216
While non-formal education shares the attribute of being mediated with formal
education, a major assumption of non-formal education is that social and educational goals can, and should, be realised via content and principles that deviate from
rigid formal education structure. The following presents several characteristics of
non-formal education and their relevance to developing Environmental Citizenship.
• Conversation – Conversation in peer communities under guidance (youth worker
or guide) is a generative element of non-formal education that facilitates learning
(Goldman et al. 2017; Kiilakoski and Kivijärvi 2015). In the context of environmental education, Orr (1992) acknowledges ‘good conversation’ as one of the
components of education that can develop ecological literacy. It acknowledges
diversity (existence and interest of others), is not neutral – through it people
define themselves in relation to another (people and their environment), and it
has structure and purpose (Orr 1992). Through these, conversation expands people’s experiences, promotes learning and supports democracy via the practice of
criticising political life. Less opportunity for such ‘good’ conversation exists
under the common circumstances of governed formal education curricula.
• Networks – These define the structure of non-formal education organisations and
reflect their communicative pattern in contrast to the hierarchical unified structure of the formal education system, and facilitate a multidirectional and more
symmetric form of communication (Silberman-Keller 2003). In Capra’s (1996)
concept of eco-literacy (learning from ecological communities), a network
implies interdependence, thus the success of the community as a whole depends
on the success of its individuals and vice versa. Comprehending interdependence
means understanding relationships – a shift in perception from focus on objects
to focus on relationships and patterns in these relationships. This type of perception is characteristic of systems thinking, which is uncontested as a key toward
sustainability and educating for sustainability (Senge 2012; Capra 1996). Thus,
from both the communication perspective and developing ecological literacy, the
goal of promoting sustainability networking contains a crucial component for
achieving social change.
• Tight versus loose learning spaces – Kiilakoski and Kivijärvi (2015), in the context of Finish Youth Clubs as spaces for non-formal learning, distinguish between
tight and loose learning spaces. Tight spaces presume functionality (e.g. a preplanned rigid schedule) and homogeneity. Schools are the classical example of
tight spaces. Conversely, non-formal learning environments are loose learning
spaces – they enable heterogeneity, change, adaptable learning opportunities,
and an emphasis on negotiation as opposed to rigid curricula or rules.
• Educational institution – While school is the only arena of formal education, the
venues for non-formal education are diverse, and include clubhouses, communes, community centres, youth-group branches, etc. Silberman-Keller (2003)
asserts that the participants in non-formal educational activities view their nonformal learning environment as an accommodating and secure “alternative
home” and as such do not experience alienation, lack of identity and lack of
instrumental functionality that characterize the structured school or workplace,
where young people and adults spend their compulsory time.
D. Paraskeva-Hadjichambi et al.
While non-formal education shares the attribute of being mediated with formal
education, a major assumption of non-formal education is that social and educational goals can, and should, be realised via content and principles that deviate from
rigid formal education structure. The following presents several characteristics of
non-formal education and their relevance to developing Environmental Citizenship.
• Conversation – Conversation in peer communities under guidance (youth worker
or guide) is a generative element of non-formal education that facilitates learning
(Goldman et al. 2017; Kiilakoski and Kivijärvi 2015). In the context of environmental education, Orr (1992) acknowledges ‘good conversation’ as one of the
components of education that can develop ecological literacy. It acknowledges
diversity (existence and interest of others), is not neutral – through it people
define themselves in relation to another (people and their environment), and it
has structure and purpose (Orr 1992). Through these, conversation expands people’s experiences, promotes learning and supports democracy via the practice of
criticising political life. Less opportunity for such ‘good’ conversation exists
under the common circumstances of governed formal education curricula.
• Networks – These define the structure of non-formal education organisations and
reflect their communicative pattern in contrast to the hierarchical unified structure of the formal education system, and facilitate a multidirectional and more
symmetric form of communication (Silberman-Keller 2003). In Capra’s (1996)
concept of eco-literacy (learning from ecological communities), a network
implies interdependence, thus the success of the community as a whole depends
on the success of its individuals and vice versa. Comprehending interdependence
means understanding relationships – a shift in perception from focus on objects
to focus on relationships and patterns in these relationships. This type of perception is characteristic of systems thinking, which is uncontested as a key toward
sustainability and educating for sustainability (Senge 2012; Capra 1996). Thus,
from both the communication perspective and developing ecological literacy, the
goal of promoting sustainability networking contains a crucial component for
achieving social change.
• Tight versus loose learning spaces – Kiilakoski and Kivijärvi (2015), in the context of Finish Youth Clubs as spaces for non-formal learning, distinguish between
tight and loose learning spaces. Tight spaces presume functionality (e.g. a preplanned rigid schedule) and homogeneity. Schools are the classical example of
tight spaces. Conversely, non-formal learning environments are loose learning
spaces – they enable heterogeneity, change, adaptable learning opportunities,
and an emphasis on negotiation as opposed to rigid curricula or rules.
• Educational institution – While school is the only arena of formal education, the
venues for non-formal education are diverse, and include clubhouses, communes, community centres, youth-group branches, etc. Silberman-Keller (2003)
asserts that the participants in non-formal educational activities view their nonformal learning environment as an accommodating and secure “alternative
home” and as such do not experience alienation, lack of identity and lack of
instrumental functionality that characterize the structured school or workplace,
where young people and adults spend their compulsory time.
D. Paraskeva-Hadjichambi et al.