles and practice of informal education and focus, in particular, on the notion of 'working with' which is central to practice, in this sector. The book argues for an approach which is relevant to a number of professional fields and which focuses on a way of working rather than upon a specific target group. The book looks at the role of an educator in informal education and youth work settings. Comprehensive and analytical, it looks at social, cultural and political contexts of education. The authors discuss the practical side of teaching from the setting, programme planning and communication to activity-based work, one-to-one case work, formal group work and managing the work load. Finally the book analyses developing professional practice, the use of line management and supervision, and evaluation of work.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part | 2  pages, part i exploring education, chapter 1 | 14  pages, on being an educator', chapter 2 | 17  pages, what is informal education, chapter 3 | 17  pages, first lessons, part ii working with, chapter 4 | 8  pages, working with people as an inf ormal educator, chapter 5 | 12  pages, professional values in informal education work, chapter 6 | 12  pages, developing professional practice, chapter 7 | 7  pages, learning from experience, chapter 8 | 13  pages, relationships and learning, chapter 9 | 14  pages, working with networks and organisations in the community, part iii elements of practice, chapter 10 | 14  pages, conversation, chapter 11 | 10  pages, place, space and informal education, chapter 12 | 10  pages, programme planning, chapter 13 | 16  pages, chapter 14 | 12  pages, one-to-one casework, chapter 15 | 24  pages, doing projects, part iv developing professional practice, chapter 16 | 10  pages, managing work, chapter 17 | 14  pages, ‘we become experts’, chapter 18 | 15  pages, using line management, chapter 19 | 22  pages, using supervision for professional development, chapter 20 | 19  pages, evaluation in informal education.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

Bulletin de méthodologie sociologique

Bulletin of sociological methodology

Accueil Numéros 93 Ongoing Research/Recherche en cours Researching Informal Education

Researching Informal Education

 Recherche sur l’éducation informelle, une cartographie préliminaire  : L’analyse factorielle des correspondances et l’analyse du plus petit espace sont appliquées à un ensemble original de données sur l’éducation informelle. En dépit de son étendue, de son histoire et de son importance croissante dans l’ère post-moderne, peu de travail théorique ou de recherche cumulative existent sur l’éducation informelle. Des techniques multidimensionnelles d’analyse des données sont appliquées à une revue de littérature scientifique sur l’éducation informelle pour classifier et organiser les thèmes et les méthodes identifiés. Un « état de l’art structurel » de la recherche sur l’éducation informelle est présenté, permettant une cartographie préliminaire de ce domaine.

Factorial correspondence analysis and smallest space analysis are applied to an original data set on informal education. Despite its widespread use, long history and growing importance in the postmodern era, little theoretical or cumulative research exists on informal education. Multi-dimensional data analysis techniques are applied to a literature survey of research on informal education to classify and to organize the content issues and methods identified. A “structural state of the art” of recent research on informal education is presented, allowing a preliminary mapping of the field.

Entrées d’index

Mots clés : , mots clés: , texte intégral, introduction: research on informal education.

1 Despite its widespread use and long history, informal education has received far less attention from academic researchers than its formal counterpart. It should be particularly noted that while there is a body of literature in the field of informal education (i.e. evaluations or surveys of specific programs), there are, with a few notable exceptions, few studies on informal education as a theoretical concept . Research of informal educational settings presents a number of theoretical and methodological challenges. Often, informal settings are harder to survey than structured school settings. It is also harder to test whether or not the goals of informal educational programs have been accomplished. There may be no set curriculum, written material or theoretical basis for the educational program.

• 1  Coombs and his colleagues distinguished between informal and non-formal education, defining inform (...)

2 The educational activities and settings defined as “informal” or “non-formal” 1 are extremely diverse.

3 The seeming impossibility of isolating traits clearly distinguishing informal from formal education have fueled an ongoing debate about whether or not informal education exists as a separate concept (Watkins and Marsick, 1992; Cohen, 1997; Kahane, 1997; Smith, 1997; Chazan, 2002). This article first catalogues the results of a literature survey of recent research in the field of informal education, then uses multi-dimensional data analysis techniques to look for the underlying structure of the methods used and content issues addressed in current research on informal education, By developing this 'structural state of the art', I hope to make a theoretical contribution to this highly complex field.

Sampling Previous Research

4 I did a literature survey to catalogue the methodological approaches used and major content issues addressed in studies of informal education conducted in the last 15 years. Using the ERIC and MUSE databases and abstracts available in university libraries and online, I searched using the keywords: ‘non-formal education OR informal education OR community education OR adult education AND research OR study.’ The search was limited to studies published English. It also did not include MA or PhD theses in the field. While more inclusive searches could be made, my purpose was not to catalogue the literature in the field, but rather to create a large sample which could be used for this analysis. Any conclusions may be tested and verified through future searches.

5 The search identified several thousand articles, books and reports which dealt directly with informal education and included abstracts which detailed the methodological approach and content issues. Of these, 117 were randomly selected as a sample, and were categorized by methodological tools used and the issues addressed in the study.

Coding the Sample

6 The results of the literature survey were compiled and assigned a binary code for use of the methodological tools and content issues identified. Each article is assigned a 1 if the methodological tool or content issue was mentioned in the abstract of the research article or a 0 if it was not. While the identification of methodological tools used was straightforward, a certain amount of subjective judgment was necessary in determining which of the content areas was addressed by the studies based on their abstracts.

Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Literature Survey

7 The binary code assigned to the articles enabled the data to be treated through the factor analysis procedure and other multi-dimensional data analytic techniques, which provide fuller understanding of the inter-relationships between various methodological tools and issues addressed in informal education.

8 In the Factor Analysis extraction, we used the Principal Component Analysis, with a Varimax rotation (Kaiser normalization).

9 Additionally, the coded data was analyzed using the Hebrew University Data Analysis Package (HUDAP) (Amar and Toledano, 2002; Borg, 1981; Canter, 1985; Guttman, 1968, 1982; Levy 1994), which performs multidimensional data analyses based on Facet Theory. Guttman's Facet Theory (1959, 1968, 1982) has previously been applied to specific aspects of informal education, such as the role of the counselor (Cohen, Ifergan and Cohen, 2002) and to the concept of informality as a whole (Cohen, 2001) as well as to related issues such as intelligence (Guttman, 1965, 1991) and values (Levy and Guttman, 1985; Levy 1986). For a comprehensive bibliography on Facet Theory see Cohen (2005).

10 Facet Theory offers several techniques for analyzing large amounts of data in a way which graphically portrays their underlying structure. The technique used here is Smallest Space Analysis (SSA).

11 The first general distinction in the methodological approach was between "tools" and "content issues". Interestingly, this distinction is deceptively complex, despite its apparent intuitive clarity. An SSA map of relatively high dimensionality (four dimensions) was necessary to differentiate between tools and content issues. Even in four dimensions one misplaced item remained. As can be seen in figure 1, the item 'evaluation' is not in the central region with the rest of the content issues.

Figure 1: SSA of methods and issues addressed in research on informal educational, dimensionality 4, projection 1x4 (Coefficient of Alienation = .13)

12 While one thinks of multi-dimensional analysis as striving to uncover a simple underlying structure to apparently complex data, it may also reveal underlying complexity to apparently simple assumptions. There have been other cases in which expected categories were only found in maps of relatively high dimensionality (Cohen 2000; Levy and Guttman 1975).

13 Within each of these two broad categories of methodological tools and content issues, a number of sub-categories were identified.

Methodological Tools

14 The categorization of tools was relatively clear and objective. Most methodological tools have recognized names (questionnaires, observation, focus groups, etc.) and as mentioned above, the articles selected for the sample were ones which stated clearly in the abstract which methodological tools were used.

15 In general, the tools used in studies of informal education are ones which are also used to study formal classrooms settings. A variety of qualitative and quantitative methods are commonly used in studying informal settings. The categories of methodological tools identified are:

16 Analysis of materials : for example analyses of computer simulation games, traditional apprenticeships, or of a particular museum exhibit.

17 Case studies : this includes study of any particular population to examine a wider phenomenon.

18 Demographics and comparison of sub-groups : for example, gender, ethnic group, age, socio-economic status, etc.

19 Enrolment, attendance : sign-up, participation and drop-out rates in particular informal educational programs

20 Focus groups, workshops : studies which convene groups of participants for the purpose of collecting qualitative information from a select sub-population

21 Interviews, written narratives : one-on-one interviews conducted in person or by phone, or stories written by individual participants

22 Inventory of programs : record of programs offered on a given subject, in a given geographical region and/or during a given time period

23 Literature review : survey of previously published studies on a given aspect of informal education

24 Observation : qualitative data gathered through anthropological observation of informal educational activities

25 Participatory research : the “subjects” of the research participate in data-gathering and analysis. This pioneering approach, while perhaps affecting the objectivity of the study, allows for greater insight into the perceptions of the group being studied and for a larger base of knowledge used in analyzing and making recommendations (see for example, Frideres 1992; de Koning and Martin 1995).

26 Questionnaires and surveys : collection of quantitative data through closed questions via written questionnaires or surveys conducted over the phone or in person.

27 Sociometry : this is a method of measuring social relationships in groups (Moreno, 1951, 1960; Hoffman, 2001). Group members are asked to indicate preferences among their peers in relation to certain criteria such as “Who do you most like to play with?” or “Who would you trust in a business relationship?”

Content Issues Addressed

28 Identification of categories of content issues was significantly more complex. First, the many specific questions addressed in the sample studies were catalogued. This resulted in a list of dozens of questions, such as "Have the needs of participants been met?" "What is the role of the larger community in informal education?" and "Was there an impact on participants' attitudes?"  In an effort to simplify this unwieldy list, seven general categories of issues were identified:

29 Educational: This category includes studies which analyzed teaching methods and materials used (computers, simulation, play, experiential activities, hands-on activities); explored the interaction between formal and informal education; addressed the educational reward of a program (immediate/delayed/long-term, for its own sake/towards another goal).

30 Evaluation: This category includes studies which identify the goals of the program; evaluate whether or not they were met; ascertain whether or not participants’ needs and expectations were met; evaluate participant satisfaction; evaluate impacts (long-term / short-term; affective / cognitive / instrumental); assess how participants compare the benefit of learning in informal versus formal settings; explore why participants join and why they drop out of programs.

31 Interpersonal: This category includes studies which address such questions as the role of the teacher and the relationship between teacher and learner (mentor/apprentice; reciprocal learning; independent learning); group dynamic between participants; attitudes towards 'insiders' and 'outsiders' (i.e. youth group members, members of an ethnic or religious group)  

32 Logistical/organizational: This category includes studies which evaluate impact of program length; impact of sponsoring agency (governmental/ non-governmental agency, religious, profit/ non-profit); importance of location (workplace, tour, outdoor).

33 Personal: This category includes articles which ascertain impact on participants’ self-image or identity; ascertain impact on attitudes; assess whether or not participants, collectively or individually, gain 'social capital'.

34 Social/political: This category includes studies which analyze the impact of the surrounding environment (political/cultural/economic) on the educational program; and the impact of the program on the surrounding environment, for example ascertaining whether or not the program impacted community dynamics (empowerment of women, integration of a minority).

35 Theoretical: This category includes studies which analyze underlying philosophies or structural connections inherent in the phenomenon of informal education; identify criteria of informal programs

36 Table 1 shows sample profiles. Due to considerations of space, the full table of all 117 studies was not printed here, but is available on request from the author.

Table 1: A sample of four profiles

37 Table 2 shows a summary of the results of the literature survey. Each study was classified in as many categories as were applicable. Therefore the total for each category is greater than 100%.

Table 2: Summary of the literature survey

38 Just under half of the studies in the sample used qualitative methods such as interviews, narratives, ethnographic observation, and/or focus groups, to gather information about the perceptions and behaviors of learners and teachers. Almost two thirds (61%) used quantitative methods such as questionnaires or surveys, enrolment data, inventories of programs and demographic data. Demographic data and questionnaires were often used for comparisons between gender, age or national/ethnic sub-groups. Teaching materials used were described and evaluated in approximately 17% of the studies in the sample. Literature reviews were included in about 18% of the studies.

• 2  This bibliography is available online at: http://www.users.muohio.edu/shermalw/sociometryfiles/soc (...)

39 The only sociometric studies of informal educational settings referenced looked at group relations among pre-school children in play settings. 2 Apparently this method is rarely adopted by sociologists studying informal educational settings such as camps, tours, community centers etc. This is an interesting finding, since it is well known that the group dynamic is of great importance in informal education (Chazan, 1992; Cohen and Wall, 1994; Cohen and Cohen, 2000; Goldberg, 2002; Heilman, 2002).

40 Almost 40% of the articles looked at the political and social context in which the informal educational program took place. This indicates that, despite the lack of a larger theoretical context, researchers are not looking at informal educational programs in isolation. Many informal programs are intended to affect some sort of change in the individuals or community, therefore making the context in which they take place of great importance. However, the range of specific issues subsumed under this general category is quite broad and diffuse.

41 Evaluations of the programs were also common, comprising at least one aspect of over a third of the articles. Many studies examine the goals of a given program and/or the perceived needs of participants and evaluate the program’s success in meeting them. There are a large number of studies evaluating the success of community education programs targeted at a specific audience, for example programs educating diabetes patients about doctors' dietary recommendations.

42 A third of the articles considered organizational and logistical concerns, such as the impact of program length (i.e. a one-time workshop versus a long-term course of study) or ways in which the goals of the sponsor or organizer of an informal educational program (i.e. a for-profit business, charity organization or government agency) impact the nature of the activities.

43 Just over a third of the studies looked at the specifically educational aspects of informal educational programs. In particular, innovative or new teaching methods or materials are examined, such as computer simulations in museum exhibits or drama as a teaching tool. On the other end of the spectrum, some anthropological education researchers re-examine traditional teaching methods still being used or being revitalized, such as story-telling, or apprenticeships.

44 The difference in attention given to personal and interpersonal dynamics in informal education is striking, with three times as many studies considering impacts on the group as on the individual.

45 A seventh potential category of issues, theoretical, was almost never addressed in the articles surveyed. Only four articles attempted to define what differentiates between formal and informal education. This finding verifies the observation made stated in the introduction, that studies attempting to provide a theoretical basis for the field are rare.

Factor Analysis

46 The factor analysis allows recognition of four main factors. All items with a loading greater than .4 and less than -.4 have been retained. The specific name assigned to each of them is given in parenthesis.

47 Factor 1 (qualitative). The tools 'case studies' and 'inventory of programs' were strongly positively loaded onto this factor, along with the 'social/political' content issue. Negatively loaded onto this factor are the tools 'focus groups', 'interviews' and 'observation'.

48 Factor 2 (evaluation). The content issues 'educational', 'evaluation' and 'logistical/organizational' were positively loaded onto this factor. Negatively loaded onto this factor are the tool 'literature review' and the 'theoretical' content issue.

49 Factor 3 (student population).  The tools 'demographics' and 'enrollment' loaded positively onto this factor. 'Case studies' are negatively loaded onto this factor.

50 Factor 4 (personal). The content issues 'personal' and 'interpersonal' loaded positively onto this factor. 'Questionnaires' are negatively loaded onto this factor.

Smallest Space Analysis

51 The correlation table for the tools and issues is shown in Table 3. The matrix shows the full range of correlations from 100 to -100. In fact there are many pairs of items with correlation of -100, indicating that some methods are not commonly used in conjunction, and that some methods are not used to investigate certain categories of issues.

Table 3: Correlation matrix of methods and content issues: input matrix for Smallest Space Analysis

52 The resulting SSA is shown in Figure 2. Although, as discussed above, it was necessary to produce a map in four dimensions before a division between tools and content issues was seen, a substantive structure of the variables was found in two dimensions. The map in two dimensions is presented and used as the basis for the typology, because it is a general tenet of the SSA procedure that the lower the number of dimensions necessary to recognize a structure, the stronger the results.

Figure 2: SSA of methods and issues addressed in research on informal educational, dimensionality 2 (Coefficient of Alienation = .26)

54 One item, social/political issues, was removed from this analysis as it caused 'noise' in a preliminary map. It seems that too many diverse issues were included in this category, causing confusion as to its proper placement in relation to the other items. Since many informal educational programs do address various social issues, it may be possible in a future study to differentiate more clearly between various social and political issues and to accurately locate them in the structure.

55 The structure of the SSA is polar, with pie-shaped regions emanating from a common center. In this type of structure, each of the regions has its own logic, not following a sequential or center-periphery structure.

56 The central item in this cognitive map is "personal", referring to an ascertaining of impact on the learners' self-image and attitudes. This is the core of informal education.

57 Starting in the upper left hand area, we find a region containing four items: enrolment rates, questionnaires/surveys, demographics, and inventory of program. This region is labeled "Quantitative". It should be noted that in the Factor Analysis, the item 'inventory of programs' was classified with qualitative research tools. It seems that this item highlights a disagreement in classification between the two data analysis techniques. Inventory of programs may be qualitative or quantitative, depending on the method and emphasis of the inventory.

58 Continuing clockwise, the next region contains two items: the issue "theoretical" and the method "literature review". This region has been labeled Abstract. Conducting a literature review or state-of-the-art may be seen as a first step in formulating a theory of an issue. The next region contains the methods: focus groups, interviews, observation and sociometry. These are qualitative research methods. It also contains the content issue "interpersonal". Again, in the item 'focus groups' we see a disagreement in the classification of the Factor Analysis and the Smallest Space Analysis. In the Factor Analysis focus groups negatively loaded onto the 'qualitative' factor, while in the SSA it is included in the 'qualitative' region.

59 The final region contains the methods: participatory research, case studies, and analysis of materials analysis of materials and the issues: logistics, educational and evaluation. These are all practical, referring to studies primarily concerned with how and to what extent an educational program achieved its goals. Both participatory research and case studies may use either qualitative or quantitative methods. These four regions can be seen at two sets of oppositions: abstract versus practical and qualitative versus quantitative.

Merging the Factor Analysis and the Smallest Space Analysis

60 The Factor Analysis revealed four main factors. The Smallest Space Analysis revealed a polar structure of the items. In order to go further in the data analysis, these two kinds of results were merged. Thus, each of the items appearing in the SSA map was defined according to its factor. Figure 3 presents the results of this convergent analysis.

61 The results of each technique are thus enriched by the other. The SSA provides a global, two-dimensional structure for the four factors of the Factor Analysis. We can also see that the items which loaded positively for a given factor are located diametrically opposed to the items which loaded negatively for the same factor, verifying and graphically portraying the results of the Factor Analysis.

62 At the same time, consideration of the factors fine tunes the regions of the SSA. By identifying the items which loaded onto various factors in the Factor Analysis, sub-regions may be recognized. For example, in the Qualitative region we may distinguish between two sub-regions. One consists of the tools focus groups, interviews and observation, all of which were negatively loaded onto Factor 1 (qualitative). The second consists of interpersonal issues and the tool sociometry, both of which were positively loaded onto Factor 4 (personal). In the Quantitative region there are three sub-regions. The first contains the tools enrolment rates and demographics, both of which loaded positively onto Factor 3 (student population). The second contains the tool questionnaires which loaded negatively onto Factor 4 (personal). This sub-region lies diagonally opposite the sub-region in the Qualitative region with the items loaded positively onto Factor 4. The third sub-region contains the item inventory of programs, which loaded positively onto Factor 1.

Figure 3: SSA of methods and issues addressed in research on informal educational, dimensionality 2 (Coefficient of Alienation = .26) with the projection of the four factors as revealed by the factor analysis

63 Division of sub-regions in the Practical region is less clear. This region contains the items evaluation and education, which loaded positively onto Factor 2 (evaluation). They lie diagonally opposite the Abstract region containing the items theoretical and literature review, which loaded negatively onto Factor 2. The Practical region also contains the item case studies, which loaded positively onto Factor 1 and also lies opposite the items which loaded negatively onto this factor. Finally, it contains the items participatory research and analysis of materials, which had moderate loading on a several factors.

64 According to Kahane (1997), a pioneer in the study of informality, informal education will gain importance in the post-modern era, as it can provide young people with the cognitive and affective skills they need to cope with a rapidly changing society. Research of informal education will similarly become more important, if social scientists are to understand the changes taking place in the world of education.

65 By running an SSA of the criteria of the analysis, we operate 'construct validity'. In moving from a list of individual questions addressed to the seven general categories of content issues, it was necessary to develop a hypothesis regarding the way to classify studies of informal education. The SSA verifies the hypothetical division of issues, with the exception of the "social/political" category, which is apparently too broad and diffuse to be useful or accurate in categorizing studies of informal education.

66 By looking for the structure of methods and issues in current research on informal education, it is possible to identify trends and to provide a picture of the field which may suggest directions for future research. For example, the qualitative/quantitative dichotomy may be further explored and questioned. Qualitative methods are located opposite the quantitative methods, reflecting the commonly assumed opposition between the two types of research. However, an "interactive continuum" of qualitative and quantitative research methods (Newman and Benz 1998) has been found to give a fuller picture of the complexities of informal education (Cohen and Bar-Shalom 2006).

67 It seems, from this exploratory survey, that the familiar qualitative and quantitative tools already in the hands of researchers, such as interviewing, observing, surveying, etc. are valuable and appropriate for studying informal education. This overview of methodological tools does not indicate that studies of informal education require specialized techniques for data collection. However, the broadness of the field may require researchers to be aware of a variety of tools, make choices as to which is most appropriate for a given situation, and prepared to combine tools where multiple techniques would yield a fuller picture. A more holistic approach to using these tools is necessary. A combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies allows for theory building and testing. Using information gathered from qualitative tools such as interviews and observation, the researcher may formulate a theory about informal education, or an aspect of informal education.

68 Additionally, the glaring lack of theoretical studies in the field may be addressed. Most studies provide descriptions of informal programs, or evaluate their success in achieving certain goals. The underlying theoretical questions have hardly been asked, much less addressed in depth by empirical researchers in the field. What is the nature of interpersonal dynamics in informal education and how do they affect the learning process? What motivates participants to engage in informal learning and what benefits do they reap? What is the nature of the educational act in informal settings? Does it differ from formal education in some fundamental way and if so, how? What are the common characteristics of successful versus non-successful informal educational programs? What are the criteria of success? While the findings of the studies surveyed are important on a case-by-case basis, would be of far greater value in formulating a theory of informal education if their cumulative findings could be compiled and compared.

• 3  The non-cumulative nature and lack of a theoretical framework in studies of formal education has b (...)

69 Development of a theoretical basis allows for a deeper analysis within individual studies, and would provide a framework for cumulative and comparative research throughout the field. 3 The results and analyses of each of the previously discussed categories of issues could be of wider interest and value if they were placed in a larger theoretical context.

70 Participatory research, which involves the “subject” of the research in the collection and analysis of the data, opens a new view on the field to the researcher. The body of knowledge about informal networks and power structures gained through sociometric studies in formal educational settings may be applied, verified, revised and further investigated in informal settings. Facet theory and its analytic techniques such as SSA allow the research to uncover the underlying structure of the data collected. The theory developed may be tested and if necessary revised in this way.

71 The purpose of this analysis is not to champion one methodological approach over another. In fact, it was found that using a variety of methods enriched the analysis. The merging of the factor analysis and the SSA enabled a partial cumulative refinement of the results of each.

72 The field of informal education is large, and largely unexplored. The tools are available, effective and appropriate to the subject under investigation. Development of a theoretical basis for the field, coupled with empirical research utilizing a variety of combinations of the methodological tools, and a cumulative approach to analyzing the results of various studies would greatly increase our knowledge of this growing and important field.

73 This same approach could be replicated in another social or educational field in order to verify if the same basic structure is found. If this is the case, steps could be taken towards developing a universal epistemic design of the field.

Bibliographie

Amar, R. and S. Toledano. (2002). HUDAP – Hebrew University Data Analysis Package. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Computational Center.

Barton, A. (2000). Crafting Multicultural Science Education with Pre-service Teachers through Service-Learning. Journal of Curriculum Studies 32 , 797-820.

Borg, I. (ed.) (1981). Multidimensional Data Representations: When and Why. Ann Arbor, MI: Mathesis Press.

Canter, D. (ed.) (1985). Facet Theory: Approaches to Social Sciences. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Chazan, B. (2002). The Philosophy of Informal Jewish Education . Jerusalem: The Jewish Agency. Retrieved October 9, 2005 from www.jafi.org.il/education/moriya/newpdf/Chazan.pdf

Chazan, B. (1992). The Israel Trip as Jewish Education. Agenda-Jewish Education 1 , 30-33.

Cohen, E.H. (2005). Facet Theory Bibliography . Rome – Jerusalem. Retrieved March 20, 2006. http://www.psy.mq.edu.au/FTA/ .

Cohen, E.H. (2001). A Structural Analysis of the R. Kahane Code of Informality: Elements toward a Theory of Informal Education. Sociological Inquiry 71 , 357-380.

Cohen, E.H. (2000). A Facet Theory Approach to Examining Overall and Life Facet Satisfaction Relationships. Social Indicators Research 51, 223-237.

Cohen, E.H. (1997). Formal and Informal Jewish Education: A Structural Comparison. In Ito, M. (ed.) Sixth International Facet Theory Conference: Contributing to Cumulative Science. Liverpool: University of Liverpool. 58-72.

Cohen, E.H. and Y. Bar-Shalom. (2006). Jews in Texas: Towards a Multi-Methodological Approach to Minority Identity. Religious Education 101 , 40-59.  

Cohen, E.H. and E. Cohen. (2000). The Israel Experience (in Hebrew). Jerusalem, Israel: The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies.

Cohen, E.H., M. Ifergan and E. Cohen. (2002). The 'Madrich': A New Paradigm in Tour Guiding: Youth, Identity and Informal Education. Annals of Tourism Research 29 , 919-932.

Cohen, S. M. and S. Wall. (1994). Excellence in Youth Trips to Israel. In Isaacs, L.  (ed.) Youth Trips to Israel: Rationale and Realization New York: CRB Foundation, JESNA. 1-66.

Coombs, P. and M. Ahmed. (1974). Attacking Rural Poverty: How Non-formal Education Can Help. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Coombs, P. with C. Prosser and M. Ahmed. (1973). New Paths to Learning for Rural Children and Youth. New York: International Council for Educational Development.

de Koning, K. and M. Martin. (eds.) (1995). Participatory Research in Health: Issues and Experiences. London: Zed Books. 

Feighery, E., D. Altman and G. Shaffer. (1991). The Effects of Combining Education and Enforcement to Reduce Tobacco Sales to Minors: A Study of Four Northern California Communities. Journal of the American Medical Association 266 , 3168-3171.

Frideres, J.S. (ed.) (1992). A World of Communities: Participatory Research Perspectives. Toronto: Captus University Publications. 

Goldberg, H. (2002). A Summer on a NFTY Safari 1994: An Ethnographic Perspective. In Chazan, B. (ed.) Studies in Jewish Identity and Youth Culture . Jerusalem: Keren Karev. 23-142.

Guttman, L. (1991). Two Structural Laws for Intelligence Tests. Intelligence 15 , 79-103.

Guttman, L. (1982). Facet Theory, Smallest Space Analysis, and Factor Analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills 54 , 491-493.

Guttman, L. (1968). A General Nonmetric Technique for Finding the Smallest Co-ordinate Space for a Configuration of Points. Psychometrika 33 , 469-506.

Guttman, L. (1965). A Faceted Definition of Intelligence. Studies in Psychology 14 , 166-181.

Guttman, L (1959). Introduction to Facet Design and Analysis. Proceedings of the Fifteen International Congress of Psychology. Brussels, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. 130-132.

Heilman, S.C. (2002). A Young Judea Israel Discovery Tour: The View from Inside. In Chazan, B. (ed.) Studies in Jewish Identity and Youth Culture . Jerusalem: Keren Karev. 143-268.

Hoffman, C. (2001) Introduction to Sociometry. Retrieved October 9, 2005, from http://www.hoopandtree.org/sociometry.htm .

Kahane, R. (1997). The Origins of Postmodern Youth: Informal Youth Movements in a Comparative Perspective. New York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Kindermann, T. (1998). Children’s Development within Peer Groups: Using Composite Social Maps to Identify Peer Networks and to Study their Influences. New Directions for Child Development 80 , 55-82.

Levy, S. (1994). Louis Guttman on Theory and Methodology: Selected Writings . Dartmouth, MA: Aldershot.

Levy, S. (1986). The Structure of Social Values . Jerusalem: Israel Institute of Applied Social Research.

Levy, S. and L. Guttman. (1975). On the Multivariate Structure of Well-being.   Social Indicators Research 2, 361-388.

Levy, S. and L. Guttman. (1985). A Faceted Cross-cultural Analysis of some Core Social Values. In Canter, D. (ed.) Facet Theory: Approaches to Social Research . New York: Springer-Verlag. 205-221.

Lewy, A. (1985). The Student’s Relation to the School. In Zachs, S. (ed.) Thought and Practice in Education and Treatment. Tel Aviv: Papayrus. (Hebrew).

Mojab, S. and S. McDonald. (2001). Women, Violence and Informal Learning. NALL Working Paper. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Moreno, J.L. (1960). The Sociometry Reader . Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.

Moreno, J.L. (1951) Sociometry. Experimental Method and the Science of Society: An Approach to a New Political Orientation . Beacon, NY: Beacon House.

Newman, I. and C. Benz. (1998). Qualitative-Quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring the Interactive Continuum . Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Smith, M. (1997). Introducing Informal Education. Retrieved October 9, 2005, from http://www.infed.org/i-intro.htm .

Watkins, K.E. & V.J. Marsick. (1992). Towards a Theory of Informal and Incidental Learning in Organizations. International Journal of Lifelong Education 11 (4), 287-300.

1  Coombs and his colleagues distinguished between informal and non-formal education, defining informal education as learning in daily life situations, and non-formal education as planned educational activities taking place outside the classroom (Coombs with Prosser and Ahmed 1973, Coombs and Ahmed 1974). Nevertheless, the two terms are used interchangeably throughout the literature. We do not distinguish between these two terms in this article, and the term “informal education” is used in the broader, more inclusive sense.

2  This bibliography is available online at: http://www.users.muohio.edu/shermalw/sociometryfiles/socionop.html . The references for each letter of the alphabet are posted in separate web pages.

3  The non-cumulative nature and lack of a theoretical framework in studies of formal education has been noted also (Lewy 1985).

Table des illustrations

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier.

Erik H. Cohen , « Researching Informal Education » ,  Bulletin de méthodologie sociologique , 93 | 2007, 70-88.

Référence électronique

Erik H. Cohen , « Researching Informal Education » ,  Bulletin de méthodologie sociologique [En ligne], 93 | 2007, mis en ligne le 01 janvier 2010 , consulté le 28 juillet 2024 . URL  : http://journals.openedition.org/bms/529

Erik H. Cohen

Bar Ilan University, [email protected]

Articles du même auteur

• Political Protest and Power Distance [Texte intégral] Towards a Typology of Political Participation Protestation politique et distance de pouvoir – Vers une typologie de la participation politique Paru dans Bulletin de méthodologie sociologique , 99 | 2008
• Being, Having and Doing Modes of Existence: Confirmation and Reduction of a New Scale Based on a Study among Israeli Female Teachers, Student-Teachers and Counselors* [Texte intégral] Paru dans Bulletin de méthodologie sociologique , 87 | 2005
• Assessing the Human Development Index through the Structure of Welfare [Texte intégral] Paru dans Bulletin de méthodologie sociologique , 84 | 2004
• Tension, Adventure, and Risk (TAR) and the Classification of Occupations [Texte intégral] A Multidimensional Analysis Paru dans Bulletin de méthodologie sociologique , 77 | 2003

Droits d’auteur

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés), sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Numéros en texte intégral

• 2008 97  | 98  | 99  | 100
• 2007 93  | 94  | 95  | 96
• 2006 89  | 90  | 91  | 92
• 2005 85  | 86  | 87  | 88
• 2004 81  | 82  | 83  | 84
• 2003 77  | 78  | 79  | 80

Tous les numéros

• Informations pratiques

Informations

• Politiques de publication

Suivez-nous

Lettres d’information

• La Lettre d’OpenEdition

Affiliations/partenaires

ISSN électronique 2070-2779

Voir la notice dans le catalogue OpenEdition  

Plan du site  – Contacts  – Crédits  – Flux de syndication

Politique de confidentialité  – Gestion des cookies  – Signaler un problème

Nous adhérons à OpenEdition  – Édité avec Lodel  – Accès réservé

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search

Understanding the Meaning and Significance of Informal Education

• September 2019

• University of Delhi

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Open Education Sociology Dictionary

informal education

Table of Contents

Definition of Informal Education

( noun ) Unplanned and spontaneous learning of behaviors , norms , and values , which typically occurring outside of formal (school) settings.

Examples of Informal Education

• Reading books
• Watching others perform tasks

Informal Education Pronunciation

Pronunciation Usage Guide

Syllabification : in·for·mal ed·u·ca·tion

Audio Pronunciation

Phonetic Spelling

• American English – /in-fOR-muhl ej-uh-kAY-shuhn/
• British English – /in-fAWm-uhl e-dyu-kAY-shuhn/

International Phonetic Alphabet

• American English – /ɪnˈfɔrməl ˌɛʤəˈkeɪʃən/
• British English – /ɪnˈfɔːml ˌɛdju(ː)ˈkeɪʃən/

Usage Notes

• Plural: informal educations
• Informal education is contrasted to formal education .

Related Quotation

• “[W]hat schools do ideologically, culturally , and economically is very complicated and cannot be fully understood by the application of any simple formula. There are very strong connections between the formal and informal knowledge within the school and the larger society with all its inequalities. But since the pressures and demands of dominant groups are highly mediated by the internal histories of educational   institutions and by the needs and ideologies of people who actually work in them, the aims and results will often be contradictory as well” (Apple 1990:x–xi).

Related Videos

Additional Information

• Word origin of “informal” and “education” – Online Etymology Dictionary: etymonline.com

Related Terms

• anticipatory socialization
• credentialism
• cultural capital
• formal education
• grade inflation
• hidden curriculum

Apple, Michael W. 1990. Ideology and Curriculum . 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

Note : Read for free at the Open Libary .

Works Consulted

Ferrante, Joan. 2011a. Seeing Sociology: An Introduction . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Ferrante, Joan. 2011b.  Sociology: A Global Perspective . 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Griffiths, Heather, Nathan Keirns, Eric Strayer, Susan Cody-Rydzewski, Gail Scaramuzzo, Tommy Sadler, Sally Vyain, Jeff Bry, Faye Jones. 2016. Introduction to Sociology 2e . Houston, TX: OpenStax.

Kendall, Diana. 2011.  Sociology in Our Times . 8th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Cite the Definition of Informal Education

ASA – American Sociological Association (5th edition)

Bell, Kenton, ed. 2013. “informal education.” In Open Education Sociology Dictionary . Retrieved July 29, 2024 ( https://sociologydictionary.org/informal-education/ ).

APA – American Psychological Association (6th edition)

informal education. (2013). In K. Bell (Ed.), Open education sociology dictionary . Retrieved from https://sociologydictionary.org/informal-education/

Chicago/Turabian: Author-Date – Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition)

Bell, Kenton, ed. 2013. “informal education.” In Open Education Sociology Dictionary . Accessed July 29, 2024. https://sociologydictionary.org/informal-education/ .

MLA – Modern Language Association (7th edition)

“informal education.” Open Education Sociology Dictionary . Ed. Kenton Bell. 2013. Web. 29 Jul. 2024. < https://sociologydictionary.org/informal-education/ >.

Passion In Education

At the heart of teaching.

Types of Education: Formal, Informal & Non-formal

Meaning & Types of Education:

Education  is a gradual process which brings positive changes in human life and behavior. We can also  define education  as “a process of acquiring knowledge through study or imparting the knowledge by way of instructions or some other practical procedure”.

What is education?

Education brings a natural and lasting change in an individual’s reasoning and ability to achieve the targeted goal. It facilitates us to investigate our own considerations and thoughts and makes it ready to express it in various shapes.

Education is the main thing that encourages us to distinguish between right and wrong because in the absence of education, we can’t do what we need or we can’t achieve our goal. 

Straightforwardly, we can say,  “education is the passage to progress”.  It is additionally the way to our fate as achievements can only be accomplished when individuals have information, aptitudes, and frame of mind. In this way, education resembles a medium through which we can associate with various individuals and offer our thoughts.

To tackle issues and do inventiveness we first need to gain proficiency with some essential abilities. We require learning and abilities to wind up increasingly imaginative. So education is fundamentally learning of abilities and ideas that can make us increasingly innovative and issue solver. Education is to pick up the capacity to develop and take care of issues in order to achieve their lawful motives.

You may also like:  Philosophy of Education

Education  also means helping people to learn how to do things and encouraging them to think about what they learn.

It is also important for educators to teach ways to find and use information. Through education, the knowledge of society, country, and of the world is passed on from generation to generation.

In democracies, through education, children and adults are supposed to learn how to be active and effective citizens.

More specific, education helps and guide individuals to transform from one class to another. Empowered individuals, societies, countries by education are taking an edge over individuals stand on the bottom pyramid of growth.

Types of Education

Education goes beyond what takes places within the four walls of the classroom. A child gets the education from his experiences outside the school as well as from those within on the basis of these factors. There are  three main types of education , namely, Formal, Informal and Non-formal. Each of these types is discussed below.

Formal Education

Formal education or formal learning  usually takes place in the premises of the school, where a person may learn basic, academic, or trade skills. Small children often attend a nursery or kindergarten but often formal education begins in elementary school and continues with secondary school.

Post-secondary education (or higher education) is usually at a college or university which may grant an academic degree. It is associated with a specific or stage and is provided under a certain set of rules and regulations. 

The formal education is given by specially qualified teachers they are supposed to be efficient in the art of instruction. It also observes strict discipline. The student and the teacher both are aware of the facts and engage themselves in the process of education.

Examples of Formal Education

• Learning in a classroom
• School grading/certification, college,  and university degrees
• Planned education of different subjects having a proper syllabus acquired by attending the institution.

Characteristics of formal education

• Formal education is structured hierarchically.
• It is planned and deliberate.
• Scheduled fees are paid regularly.
• It has a chronological grading system.
• It has a syllabus and subject-oriented. The syllabus has to be covered within a specific time period.
• The child is taught by the teachers

Advantages of Formal education:

• An organized educational model and up to date course contents.
• Students acquire knowledge from trained and professional teachers.
• Structured and systematic learning process.
• Intermediate and final assessments are ensured to advance students to the next learning phase.
• Institutions are managerially and physically organized.
• Leads to a formally recognized certificate.
• Easy access to jobs.

Disadvantages of Formal education:            

• Sometimes, brilliant students are bored due to the long wait for the expiry of the academic session to promote to the next stage
• Chance of bad habits’ adoption may be alarming due to the presence of both good and bad students in the classroom
• Wastage of time as some lazy students may fail to learn properly in spite of motivation by the professional trainers.
• Some unprofessional and non-standard education system may cause the wastage of time and money of the students which leads to the disappointment from formal education and argue them to go for non-formal education.
• Costly and rigid education as compare to other forms of learning

Informal Education

Informal education  may be a parent teaching a child how to prepare a meal or ride a bicycle.

People can also get an informal education by reading many books from a library or educational websites.

Informal education is when you are not studying in a school and do not use any particular learning method. In this type of education, conscious efforts are not involved. It is neither pre-planned nor deliberate. It may be learned at some marketplace, hotel or at home.

Unlike formal education, informal education is not imparted by an institution such as school or college. Informal education is not given according to any fixed timetable. There is no set curriculum required. Informal education consists of experiences and actually living in the family or community.

Examples of Informal Education

• Teaching the child some basics such as numeric characters.
• Someone learning his/her mother tongue
• A spontaneous type of learning, “if a person standing in a bank learns about opening and maintaining the account at the bank from someone.”

Characteristics of Informal Education

• It is independent of boundary walls.
• It has no definite syllabus.
• It is not pre-planned and has no timetable.
• No fees are required as we get informal education through daily experience and by learning new things.
• It is a lifelong process in a natural way.
• The certificates/degrees are not involved and one has no stress for learning the new things.
• You can get from any source such as media, life experiences, friends, family etc.

Advantages of Informal Education

• More naturally learning process as you can learn at anywhere and at any time from your daily experience.
• It involves activities like individual and personal research on a topic of interest for themselves by utilizing books, libraries, social media, internet or getting assistance from informal trainers.
• Utilizes a variety of techniques.
• No specific time span.
• Less costly and time-efficient learning process.
• No need to hire experts as most of the professionals may be willing to share their precious knowledge with students/public through social media and the internet.
• Learners can be picked up the requisite information from books, TV, radio or conversations with their friends/family members.

Disadvantages of Informal Education     

• Information acquired from the internet, social media, TV, radio or conversations with friends/family members may lead to the disinformation.
• Utilized techniques may not be appropriate.
• No proper schedule/time span.
• Unpredictable results which simply the wastage of time.
• Lack of confidence in the learner.
• Absence of discipline, attitude and good habits.

Read also:  Importance of education: comprehensive article

Non-formal Education

Non-formal education  includes adult basic education, adult literacy education or school equivalency preparation.

In nonformal education, someone (who is not in school) can learn literacy, other basic skills or job skills.

Home education, individualized instruction (such as programmed learning), distance learning and computer-assisted instruction are other possibilities. 

Non-formal education is imparted consciously and deliberately and systematically implemented. It should be organized for a homogeneous group. Non-formal, education should be programmed to serve the needs of the identified group. This will necessitate flexibility in the design of the curriculum and the scheme of evaluation.

Examples of Non-formal Education

• Boy Scouts and Girls Guides develop some sports program such as swimming comes under nonformal education.
• Fitness programs.
• Community-based adult education courses.
• Free courses for adult education developed by some organization.

Characteristics of Non-formal Education

• The nonformal education is planned and takes place apart from the school system.
• The timetable and syllabus can be adjustable.
• Unlike theoretical formal education, it is practical and vocational education.
• Nonformal education has no age limit.
• Fees or certificates may or may not be necessary.
• It may be full time or part-time learning and one can earn and learn together.
• It involves learning of professional skills.

Advantages of Non-formal Education

• Practiced and vocational training.
• Naturally growing minds that do not wait for the system to amend.
• Literacy with skillfulness growth in which self-learning is appreciated.
• Flexibility in age, curriculum and time.
• Open-ended educational system in which both the public and private sector are involved in the process.
• No need to conduct regular exams.
• Diploma, certificates, and award are not essential to be awarded.

Disadvantages of Non-formal Education

• Attendance of participants is unsteady.
• Sometimes, it’s just wastage of time as there is no need to conduct the exam on regular basis and no degree/diploma is awarded at the end of the training session.
• Basic reading and writing skills are crucial to learn.
• No professional and trained teachers.
• Students may not enjoy full confidence as the regular students enjoy.
• Some institutes provide fake certification through online courses just for the sake of earning.

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

How to Introduce Yourself in English: Formal and Informal

This article covers the following areas –

Introducing yourself in English, formal or informal, is an essential skill, especially in diverse social and professional settings. Let’s explore how you can do this effectively in both scenarios.

Please enable JavaScript

Continue reading to explore detailed tips and nuances for effective introductions in various contexts, enhancing your communication skills in diverse social and professional settings.

Well! If you are looking for a book or a guide to help you learn and improve your English, you may try English Made Easy Volume One: A New ESL Approach: Learning English Through Pictures (Amazon Link) . This book creatively uses pictures and text in tandem to revolutionize English language learning, making it easier to understand and more effective overall.

Introducing Yourself in Formal Situations

To introduce yourself formally in English, start with a polite greeting like “Good morning/afternoon.” State your full name and professional role or affiliation. Briefly mention the purpose of your introduction and add relevant details. Conclude with a respectful closing remark.

In formal settings, like business meetings, interviews, or academic environments, it’s important to be concise and clear while showing respect and professionalism.

1. Start with a Greeting

When introducing yourself formally, it is essential to begin with a polite greeting . This sets a respectful tone and grabs the listener’s attention.

For instance, in a business meeting, “Good morning” or “Good afternoon” is more appropriate, whereas “Hello” might be suitable for less formal settings.

2. Share Full Name

After the initial greeting, state your full name. This is particularly important in formal settings where clear identification is essential.

In very formal situations, you might include a title, such as “Dr.” or “Mr./Ms.,” before your name. This helps set a professional tone and hints at your educational or professional background. For instance, using “Dr.” indicates high academic achievement.

3. Tell Your Professional Affiliation

Next, mention your professional role or affiliation. This provides context to your introduction and helps the listener understand your background and expertise.

For example, you might say, “I am the Marketing Manager at XYZ Corporation,” or “I am a graduate student at ABC University.” This step is crucial, especially when meeting someone in a professional setting for the first time, as it helps establish your professional identity.

4. Explain the Purpose of the Introduction

For example, “I’m here to discuss the new marketing strategy” or “I’m presenting my research on renewable energy.”

This helps to set the agenda and gives the listener a clear idea of what to expect from the conversation or presentation.

5. Add Some Additional Details

This could include your experience in the field, any special achievements, or specific aspects of your work relevant to the interaction. However, keep this part concise to maintain the attention and interest of your audience.

6. Ensure a Polite Closure

End your introduction with a polite remark. This could be an expression of gratitude, such as “Thank you for the opportunity to introduce myself,” or a forward-looking statement, like “I’m looking forward to working with you.”

Now, based on the guidelines provided above, my introduction may look like something like this. What about yours? Let us all know about each other in the comment section.

Good afternoon, I’m Niaj A A Khan, an ESL Expert. I specialize in innovative teaching methodologies for language acquisition. My purpose today is to share insights and strategies for effective ESL education. With a background in classroom teaching and curriculum development, I comprehensively understand the challenges and opportunities in ESL education. Thank you for discussing how we can enhance language learning experiences together.

Introducing Yourself in Informal Situations

An informal English introduction starts with a casual greeting like “Hi” or “Hello,” followed by your first name. Share a personal interest or connection to spark conversation, and invite the other person to engage with a friendly question or comment.

1. Greet Casually

Starting with a casual greeting in an informal introduction sets a relaxed and friendly tone. Common greetings such as “Hi,” “Hey,” or “Hello” are perfect for this. The choice of greeting can depend on your style and the context of the meeting. A casual greeting immediately signals the interaction is friendly and laid-back, making it ideal for social settings.

2. Share Only First Name

In informal situations, using just your first name is usually enough. It makes the interaction more personal and approachable. Saying something like “I’m [First Name]” is simple yet effective. This approach is particularly suitable in casual gatherings where the atmosphere is more about making connections than exchanging formal credentials.

3. Talk about Personal Connection

4. express interest or fun fact.

Sharing something about your interests or a fun fact about yourself can spark an interesting conversation. It could be a hobby, a recent travel experience, or something unique about your background. For instance, “I’m really into hiking and photography.” This makes the introduction more memorable and opens up the conversation for mutual interests.

5. Use Open-Ended Question

Ending with an open-ended question invites the other person into the conversation. It shows your interest in them and encourages a two-way dialogue. Questions like “What brings you here today?” or “Do you have any hobbies?” are great for this purpose. This step is crucial in making the introduction feel like the start of a conversation rather than just a statement about yourself.

6. Ensure Friendly Closure

Based on the guidelines above, my introduction in an informal setting may look like this.

Hi, I’m Niaj. I’m here with my colleague Sara, who’s wearing the blue scarf. I’m passionate about ESL teaching and enjoy exploring new cultures through language. What about you? Do you have any interests or hobbies you’re passionate about?

Now it’s your turn! How would you introduce yourself informally? Share in the comments, and let’s get to know each other in a fun, casual way!

5 Tips to Introduce Yourself in English

Well, before moving forward, I would like to share about a book that can help you improve your conversational skills. 110 Real Life English Conversations (Amazon Link) is a great book for ESL learners and teachers, providing various conversation and situational dialogues, 223 everyday English expressions, and idioms. It’ll certainly help you to gain the confidence to speak English in real life.

Use proper Body Language

Body language is a crucial aspect of both formal and informal introductions. It communicates confidence and approachability.

Listen Actively

After introducing yourself, giving the other person your full attention is important. Active listening involves maintaining eye contact, nodding, and reacting appropriately to what the other person is saying. This not only shows respect but also helps build rapport. It’s about showing that you are genuinely interested in what they say, which is vital in formal and informal interactions.

Adapt to Cultural Norms

Awareness of cultural differences is key, especially in international or diverse settings. Different cultures have different norms for introductions and interactions. For instance, the appropriate distance to maintain, the level of direct eye contact, and how to address someone can vary widely.

Be Confident

Confidence is about speaking clearly and at a moderate pace, showing that you are comfortable and self-assured. However, it’s crucial to strike a balance and avoid appearing arrogant.

In a formal introduction, confidence reflects your professionalism; in an informal setting, it makes you seem more approachable. Confidence can be practiced and improved over time, significantly impacting how others perceive you.

While professionalism is crucial in formal situations, it doesn’t mean you can’t be personable. In informal settings, being genuine helps create a relaxed and comfortable environment. Authenticity builds trust and facilitates better connections.

Remember, the way you introduce yourself can set the tone for the entire interaction, so it’s worth paying attention to these aspects.

Final Thoughts

Whether in a boardroom or a social gathering, a well-crafted introduction sets the stage for meaningful interactions and lasting impressions. By adapting these guidelines to your specific context, you can navigate introductions with confidence and ease.

If you have further questions or suggestions about anything specific related to this topic or anything else related to learning English as a second language, feel free to ask me in the comment box. You may also help the ESLA community by putting your valuable suggestions here to help every member improve their English language skills.

FAQ: Introducing Yourself in English

In formal settings, use phrases like “Hello, my name is [Your Name],” or “Good [morning/afternoon/evening], I’m [Your Name], [Your Position or Relation].” Keep it simple and professional.

In informal settings, it’s often appropriate to be more relaxed. You can simply say, “Hi, I’m [Your Name],” or even “Hey there, I’m [Your Name].”

3. Should I offer a handshake when introducing myself?

Add a unique detail or a friendly smile. For example, “Hello, I’m [Your Name], the one who recently moved from [City/Country]” or “I’m [Your Name], I’m passionate about [Hobby/Interest].”

5. Is it important to make eye contact when introducing myself?

6. How can I introduce myself in a group setting?

7. What if I forget someone’s name immediately after they introduce themselves?

It’s okay to ask again politely. You can say, “I’m sorry, could you remind me of your name?” It shows you’re genuinely interested in getting to know them.

In formal settings, it’s often relevant. In informal settings, gauge the context; mentioning interests or mutual connections might be more appropriate.

9. How can I respond if I don’t catch someone’s name during an introduction?

In informal settings, light humor can be a good icebreaker. It’s best to stick to a straightforward introduction in formal situations unless the context is relaxed.

Related Posts

How to ask someone if they are free to talk, how to ask for feedback in english at work, how to negotiate salary during an english job interview, 10 other ways to say “have a good day”, niaj a a khan, leave a comment, 📖 join our community - for free 📖.

the encyclopaedia of pedagogy and informal education

Using informal education – Chapter 1: using informal education

contents : informal education and other educational forms · characteristics of informal education · formal and informal · the problem of curricula · content, direction and process · identity, personality and role · conclusion · return to main contents

Introduction.

[page 1] Informal education has been an element of practice within casework, schooling, youth work, residential care and the Probation Service for some time. It has been an important part of the activity of community organizations. Yet it has rarely been given sustained attention, though this has changed somewhat in recent years, as the contributors to this book show. Within the criminal justice area, for example, as Debbie Saddington suggests, there has been a shift towards crime prevention and reduction, increased community participation and some form of education which reflects a move from pathological to interactionist perspectives. This has produced an increased readiness in some quarters to look at informal approaches. David Burley argues that the pressure to inject more ‘relevance’ into secondary school provision has led to a growing interest in informal approaches. Forms of work, complementary to the formal, have emerged which allow teachers to establish different relationships with their students. Within residential work the shift to community care and changes in the way people with severe learning difficulties are viewed has had a similar impact, as Don Blackburn and Mal Blackburn report. Finally, in youth work dissatisfaction with the largely rhetorical notion of social education has led to a reawakening of interest in informal education. With such changes taking place it is important to examine how informal education is actually understood and practised within different arenas and to explore some of the central questions and issues that arise for practitioners.

Informal education and other educational forms

Informal education tends to be defined by its relationship to formal education. While this is important, it is too easy to characterize [page 2] informal education negatively as the bit left over. It is better to identify the positive attributes and compare these with more formal approaches. This allows us to assess the claims made for the ‘improving qualities’ of informal education rather than merely presenting it as a blanket alternative to, say, casework or classroom work.

In the chapters which follow a number of elements are emphasized. There is the focus on the everyday. On the one hand Don Blackburn and Mal Blackburn explore the process of dealing with, and learning from, the apparently trivial tasks of day-to-day living. On the other, Glynis Francis examines the possibilities of connecting with fundamental aspects of people’s lives. She also stresses the crucial importance of social relations in informal education. Debbie Saddington talks about its largely relaxed atmosphere and the way in which it connects with, and feeds off, other tasks such as those associated with community groups. Elizabeth Afua Sinclair underlines the centrality of addressing and working with the culture of the learners. Anne Foreman highlights the personality and role of the practitioner. Both David Burley and Pauline Gertig examine the way in which informal education may be approached from more formal contexts. John Ellis brings out the conversational, story­telling dimension. Above all he, along with the other contributors, stresses the need to ensure that learning is seen as the responsibility of the learner. Much of the educator’s task is concerned with enabling people to take that responsibility.

All this indicates that there is something distinctive about informal education. It is a useful starting point to consider it as a set of ideas and processes which pay particular attention to, and make use of, the fabric of daily life. Workers have their professional identity significantly moulded by that fabric. Familiar relationships and institutions provide much of the material and context for intervention. At the same time practitioners also draw upon those traditions of thinking and acting which we define as education. They do so in a way which allows processes and institutions to develop which make sense in, and of, the context in which they are applied. These do not necessarily conform to the regular or prescribed forms of the educational system. One way of catching part of the flavour of the approach is to describe it as ‘using the familiar critically in order to further learning’.

We can see in this the importance of informal education for practitioners At one level there is the potential of informality: the concern to connect with familiar cultural forms, the flexibility of [page 3] response, and the desire to make interventions which make sense in people’s lives all hold promise, as the contributors to this book demonstrate. At another level there are the possibilities of education, which are particularly attractive to those practitioners who feel constrained by what they perceive as ‘policing’ or ‘conditioning’ forms of practice.

At this point several things need saying. What we are describing here is primarily an approach to educating: a form of pedagogy. As such, informal education emphasizes certain values and concerns: the worth placed on the person of the learner, the importance of critical thinking, and the need to examine the taken for granted. At the same time, informal education need not imply particular content, other than that arising directly from the processes adopted and the values they express. This is an important point to grasp. Informal education is a special set of processes which involves the adoption of certain broad ways of thinking and acting so that people can engage with what is going on. It cannot be simplistically defined by a set of curricular aims.

Further, it is not an approach to educating confined to those who define themselves first and foremost as educators. It goes beyond a simple concern with setting or organizational sponsorship. In this we differ from those writers who focus on situations and often use a threefold typology, referring to formal, informal and non-formal settings or environments.

Formal situations are bureaucratic, non—formal are organised but not necessarily in a bureaucratic environment and informal situations are ones where there are no pre—specified, although there are always covert, procedures of interaction. (Jarvis 1987: 70)

Here the school and the classroom may be seen as offering the paradigm for a formal setting. Within it people play clear roles within a bureaucratic or ‘official’ organization. Non—formal education may thus be defined as:

any organized educational activity outside the established formal system — whether operating separately or as an important feature of some broader activity — that is intended to serve identifiable learning clienteles and learning objectives. (Coombs and Ahmed 1973, quoted in Fordham et al 1979: 210-11)

Informal situations are defined as occurring in social interaction between family members, friends, acquaintances and so on.

[page 4] We find this particular focus on, and view of, the setting unhelpful and suspect. It is difficult to see what it adds to our understanding and, indeed, it can confuse ( Smith 1988 : 127—8). Most definitions of the formal and non-formal appear to apply to professional interventions, to educators sponsored by bureaucratic organizations. However, non-professionals often facilitate learning in both formal and ‘non—formal’ educational situations. We can also see professionals engaging with informal environments as Jarvis conceives them. It is our contention that the question of sponsorship should be separated from that of setting: we can think of informal and formal settings in which professionalized or non-professionalizcd interventions may occur.

Giving too much attention to setting may mean we miss the point. Practitioners who are engaged in what they call ‘informal education’ are largely concerned with processes and interactions: they are interested in the way in which different dimensions combine and connect to make a distinctive form of pedagogy. By focusing on the setting we might not only miss the significance of pedagogy also of the practitioner. There certainly has been a tendency within some discussions of informal primary education, and within youth work, to almost apologize for the interventions that practitioners make. In some way the process is seen as having to be natural and spontaneous. Planned interventions by practitioners are considered something of an aberration, to be apologized for. This is not a view we hold.

Informal education is clearly something different from paying attention to the so—called ‘hidden curriculum’. The latter may be taken to mean those things which students learn, ‘because of the way in which the work of the school is planned and organized but which are not in themselves overtly included in the planning or even in the consciousness of those responsible for the school arrangements’ (Kelly 1982: 8). Such a concept need not be restricted to the school. The organization and planning of residential work, social work, youth work and community work also convey similarly powerful messages. Having recognized this, practitioners may then use the informal education approach in order to create an environment in which certain things enter the ‘overt curriculum’. However, they could equally use more formal means.

We must recognize that informal education and community education are often confused. It is difficult to argue a concrete case for differences between the two ideas as community education is a Will-o-the-wisp which defies comparative analysis. There are obvious [page 5] difficulties in attempting to define it (see, for example, Martin 1987; Fletcher 1987; and Clark 1987) and it is often used to include all forms of educational (and many non-educational) intervention. It is pointless to attempt to clarify such rhetoric. However, we do need to note that informal educators have been subject to a number of the same intellectual and political influences as many of those who call themselves community educators. For example, Lovett (1988) singles out the writings of Bernstein, Illich and Freire . Bernstein (1971), he suggests, reinforced the belief that language and culture were major barriers in attracting working class people to education:

Consequently, more attention was paid to working-class and popular culture. Freire confirmed this approach with his concept of cultural invasion and the importance of using everyday life and experience as cultural material in an educational dialogue about concrete issues and problems, linking reflection and action in a continuing praxis. (Lovett 1988: 145-6)

Illich (1973) focused on the de-institutionalization of education. The need was to think anew in terms of learning networks which utilized ‘a variety of educational resources, formal and informal, including the skills and talents of people themselves’ (Lovett 1988: 146).

We should note the way in which the notion of informality has been used within primary schooling in Britain. As Alexander (1988: 148) has commented:

Certain words have acquired a peculiar potency in primary education, and few more so than ‘informal’. Never properly defined, yet ever suggestive of ideas and practices which were indisputably right, ‘informal’ was the flagship of the semantic armada of 1960s Primaryspeak . . . spontaneity, flexibility, naturalness, growth, needs, interests, freedom . . . self—expression, discovery and many more.

Important thinkers can be invoked as contributing to the significance of the informal — Rousseau , Pestalozzi , Froebel and Dewey to name but a few (see, for example, Blyth 1988: 7-24). However, since the 1960s the terms of educational debate have altered somewhat and ideas have had to be reformed or redressed in the rhetoric of the moment. It is now less common to hear informal approaches to primary education being advanced as a blanket alternative to formal [page 6] ones. When we look at usage within discussions of primary schooling, the most consistent form now appears to be the noun informality’, rather than the adjective ‘informal’: instead of informal education, we might examine informality in pedagogy, in curriculum, in organization, in evaluation and in personal style (Blyth 1988). What is being examined is a tendency. This development is helpful. Much that has been described as informal primary education would not fit the definition of informal education advanced here: it would either be seen as formal, but containing significant elements of flexibility and openness, or as an informal interlude in a formal programme (more of this later). More recently, and helpfully, certain strands of what was known as informal primary education, for example, person—centredness and a process—orientation, have been reworked within the organizing notion of the ‘organic curriculum’ (Hunter and Scheirer 1988).

There is often an automatic assumption that informal education means working with small groups. For practitioners who have been used to individualized interventions or structured large groups such as classes, one of the distinctive experiences of informal education may be the use of group work. This is certainly a key medium but it is not the only one. Practitioners may equally be committed to working with individuals, whether directly or through the production of materials and so on; they may also have to intervene in large formal settings such as public meetings and in complex contexts such as youth clubs.

Characteristics of informal education

A number of elements appear to combine in a distinctive form which can be labelled informal education. Here we want to note seven which are drawn from Smith (1988: 126—33) and are illustrated with reference to material in the rest of this book.

To begin with, we can see that informal education can take place in a variety of physical and social settings: there is no regular or prescribed form. Many locales will be primarily for other, non-educational, purposes. For example, in welfare rights work, people are, first and foremost, concerned with finding a way out of some concrete financial problem. Anne Foreman examines the processes in a youth club where the primary focus may be on the pursuit of leisure activities. However, as David Burley demonstrates, informal education can also take place in contexts associated with schooling, like school clubs, visits and residential trips.

[page 7] The nature of the setting has an impact upon what can be done —and not just at a physical level. Educators (and participants) need to explore how a setting is experienced and how this influences who takes part and how they function. They also have to appreciate the ways in which the setting may relate to the needs of the ‘client group’. These considerations can be seen clearly at work in Glynis Francis’s discussion of working with community groups. The classic tension is between the work required by a particular activity, such as planning a play scheme or organizing a handball club, and what the group or individual can learn from the process. The primary task for the group or individual is the achievement of some concrete activity or object, rather than learning. Not only can this lead to frustration on the part of educators, it also requires the making of some fine judgements and sensitive interventions. Educators are not there to hijack what groups are trying to do. Yet their interventions have to be primarily directed towards promoting understanding rather than the success of the particular project in hand.

While much of the learning that occurs may initially appear to be incidental, it is not necessarily accidental. We are concerned here with purposeful and conscious actions. The specific goals may not be clear at any one time either to the educator or to the learner. Yet the process is deliberate, in that the people concerned are seeking to acquire knowledge, skills and/or attitudes, even if the goals are not specific (Brookfield 1983: 15). What educators do is contribute to the development of the context and conditions which allow the desired ‘internal’ change we know as learning to occur. When we look at much youth work practice, for example, it can be seen that the learning cited as evidence of youth workers’ educational activities is often, in fact, accidental: the context for learning is frequently not the focus for intervention. The particular activity involved cannot, therefore, be labelled education.

The timescales involved are likely to be highly variable and are often influenced by the dynamics of the institution(s) in which the work is taking place. Practitioners can become dependent upon a range of factors over which they have little control, such as pub opening hours, or the times when people go to the shops. There are also questions of pace and of the relative open-endedness of much informal practice. As Debbie Saddington comments, the process is often slow, with all sorts of apparent cul-de-sacs and diversions. However, when we examine the scale of what is often attempted, and what it actually means for the lives of those worked with, a feeling of slow progress is hardly surprising. This can be heightened [page 8] by the lack of access to appropriate means for testing progress. In other words, it is only when someone has to act that the extent of learning becomes clear. If that opportunity does not arise, or if educators are not clear about what they are looking for, then a sense of drift can set in. It is often the case that there is no clear end to the work. One thing can lead to another, as the examples in Anne Foreman’s chapter demonstrate.

One aspect of informal education noted by many here is the extent to which participants have control over the content of learning. The term ‘negotiated learning’ is used several times to describe the process. The idea of a contract between the educator and the participants is also underlined. Don Blackburn and Mal Blackburn suggest that such negotiability should apply to both content and method. However, most contributors go beyond negotiability and suggest that participation must also be voluntary and is often self-generated. This poses a fundamental question. To what extent is it possible to describe a process as informal if participation is forced —as is the case of many in probation day centres, residential settings and schools?

It is possible here to make a distinction between the general requirement, for example, of attending a day centre and participation in different activities. While people may have to be in the centre, they may well have a choice as to whether they take part in certain pursuits. Although those voluntary activities may be conditioned by their context there is at least some room for informal practice. This will not be without difficulties, as Blackburn and Blackburn’s discussion of the preparing and serving of food in residential settings shows. It may be that residents, perhaps as part of a group decision, have to take a share in these activities. However, being required to help with the cooking is quite separate from any educational work about how residents may feel about this requirement. The acid test is whether people freely choose to engage in such reflection.

With the voluntary nature of informal education goes a ‘romantic’ view of the relationship between educators and learners. It is without a doubt significant that people can choose whether to engage in the process or not. Similarly, the nature of the relationship may be affected by the fact that much of the activity is mounted ‘on the participant’s ground’ (see below). However, this should not be taken as meaning that power differentials disappear or that the roles of enabler and learner are somehow collapsed into one. The statement ‘we are all learners here’ may well be true at one, highly generalized, level; but it also confuses the real situation. As we have seen, the [page 9] primary task of educators is to ‘manage’ the external conditions that facilitate the internal change called learning (Brookfield 1986: 46). This distinguishes them from the learners, who are primarily concerned with the internal act of learning. Where learners take on educational responsibilities, where they set their own learning goals, locate resources, devise learning strategies and are responsible for evaluating the progress made towards the attainment of those goals they have become educators: they are engaged in self-education self-directed education (Brookfield 1986: 47). This may well be a goal for some informal educators. However, confused usage of the word ‘learning’ should not be allowed to cloud fundament differences.

Many of the following chapters focus on the dialogical nature of informal education and on the mutual respect involved. It is not simply that informal educators engage in conversations but that they give careful attention to words, the ideas that they express and the actions that follow. ‘Dialogue should be considered as a form of action aimed at the transformation of our normal communication patterns combined with continuing reflective evaluation of that action’ (Allman 1987: 221). Allman goes on (222) to make a useful distinction between discussion and dialogue.

Discussion focuses primarily on allowing each person to express or communicate and thus clarify in their own minds what they think. By contrast, dialogue involves an exploration of why we think what we do and how this thinking has arisen historically.

In other words, it is an invitation to critical thinking: to identify and challenge assumptions and explore and imagine alternatives (Brookfield 1987: 15). Beyond that it is an opening to action. It is here that the scale of the task that many informal educators are engaged in becomes clear. What is involved is often nothing less than transforming perspectives: the process by which people ‘come to recognize their cultural induced dependency roles and relationships and the reasons for them and take action to overcome them’ (Mezirow 1983: 125). As John Ellis later comments, such a change is necessary to avoid new ideas being colonized by the old viewpoint. A central aspect of dialogue in this respect is an emphasis upon collaborative forms of working. This entails:

a conscious challenge to and transformation of the relations and rituals of our normal form of group communication, discussion, wherein, though socially gathered, people operate as separate [page 10] individuals verbally expressing, sometimes exchanging, what they already know. (Allman 1988: 97)

One of the important features of this process is that it is often initiated by an external circumstance or stimulus. ‘Only rarely does a change in thinking patterns happen because of a person’s self-willed decision to become more critically reflective’ (Brookfield 1987: 24). Such events, and the dialogue that is necessary to make sense of them, can be, and often needs to be, handled within formal structures. Yet the location, orientation and relative ability of informal educators to use such events means they have a special contribution to make.

Dialogue is not value-free. It involves a certain view of the world and of women’s and men’s place within it. As Freire notes (1985: 43), ‘All educational practice implies a theoretical stance on the educator’s part. This stance in turn implies — sometimes more, sometimes less explicitly — an interpretation of man and the world’. We have to accept, and make a commitment to, the philosophy that infuses this notion. This can be seen at work in the process. The educator focuses upon the thinking and actions of the other person. The task is to enable that other to make sense and build theory. This is not done by trying to impose a way of thinking but by asking questions and making statements which enable the other to clarify and problematize his or her own thinking. The same process will often occur when working in groups where there can be a group focus on one individual’s thought and action, with the other group members working to help that person clarify and refine his or her understanding. In so doing they also enhance their own learning and enlarge their abilities to participate in dialogue. At other times educators will be alone in the group in their concern to clarify and problematize the thinking of another.

A respect for persons is a precondition for productive dialogue: degrading circumstances and treatment must be opposed. ‘The snobbery and patronizing attitudes of the privileged, and the feelings of deference which they foster— the status hierarchy by which people are appreciated not for their personal qualities but for their social position’ (Baker 1987: 4) must also be rejected. A respect for truth and for justice, a commitment to collaborative working and a belief in reflectiveness and theory making are all necessary. Crucially, this last belief must connect with action: there has to be some promise of the dialogue resulting in changed or better informed behaviour.

[page 11] Informal educators must have an active appreciation of, and engagement with, the social systems through which people operate and the cultural forms they use. As Brew put it ‘one should use the language of the people’ (1946:40). Rather than creating an institution largely separated from, or beyond the day-to-day context in which people operate, informal educators will attempt to work with or within forms and structures familiar to, and owned by, the participants (Smith 1988: 130). Debbie Saddington, Anne Foreman and John Ellis, for example, look at clubs as sites for informal education and Don Blackburn and Mal Blackburn examine some of the daily rhythms of residential life. One of the important features of this process is that educators pay careful attention to the way in which notions of informality are understood by the people they work with. A particular educator’s understanding of ‘informality’, may not be shared by other participants. A concern for staying with the developing understandings of the participants is central to informal education and this can take on a particular meaning where practitioners are operating across class, ethnic and gender divides.

The identity of informal educators is bound up with a commitment to a dialogue with the social systems and cultures through which learners operate. This involves constantly looking for the learning which can be generated within everyday life. The result can be an enhanced appreciation of the main areas of ‘need’, the generation of more relevant educational forms and the possibility of better informed work, as John Ellis suggests. It should also allow an awareness of crucial political and cultural questions such as those raised by Elizabeth Afua Sinclair . Above all, it should give a measure of protection against the cultural imperialism of some forms of education. The whole purpose of informal education is to develop forms of thinking and acting that fit the situations that people find themselves in. In the end this can only be done by the participants, which makes their analysis and view of the world a central reference point.

Lastly, and contrary to much received opinion, informal education is not only concerned with the pattern of learning usually known as ‘experiential’. There is a sense, as Dewey suggests, in which all genuine learning comes about through experience. However, that ‘does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educational. Experience and education cannot be directly equated to each other’ (1938: 25). Problems appear as soon as we begin to ask what we mean by ‘experience’. Some writers have tended to use experience in a concrete rather than cognitive sense. As [page 12] a result it is possible to argue that there are at least two broad, but separate, patterns of learning: the experiential and the information— assimilational (see, for example, Coleman 1976). The classic expression of the former is Kolb’s learning cycle. This begins with concrete experience, proceeds to observation and reflection, then to generalization and abstract conceptualization, then to active experimentation which in turn produces concrete experience. The whole cycle then repeats itself (Kolb 1976). This circular process can then be compared with the supposedly linear process of information assimilation. This begins with the educator transmitting information through some symbolic medium such as a lecture. Some of that information is then received by the learner, assimilated, organized, made into a general principle, applied and action taken. These patterns, as outlined, have different strengths and weaknesses. One pattern may be more usefully applied to a particular situation than the other (Coleman 1976).

Informal education may, as Glynis Francis and Anne Foreman suggest, put people’s experiences at the centre. It may also be person-centred. However, this does not mean that informal educators forego information giving as a technique. In fact, in a number of the accounts that follow (see, for example, Gertig ) we see informal educators at certain points offering information rather than attending to concrete experiences. A community worker working with a tenants’ group may be asked to provide information about the local authority or about, say, the Housing Action Trust programme. This assists and informs dialogue.

We may conclude that informal educators are not tied to the use of one pattern or style of learning. The adoption by some of so called ‘experiential learning’ as a central element is perhaps best seen as an aspect of informal educators’ search for a professional identity. This parallels the eagerness of some adult educators to construct an empirically verifiable theory of adult learning.

If we could discover certain empirically verifiable differences in learning styles between children (as a generic category) and adults (as a generic category), then we could lay claim to a substantive area for research that would be unchallengeably the property of educators and trainers of adults. Such a claim would provide us with a professional identity. It would ease the sense of insecurity and defensiveness that frequently assails educators and trainers of adults in all settings when faced with the accusation that they are practising a non-discipline . . . Such a revelation is unlikely to [page 13] transpire for some considerable time, and it may be that the most empirically attestable claim that can be made on behalf of adult learning styles concerns their range and diversity. (Brookfield 1986: 33)

Informal educators who fail to be sensitive to the possible range of learning styles are also likely to be paying insufficient attention to the cultures with which they are working.

The formal and the informal

Some contrasts with formal education are clear. Formal education will tend to take place in a ‘sole-use’ setting; have a more explicit and codified curriculum; show different forms of time structuring; participation may or may not be voluntary; processes may or may not be dialogical; and there may not be an active appreciation of people’s cultures and social networks (Smith 1988: 132). The institutions and practices associated with the paradigms of organization —the school, college and classroom — will tend to mould the identity of formal educators. However, as Ellis demonstrates, there are marked pitfalls to thinking of informal and formal education as mutually exclusive. They are more akin to traditions of thinking: a programme of informal work may well have formal interludes and the formal programme may gradually change its character. The latter is clearly shown in the work Pauline Gertig describes in relation to carers. The former can be seen where, for example, the practitioner works with individuals in order that they may reflect upon their experiences and begin to build theories. Similarly, formal programmes, as Elizabeth Afua Sinclair shows, can be structured so as to encourage the development of informal learning networks and contain within them a parallel concern to enable dialogue.

It is in this area that the limits of purely informal approaches become clear. Where people are seeking to make sense of their experiences and insights it is quite likely that more formal means will be needed. As John Ellis points out, informal approaches have their shortcomings for dealing with complex questions. Earlier we used the example of the group which focuses upon the learning of one member. That group has to work out and agree certain rules and procedures in order to function. Those sessions where the group consciously uses these ‘rules’ are to some extent formalized. They may entail some explicit agreements concerning objectives, setting and procedures. It is in this sense that we have talked of informal education having formal interludes.

[page 14] Educators can find that as soon as they appear the situation alters and the group or individual starts functioning in a different mode. Some practitioners, uncomfortable with the sporadic and ‘unfinished’ nature of informal work, seek comfort in order and activity; their intervention, perhaps unconsciously, is directed at formalizing the informal. At certain times formalization is appropriate. There will be periods when educators will be involved in more structured work with groups and individuals. As needs change so will the form of intervention. Indeed, it may no longer be appropriate for informal educators to devote much time to working with certain people. Workers commonly find themselves, as Glynis Francis comments, helping people to identify or construct courses and study programmes that meet their own learning needs — A process sometimes described as ‘hatching and despatching’. Whether we define an activity as formal or informal is largely a question of balance and time. For work to remain informal the formal was to remain an ‘interlude’.

The movement between the formal and informal may not simply take place within education: it may for example, be a movement from education to more structured forms of casework. The social worker may choose to use different forms of intervention in order to approach varying areas of concern. The central point here is that if practitioners operate in only one mode they are likely to be less than effective. There is a need to examine the process of blending the informal and formal and to pay attention to the means by which practitioners switch between modes. This creates many problems.

The problem of curricula

We have already noted that a detailed curriculum is one of the things that demarcates formal from informal education. At the same time a number of schemes have sought to introduce curriculum elements into informal practice often in order to control it. David Burley notes the use of informal education within schools in connection with the profiling of students. Within youth work, as Anne Foreman remarks, there has been a growing emphasis on curriculum by key agencies such as the National Youth Bureau and HM Inspectorate. Don Blackburn and Mal Blackburn discuss the use of Individual Programme Plans (IPPs) by some residential agencies. The central question here is the extent to which the introduction of curriculum thinking alters the educational form. There are dangers in inserting a notion formed in one context into another.

[page 15] The IPP approach is a useful example of what can happen. It has often included an assessment framework, based upon behavioural objectives. As Blackburn and Blackburn comment, although people with learning difficulties may be involved in a choice of goals when constructing an IPP, the choice is effectively limited by the menu of skills provided in the assessment. A strong focus on curriculum content can easily lead to a type of prescription that undercuts the opportunity for dialogue. The same problem faces those informal educators who, while not having a thorough set of curriculum objectives, do have a specific remit: They may be sent out with, say, a brief to tackle alcohol abuse among young people. The expectations of their managers may conflict with the fact that their interactions with young people are not easily contained within the suggested framework. Pauline Gertig shows how practitioners with precisely detailed objectives often move away from these as their relationship with a group or individual deepens. In other words, there is a shift in emphasis from the objectives of educators, to participants’ concerns and interests: a sign that dialogue is possibly occurring.

The adoption of curriculum thinking by some informal educators appears to have largely arisen from a desire to be clear about content. Yet there are crucial difficulties with the notion of curriculum in this context (Smith 1988: 136-9). These centre around the extent to which it is possible to have a clear idea, in advance (and even during the process), of the activities and topics that a particular piece of work will include. At any one time, outcomes may not be highly specific; similarly, the nature of the activities to be used often cannot be predicted. We may be able to say something about how the informal educator will work. However, knowing in advance about broad processes and ethos is not the same as having a knowledge of the programme. We must therefore conclude that approaches to the curriculum which focus on objectives and detailed programmes cannot be accommodated within informal education.

Against such ‘curriculum as product’ approaches may be set those which focus on process. Stenhouse defines a curriculum as an ‘attempt to communicate the essential principles and features of an educational proposal in such a form that it is open to critical scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice’ (1975: 4). Involving both content and method, at a minimum it should ‘provide a basis for planning a course, studying it empirically and considering the grounds of its justification’ (ibid: 5). Such approaches put deliberation, judgement and meaning making at the centre. They:

[page 16]place the emphasis upon action or practice, rather than upon some product. Furthermore a practical interest initiates the sort of action which is taken as a consequence of deliberation and a striving to understand or make meaning of the situation on the part of the practitioner rather than action taken as a consequence of a directive or in keeping with some pre-specified objective. (Grundy 1987: 65)

While there are still problems regarding prescription many of the elements discussed under the heading of curriculum by those interested in process and practice resonate with the concerns of informal educators. Yet this is to extend the domain of the curriculum. As Barrow comments, there are problems with this. ‘By this stage the field of curriculum has become enormous. In fact it is more or less coextensive with the domain of educational studies, of which it is usually presumed to be an offshoot’ (Barrow 1984: 6). If we take a fairly narrow definition of curriculum then it quickly becomes clear that it cannot accommodate the sort of ideas and processes discussed in this book. For example, Barrow defines a curriculum as ‘a programme of activities (by teachers and pupils) designed so that pupils will attain so far as possible certain educational and other schooling ends or objectives’ (1984: 11). It is this understanding of curriculum which broadly informs many of the attempts to introduce the concept into the work of informal educators. Such a product orientation is incompatible with our model.

On the other hand major problems remain if we take a broader understanding of curriculum, even setting aside the conceptual difficulties in extending usage. Many of those investigating process-orientated curricula are doing so in a particular context — that of the formal educational institution. Concepts like ‘course’ remain central to their model. For example, in discussing their concept of the ‘organic curriculum’, Hunter and Scheirer describe it as (1988: 95):

a multifaceted, multilevel amalgam of process, subject, problem (or issue) and experience made available to the children . . . The school will have a list of objectives which, while remaining flexible to match the differing needs of individuals, will help the teachers in arriving at appropriate expectations of children’s achievements.

Again, we can see here ideas which are alien to the sort of informal education discussed in this book. Informal educational processes do not sit happily with notions such as ‘subject’. The objectives of informal educators are more to do with the delivery of a service rather [page 17] than outcomes for individuals. While it is still possible to talk of learning objectives such objectives are the property of the learner rather than the educator. The more detailed such objectives become the more likely it will be that formal forms of intervention are required.

It seems probable that the application of the term ‘curriculum’ marks off the formal from the informal educator. This is not a conclusion that all our contributors would agree with. Anne Foreman still uses the concept. However, it should be noted that many of the activities she discusses in relation to the ‘youth work curriculum’ are in fact formal. She also makes use of the idea of ‘programme’, a notion which has a long history of usage within youth work and which, when used with caution, could be used alongside process-orientated work. However, those wanting to bring meaning-making and process fully into focus have to look for other words to describe their thinking and practice.

Content, direction and process

John Ellis argues that an all-embracing vagueness will not do. There is a deep need for practitioners to be clear on purpose, on the reason why something is done, created or exists. Many of the writers here talk about the direction of specific pieces of work. Such thinking is necessary for making decisions about practice. The idea of direction is a useful starting point. It is far broader than the idea of curriculum objectives and carries with it the possibility that the specific topic for study and reflection may vary. Looked at in more detail, we can see that this involves having a personal but shared idea of the ‘good’: some notion of what makes for human flourishing or well-being (see Brown 1986: 130—63). In other words, our orientation as educators will be informed by having what Dewey describes as an intelligent sense of human interests (1916: 230).

The second element of direction is a disposition towards ‘good’ rather than ‘correct’ action. This frame of mind:

would encourage a person acting in a certain situation to break a rule or convention if he/she judged that to act in accordance with it would not promote ‘the good’, either generally, or of the person involved in specific situations. (Grundy 1987: 62)

At this point we can see a number of ideas coalescing. Informal educators have to ‘think on their feet’. Not having predefined [page 18] learning objectives they reason their way through to what might be appropriate. They are guided in this by their understanding of what makes for the ‘good’, and a disposition towards good rather than correct action. They can draw upon a repertoire of experiences, theories and ideas to help them make sense of what is happening. In this way they engage in dialogue.

Such dialogue takes place in specific circumstances which will also affect what is happening. The social workers in Pauline Gertig’s chapter will be known to have some expertise concerning dementia, carers and the resources available to them. The people they are working with have an interest in that expertise. They also have a wealth of experience and knowledge of their own to contribute. We can see how the dialogue that occurs is likely to be orientated towards particular areas. Out of this interaction, action is generated. However, this is not action for action’s sake. It is activity based on a thorough understanding of the situation. From this it can be seen that a necessary element in informal educators’ practice is the encouragement and enabling of people to think critically about the situations that face them so that they may take action. Informal educators do not appear with a list of curriculum objectives: the areas for learning arise out of dialogue, the direction being shaped by the situation, an evolving reading of what makes for the good and a disposition towards it. To this must also be added the educator’s interest in critical thinking and action. This process is summarized in Figure 1.1 ; the different elements are discussed at greater length in Chapter 10 .

We can see how the notion of direction fits into the dialogical process. Much of the work described in the following chapters is aimed at encouraging and developing critical thinking and the disposition and ability to act. This is further infused by a concern to develop a fully social understanding. To quote Freire again (1972: 58):

The pursuit of full humanity. . . cannot be carried out in isolation or in individualism, but only in fellowship and solidarity. . . No one can be authentically human while he prevents others from being so.

These purposes may well be mediated through specific concerns. Nevertheless, the central question that underpins the purpose of any informal education in respect of welfare rights, caring or any of the examples explored here, is to what extent practitioners’ interventions are directed towards critical reflectiveness and action.

[page 20] To be effective, educators must remain informed by an understanding of the direction of their work and how this may have been amended by their dialogue with learners. It is similarly vital that participants reflect upon and clarify what they want from the enterprise and what they have gained.

This leads us on to the question of evaluation. As Grundy and others have argued in respect of process-based approaches to the curriculum, evaluation is an integral and not a separate part of the whole educative process. The central principle underlying evaluation in much that is written about the process within welfare (see, for example, Feek 1988) is the need to make an assessment of how closely the product matches the objectives in the guiding plan. It is the product which is the focus of evaluation. In the case of informal education, evaluation means ‘making judgments about the extent to which the processes and practices undertaken through the learning experience furthered the “good” of all participants’ (Grundy 1987: 77). In other words, the focus is on the process, how people experience it and what is revealed. This requires the construction of rather different criteria or indicators of success. A key area here is the nature of the dialogue that occurred and, as might be expected, the extent to which the discourse was critical.

Identity, personality and role

A major problem practitioners have with informal education is to do with their professional sense of themselves. For a social worker to operate in this way may entail switching from a casework orientation to an educational one. This can involve a substantial jump in terms of the ‘statutory’ basis of the work and in the circumstances under which a social worker works. As Hudson comments in respect of work with young women (1984: 48):

For teachers, their contact with teenagers is organised on the basis of their age rather than gender for most of the time, and their aim is to facilitate age—appropriate cognitive development in large numbers of young people. . . Social workers, on the other hand, are orientated to the help of the individual in trouble. Their contact is with young people who are distinguished by their differences from the normal. . . the ethos of social work is to individuate in the treatment of clients.

While this may be a somewhat simplistic representation of the different modes of thinking, we must recognize that the broad body of knowledge underpinning each profession is different (for [page 21] example, developmental psychology as against psychoanalytical theory and abnormal psychology) Difficulties occur either in the process of switching or failing to switch from one mode to the other. Thus, for example, probation officers may approach their informal educational activities with a frame of reference which seriously undermines the enterprise, or teachers may bring in too much of the classroom, priests too much of the church, and youth workers too much activity organization. This slippage is understandable. In asking practitioners to function across practice areas we are demanding a sophisticated ability to handle and contain divergent ways of thinking. The location of much informal work at the periphery of, for example, teaching and casework, has meant that such thinking and practice has not often played a significant role in sustaining the identity of practitioners in those areas. Even where the worker is primarily engaged in informal education, as is the case with many community workers and youth workers, there are problems. Although there are long traditions of informal practice in these areas not much attention has been given to constructing theory around such educational interventions: one key plank in practitioners’ identity is ill—formed. Effective practice is dependent on practitioners paying attention to the way they understand and name their craft.

Both Anne Foreman and Debbie Saddington draw attention to the significance of the practitioner’s personality in the nature of the work. In part this reflects their pattern of interests. Workers will find it easier to respond to concerns and questions about which they themselves are also curious. Given the relative freedom that many informal educators enjoy in their work, there are dangers here. It becomes possible for workers to follow their own individual interests rather than those collectively determined or expressed by the learners. Other dimensions such as educators’ class, ethnicity, gender and physical make up are also important in the way other people may perceive them, as are disposition and values. How many times have we heard comments about practitioners being ‘miserable bastards’ or ‘nice people who really listen’. We have to recognize that the dialogical and intimate nature of informal education focuses attention on the person of the practitioner: certain personal characteristics are required. These include the ability to handle the unfinished nature of practice in this area and to go at a pace defined by the others; and the readiness to allow people to take responsibility for their own learning and lives. There is also a further, structural, pressure at work here. Informal educators frequently have to work on their [page 22] own, outside institutions which carry powerful professional character stereotypes: many cannot, unlike teachers in schools, draw on certain stock figures to help establish their authority. Attention is therefore focused even more strongly upon their personality.

We have to recognize that the role we are able to take as informal educators is not only dependent upon what we want it to be but also upon what others allow it to be. A number of factors come into play here. There is the degree of autonomy allowed practitioners by their employers and their colleagues and the way they are viewed. On the whole, informal educators have a degree of discretion as to how they practise and with whom. They may be considered as operating within ‘front-line’ organizations. Tasks are initiated at the front—line level. For example, it could be argued that social workers ‘do not think of casework practice as the application of general departmental rules’ (Smith 1979: 35). That position may have changed in the last ten years but some room for manoeuvre remains. Generally there are also major obstacles to the direct supervision of most informal educators’ activities. Of course, there are exceptions to this, particularly where the actions of the educator affect colleagues. This can arise within schools, where, for instance, other staff may feel their relationship with students is somehow being compromised by the informality and use of first names that occurs within, say, the youth wing. The question of status also comes into play. Informal educators are often employed within sectors that are non-statutory or possess a low status with ‘mainstream’ practitioners. Youth workers operating within a school or residential workers in the social services are often looked down upon or deemed ‘less important’. This is bound to have implications for the way in which any specialism they may have in informal education is viewed.

Beyond this there are also questions regarding the nature of the sponsoring agency and the direction of its practice. To what extent is it possible to locate work with a collective and collaborative ethos within an agency organized around individualized intervention? The tensions discussed in relation to practitioners’ identities can also arise at an organizational level. A lack of appreciation by managers of the timescales involved, the resources necessary and the character of informal work can lead to unrealistic expectations. All this can become reflected in poor job specifications, peculiar organizational structures and inappropriate management, as Burley suggests.

We must consider the way in which practitioners are viewed by the people they are attempting to work with. The question of personality has already been discussed. Overlaying and influencing [page 23] this are people’s perceptions of the employing or sponsoring organization. Informal educators employed by social service departments in order to work with groups of parents whose children are on the ‘at risk’ register may well be viewed differently from generic neighbourhood workers employed by local community organizations. There is the possibility, as Burley notes, of some forms of informal education being used or seen as punitive and control mechanisms.

It is critical that the educator is seen as an educator. Here it is necessary for practitioners to be open about their work and to explain what they do. They may take time to do this. If a group or individual does not accept this it will be difficult for the educator to function. For example, community workers may be seen as people who give out, or influence the giving out, of grants. If they then attempt to help a group focus on how it is working their intervention may be unwelcome. The educator’s understanding of what it is to be an educator is often formed in one culture while the understanding of what is to work with an educator is often formed in another. In the same way misunderstandings can easily arise about the precise meaning of formality and informality.

In conclusion

The characteristics and themes developed in this opening chapter can be seen at work in the contributions that follow. What they demonstrate is that informal education is a vibrant and somewhat undervalued form of practice. One of its significant features is the way in which it transcends professional boundaries. If it is to be fully utilized and developed then action will be required within and across the separate professional areas. This has a number of implications for training. As Don Blackburn and Mal Blackburn ask, how do you train or learn to be an informal educator? What we hope this book will make clear is the potential of informal education as a method in welfare work.

© T. Jeffs and Mark Smith 1990

Reproduced with permission from Tony Jeffs and Mark Smith (eds.) Using Informal Education , Buckingham: Open University Press.

First published on the informal education homepage: May 2000.

For details of references go to the bibliography

Return to Using Informal Education main page

© Tony Jeffs and Mark K. Smith 1990 Reproduced with permission from Tony Jeffs and Mark Smith (eds.) Using Informal Education , Buckingham: Open University Press.

First published in the informal education archives: February 2002.