informal non-formal and formal

education a brief overview of

some different approaches
Many of the debates around informal and formal
education have been muddied by participants having
very different understandings of basic notions. Here we
explore three different approaches commonly found in
the literature.

If we examine the literature around informal education that has appeared in the
last thirty years or so, three main traditions or approaches emerge. Each of these
has something to say about the nature of formal education and bring out
different aspects of the phenomenon.

Looking to institutions: informal, non-formal and formal

education

The most common way of contrasting informal and formal education derives
from an administrative or institutional concern and includes a middle form
non-formal education. Back in the late 1960s there was an emerging analysis of
what was seen as a world educational crisis (Coombs 1968). There was concern
about unsuitable curricula; a realization that educational growth and economic
growth were not necessarily in step, and that jobs did not emerge directly as a
result of educational inputs. Many countries were finding it difficult (politically or
economically) to pay for the expansion of formal education.

The conclusion was that formal educational systems had adapted too slowly
to the socio-economic changes around them and that they were held back
not only by their own conservatism, but also by the inertia of societies
themselves It was from this point of departure that planners and
economists in the World Bank began to make a distinction between informal,
non-formal and formal education. (Fordham 1993: 2)

At around the same time there were moves in UNESCO toward lifelong education
and notions of the learning society which culminated inLearning to Be (The
Faure Report, UNESCO 1972). Lifelong learning was to be the master concept
that should shape educational systems (UNESCO 1972:182). What emerged was
the influential tripartite categorization of learning systems. Its best known
statement comes from the work of Coombs with Prosser and Ahmed (1973):

Formal education: the hierarchically structured, chronologically graded

education system, running from primary school through the university and
including, in addition to general academic studies, a variety of specialised
programmes and institutions for full-time technical and professional training.

Informal education: the truly lifelong process whereby every individual

acquires attitudes, values, skills and knowledge from daily experience and
the educative influences and resources in his or her environment from
family and neighbours, from work and play, from the market place, the
library and the mass media.

Non-formal education: any organised 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.

The distinction made is largely administrative. Formal education is linked with

schools and training institutions; non-formal with community groups and other
organizations; and informal covers what is left, e.g. interactions with friends,
family and work colleagues. (See, for example, Coombs and Ahmed 1974).
These definitions do not imply hard and fast categories as Fordham (1993)
comments. When we look more closely at the division there can be considerable
overlap. For example, there can be significant problems around the categorizing
the education activity linked to involvement in groups and associations (la vie
associative) sometimes it might be informal, at other times non-formal, and
where the group is part of a school formal. We can see similar issues in some of
the discussions of informal science education in the USA.

[I]nformal education consists of learning activities that are voluntary and

self-directed, life-long, and motivated mainly by intrinsic interests, curiosity,
exploration, manipulation, fantasy, task completion, and social interaction.
Informal learning occurs in an out-of-school setting and can be linear or non-
linear and often is self-paced and visual- or object-oriented. It provides an
experiential base and motivation for further activity and learning. The
outcomes of informal learning experiences in science, mathematics, and
technology include a sense of fun and wonder in addition to a better
understanding of concepts, topics, processes of thinking in scientific and
technical disciplines, and an increased knowledge about career opportunities
in these fields. (National Science Foundation 1997)

The NSF definition falls in line with what Coombs describes as informal
education but many museums and science centers also describe their activities
as informal science education (and would presumably come fall under the
category of non-formal education). Similarly, some schools running science clubs
etc. describe that activity as informal science education (and may well fulfill the
first requirements of the NSF definition).

Just how helpful a focus on administrative setting or institutional sponsorship is

a matter of some debate. It may have some use when thinking about funding and
management questions but it can tell us only a limited amount about the nature
of the education and learning involved. The National Science Federation While a
great deal of the educational activity of schools, for example, involve following
prescribed programmes, lead to accredited outcomes and require the presence of
a designated teacher, a lot of educational activity that goes on does not (hence
Jacksons [1968] famous concern with the hidden curriculum). Once we
recognize that a considerable amount of education happens beyond the school
wall or outside the normal confines of lessons and sessions it may be that a
simple division between formal and informal education will suffice.

Recognizing elements of these problems, some agencies have looked for

alternative definitions. One possibility here has been the extent to which the
outcomes of the educational activity are institutionally accredited. Such activity
involved enrollment or registration and this can also be used as a way of
defining formal education. Non-formal education is, thus, education for which
none of the learners is enrolled or registered (OECD 1977: 11, quoted by Tight
1996: 69). Using non-accreditation as a basis for defining an area of education
has a strong theoretical pedigree. Eduard Lindeman famously declared that:

education conceived as a process coterminous with life revolves aboutnon-

vocational ideals. In this wor1d of specialists every one will of necessity
learn to do his work, and if education of any variety can assist in this and in
the further end of helping the worker to see the meaning of his labor, it will
be education of a high order. But adult education more accurately defined
begins where vocational education leaves off. Its purpose is to put meaning
into the whole of life. (1926: 5)

Institutional accreditation became the basis for allocating funding within the
English adult education sector during the 1990s but in an almost exact reversal
of what Lindeman intended. Programmes leading to accredited qualifications
were funded at a much higher rate than those leading to none. Significantly, such
a basis said little about the nature of the educational processes or the social goods
involved with two crucial exceptions. Accredited programmes were more likely
to be outcome focused (with all the implications this has for exploration and
dialogue), and more individualistic. Indeed, it can be argued that one of the
things this funding regime did was to strengthen an individual bias in education
and undermine the building of social capital. Many groups and classes that had
previously looked to a mix of learning and social interaction, had to register
students for exams. This then had an impact on the orientation of teachers and
students.

Turning to process: conversation and setting

Tony Jeffs and I have been critical of administrative approaches to defining

informal (and formal) education. Instead we have looked to process as a
significant way into setting the boundaries of informal education. Viewed in this
way, formal education can be seen as essentially curricula-driven. In other words,
it entails a plan of action and defined content. It also involves creating a
particular social and physical setting the most familiar example being the
classroom.

In contrast, informal education can be viewed as being driven by conversation

and, hence, unpredictable. Informal educators do not know where conversation
might lead. They have to catch the moment, to try to say or do something to
deepen peoples thinking or to put others in touch with their feelings. Such going
with the flow opens up all sorts of possibilities.

On one hand educators may not be prepared for what comes, on the other they
can get into rewarding areas. There is the chance, for example, to connect with
the questions, issues and feelings that are important to people, rather than what
they think might be significant. This is also likely to take educators into the world
of peoples feelings, experiences and relationships. While all educators should
attend to experience and encourage people to reflect, informal educators are
thrown into this. (Jeffs and Smith 1999a: 210)

For the most part, they do not have lesson plans to follow; they respond to
situations, to experiences. There is not a prescribed learning framework, nor are
there organized learning events or packages. Outcomes are not specified
externally (Eraut 2000: 12) or accredited. What is more, those working in
informal education, for the most part, have far less control over the environment
in which they are operating: Informal educators cannot design environments,
nor direct proceedings in quite the same way as formal educators (Jeffs and
Smith 1999).

Informal education, thus:

Works through, and is driven by, conversation.

Involves exploring and enlarging experience.
Can take place in any setting.

Its purpose, at root, is no different to any other form of education. I would argue
that it is concerned with helping people to develop the understandings and
disposition to live well and to flourish together. John Dewey (1916) once
described this as educating so that people may share in a common life. Informal
educators have a special contribution to make here.

First, a focus on conversation is central to building communities. The sorts of

values and behaviours needed for conversation to take place are exactly what are
required if neighbourliness and democracy are to flourish. What is more, the
sorts of groups informal educators (such as youth and social action workers)
work with voluntary, community-based, and often concerned with mutual aid
are the bedrock of democratic societies (Jeffs and Smith 1999: 34-46).
This way of approaching informal education views it as part of a continuum.

Whether we are identified as a formal or informal educator we will use a mix of

the formal and informal. What sets the two apart is the relative emphasis placed
on curricula and conversation, and the range of settings in which they may work.

A question of style: informality and formality

Within the primary education field the notion of informal education has been
used to describe the more fluid, open and apparently progressive forms of
schooling that developed in the 1960s (e.g. McKenzie and Kernig 1975). As Blyth
(1988: 11) has commented, informal pedagogy has figured spasmodically in
English education from quite early in the industrial age and even before. Robert
Owen and, later, Samuel Widlerspin are examples here. However, there was a
particular moment when informal education came to the fore:

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 . . . selfexpression,
discovery and many more. (Alexander 1988: 148)

Many of the thinkers (e.g. Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Dewey and Bruner) that
we would see as informing the development of informal education as a
conversational form are also important influences in this movement (see Blyth
1988: 7-24). However, since the 1960s the terms of educational debate have
shifted dramatically. By the mid 1990s, the British government espoused the
simple nostrum that the key to enhanced standards and economic
competitiveness was an unrelenting concentration on basic skills in literacy and
numeracy, to be addressed mainly through interactive whole-class teaching
(Alexander 2000: 2). It is now far less common to hear informal approaches to
primary education being advanced as a blanket alternative to formal ones.

When we look at usage within discussions of primary schooling, the most

consistent form by the late 1980s was the noun informality, rather than the
adjective informal (see Jeffs and Smith 1990: 5-6). Thus, instead of informal
education, we it was possible to examine informality in pedagogy, in curriculum,
in organization, in evaluation and in personal style (Blyth 1988). What was being
examined here was a tendency. To talk of informality in education was to indicate
significant elements of flexibility and openness.