Nonformal learning in practitioners' language use

Abstract

The article discusses key concepts in the field of education - formal, informal and nonformal learning - and focuses on the latter. We identify the features of the concept of nonformal learning in the language use of practitioners and analyse how the main characteristics of nonformal learning and its varying terminology are expressed. six focus group interviews carried out with practitioners who represented the fields of adult education, youth work, culture, well-being, economy, and environmental education comprised the material for analysis. Qualitative content analysis revealed the learner's role in goal setting, his or her inner motivation and autonomy, variative learning environments and processes, the supportive role of the supervisor and the orientation of the learning process to the development of the learner as important characteristics of nonformal learning. although all of these characteristics can be seen in other types of learning, in the case of nonformal learning the focus on the development and the responsibility of the learner and the practical nature of the learning was highlighted. in addition, it appeared that both nonformal and formal learning have clear commonalities and defining them through opposition is not justified. as nonformal learning can take place in school and formal learning outside of it, the estonian equivalent of formal learning as school learning is misleading in its meaning. the equivalent for nonformal learning - free learning ('vabaõpe') - reflects voluntariness and freedom as an important characteristic of nonformal learning and is not associated with other types of learning. in the case of informal learning, experiential learning should be preferred over incidental learning ('juhuõpe'), as informal learning is based on experiences, not on chance. The identified characteristics raise the question of whether the set of concepts that has been in place for the last 50 years is still appropriate today or whether the boundaries of formal and nonformal learning have become blurred, thus eliminating the need to distinguish them as different types of learning. This also reflects the need for additional studies.