Резюме. This article exposes some theoretical, general aspects about non-formal learning and non-formal education in European educational practice. In first section it is presented a learning forms’model at European Commision recomandations and the active learning approache which justify the importance of non-formal and informal learning in the contemporary, dinamic society; in the second section are sketched three possible variants for understanding non-formal education, reporting at an educational system. As conclusion, the article highlights the posibility of understanding trap, if the terms learning and education are used in sinonimy relation.

Ключови думи: non-formal learning, active learning, life-long learning, non-formal education

In the context of the World Conference on Education for all, at Jomtien, Thainland, in 1990, it was reaffirmed (at global level) that education is a basic human right and one of the main pillars for development and formation of human being by all over the world.

A few years later, in 2002, to Dakar, following the World Education Forum, it has highlithed the necesity to focus on quality educational reforms and the importance of common efforts to identify appropriate methods for evaluate the learning that comes from everywhere experiences, to recognise knowledge, attitudes, capacities and values wich are developed independently by educational school system (Dada, 2006). In this way, some countries, particularly those in Europe and North America, they have decided to concentare on the economic dimensions of human existence, on the need to develop the necessary capacities in a knowledge economy, while others have focused more on the development of life skills wich are necessary for people to adapt at the tensions and challenges of social environment. However, in all cases, the educational reforms have been contoured around the principle of life-long learning and the efforts to identify ways for validation and equivalence of knowledge which are coming from different learning sources. Conforming with Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the paradigm of life-long learning has become not only a strategy for economic growth and building a social stability, but also an opportunity to create bridges between different forms of learning that have been delimitated and defined as (Dada, 2006):

The European Commission has recommended the use of experiential learning to designate learning through experience and learning from experience, so English prior learning, may designate all together learning experiences which involve experiential dimension, whether they be formale, non-formal or informal type (Cedefop, 2007). The priority given to experiential aspects in learning and learning outcome, as well scientific research focused on understanding why, where, when, how, and what motivates people to learn, are major indicators for the renouncing at traditional behaviorist approach of learning and the promotion a new, distinct approaches to learning and education in European space (Cedefop, 2009).

In 2009, Nielsen and Grootings, in one of the reports carried out by the European Centre for the development of Vocational Training have analysed different learning approaches and have conclusionated that active learning approache coresponds more to contemporary times because highlights the dynamism of social relations and situations where learning takes place (Cedefop, 2009).

The active learning model (constructivist) assumes that (Sălăvăstru, 2004; Grooting, Nielsen, 2009):

*Learning is a selective process where people give their own meaning to information, continuous interacting with different backgrounds;

*People are building their own meanings on the basis of what they already know (tacit knowledge) and depending on how they see the world around them, so that different people may give different interpretations to the same reality or may act differently based on the same information;

*Learning can be achieved in several ways that may be the best at any one time and not necessarily by calling experts;

*Learning for the most part is tacit, and is essentially a social activity because it involves interaction with peers;

*Learning is dynamic and depends on the learning opportunities offered by environment.

The European countries have agreed on some common education practice for validation of the results of all learning types. Thus arose (Cedefop, 2010):

*European credit system for Vocational Education and Training VET that allows citizens to transfer learning outcomes and to be recognised by the different qualification systems in the field of education, vocational training or general education;

*Unique reference Europass which is a portfolio with five instruments (the European CV, certificate, diploma, certificate and diploma supplements, the common framework of reference virtual platform, the Europass linguistic) “…to make people’s skills and qualifications more easily understood in Europe.”1) (Cedefop, 2010, pp. 34).

European Invetory of non-formal and informal learning validation, by 2010, has recorded and shown in a unique way that “…validation is already being used at national, regional and local level to address issues relating to lifelong learning, employment and social exclusion”2) in 32 European countries. According with analysis of the reviewed and completed reports on the theme of national efforts for the promotion and recognition of non-formal and informal education/learning until 2010, European countries were included in four distinct categories, using their level of development and implementation of a system for validating the results of non-formal and informal learning/education. These categories include European countries whose educational practice have a holistic vision for all three forms of learning and meets a certain level of development as follows:

There are a voices that clasified European educational practices depending on the method of understanding and promote non- formal/informal learning and not in relation to the level that was reached in the effort to develop a system for their validation; Daniel Festeu and Barbara Humberstone in the “Non-formal Education through Outdoor Activities Guide” have reported that there are two visions on non-formal and informal learning/education which characterizes and separates the European countries.

A first approach higlights the dependency relationship between the education forms, in terms of a continuum of learning (Rogers, 2014), where nonformal education is understood as an educational alternative that promotes a complementar learning to formal one, while the second approach considers nonformal education an autonomous educational variant, which is totally distinct by formal education, a new force of twenty-first century, and not just a second and marginal education what is trying to be liked by the formal education system (Festeu, Humberstone, 2006).

A third variant to classificate non-formal educational practices in European countries brings to the fore the lack of tradition in promoting non-formal educational activites in the countries where was a close causal relationship between its geographical position and its history. In this sens, the European Association for Non-formal and Informal Education (EAICY) based in Prague, has done in 2005 a collection of articles that have been put in comparison how are understood, promoted and assessed the activities of non-formal learning/education in some Eastern European countries, mainly former Communist Bloc countries, and countries in Western Europe, with democratic tradition.

The national reports reflect the fact that, in countries where communist has dominated after World War II, as well countries of the former Soviet Union as Bulgaria, Moldova, Romania, Slovakia or the Czech Republic, non-formal education/learning was understood as a subsector of the formal education system, in coordinating and directly related control with central system of school education. In Eastern countries was and still is a nonformal education subsystem, as local network of children’s Clubs where students can spend their free time and get involved in various educational activities carried out by teachers (as servants of the same national formal education system and employment of the same rules as all the teachers in schools) by libraries, museums and cultural houses still under State control (Clarijs, 2005). Instead, in Western countries non-formal education offer is very diverse and comes mainly from private firms and Non-governmental Organizations that are constantly involved in the school life, since the time in which private initiative was totally annihilated in the Eastern countries.

Despite this diversity of understanding, there is a common recognition of the fact that in the 21st century the need of non-formal education and learning it is a necessity required by recent social, economic, cultural and political changed; the literature and politic areas have agreed that recognition and validation of them is based on five main arguments, namely (Festeu, Humberstone, 2006, pp. 19-20):

– Non-formal education promotes the learning of essential skills and competencies;

– Non-formal education enriches learning environments: adds personal experiences, values and critical reflections on the citizens education;

– Non-formal education extends the spectrum of citizens involvement and has a crossing effect over institutional policies;

– Non-formal education is a powerful tool for social integration;

– Non-formal education is an effective method of communication and intervention.

Above all the approches and arguments which have been sketched up, the conceptual clarification of non-formal education is still confused in educational practice because are situations where the terms education and learning are used as sinonime (Rogers, 2004).

First premise for a valide rationament and a good understanding of non-formal education is that “all education is learning, but not all learning is education, education is planned learning”3) , exactly as ‘’bread is made from flour; but not all flour is bread, bread is processed flour”4) (Rogers, 2014) . In my opinion, the human being has different ways at his/her option; everybody can “walk” on a natural path or on a constructed auto-band, but, in both cases the person must be propter equipped…everyone of theses goes somewhere, but not with the same speed…they are not reciprocally excluded because their utility, but also they are not identically as form and construction.

Even non-formal education still remains an ambiguous concept, educational practices which usually involve a mix of learning elements, reflect its integration in European educational discourse through numerous examples of implementated programmes that promote non-formal learning experiences, in all Europe.

Aknowlegements: Thanks to the team of the POOSDRU/88.1/1.5/S/47646 project and my coordonator, Prof. Ctin Cucoș, by „Al.I.Cuza” University of Iasi, Romania.

NOTES

1. Cedefop, (2010). A bridge to the Future: European Policy for Vocational Education and Training 2002-10, Luxembourg, Cedefop Reference series, pp. 34.

2. Hawley, J., Otero, M.S., Duchemin, C. (2010). 2010 update of the European Inventory on Validation of Non-formal and Informal Learning-Final Report, a project of the European Commission, DG Education and Culture and The European Centre for Development of Vocational Training, pp.1.

3. Roger, Alan “The Classroom and the Everyday: The Importance of Informal Learning for Formal Learning”, Investigar em Educação- II ª Série, Número 1, 2014, pp.7.

4. ibidem.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Clarijs, R. (2005). Non-Formal and Informal Education in Europe. Praga, EAICY.

Cedefop. (2007). Recognition and Validation of non-formal and informal learning for VET teachers and trainers in the EU Member States., Luxembourg, Cedefop Panorama series: 147.

Cedefop. (2009). The shift to learning outcomes. Policies and practices in Europe”, Luxembourg, Cedefop Reference series: 72.

Cedefop. (2010). A bridge to the Future: European Policy for Vocational Education and Training 2002-10”, Luxembourg, Cedefop Reference series=

Cedefop. (2010). The European Inventory 2010”, available at http://www. cedefop.europa.eu

Cedefop. (2010). A bridge to the Future: European Policy for Vocational Education and Training 2002-10. Luxembourg, Cedefop Reference series.

Dada, M. (2006). Synergies between formal and non formal education-An overview of good practices. Paris, UNESCO.

Festeu, D., Humberstone, B. (2006). Non-formal Education through Outdoor Activities Guide. European Institute for Outdoor Adventure Education and Experiential Learning.

Hawley, J., Otero, M.S., Duchemin, C. (2010). 2010 update of the European Inventory on Validation of Non-formal and Informal Learning-Final

Report, a project of the European Commission, DG Education and Culture and The European Centre for Development of Vocational Training.

Grootings, P., Nielsen, S. (2009). Policy learning: applying the changing learning paradigm for policy advice on VET reforms in transition countries. in Cedefop publication ”Modernising vocational education and training: fourth report on vocational training research in Europe: background report. Vol. 2., Luxembourg, Publications Office.

Rogers, A. (2004). Non-Formal Education. Flexible Schooling or Participatory Education?. Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong, Kluwer Academic Publisher.

Roger, A. (2014). The Classroom and the Everyday: The Importance of Informal Learning for Formal Learning. Investigar em Educação- II ª Série, Número 1, 2014.

Sălăvăstru, D. (2004). Psihologia Educatiei. Iasi, Editura Polirom.

UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education,. disponibilă la http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF.