 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Informal learning What is informal learning? Malcolm Knowles introduced the term informal learning in 1950 ( Knowles,M. Informal Adult Education. New York:Association Press,1950.) Today informal learning has gained an important role in adult education. It is focused directly on the needs of the learners, who themselves decide what is interesting and potentially useful for them. Learning is derived from life experience and the learning happens through processes at work and during the leisure time. Maria L. Conner 2004 has
described the difference between formal and informal learning and in
her paradigm can be seen how informal learning contains a strong element
of intentionality and unexpectedness compared with the formal learning.
Informal learning in adult education and especially in non-formal (liberal)
adult education is a lifelong process whereby individuals acquire attitudes,
values, skills and knowledge from daily experience. The educative influences
are absorbed from everyday life, family, the mass media, the library,
the museums and play. Informal learning is usually intentional but not
highly structured. Examples of informal learning are self-directed learning,
networking, mentoring and performance planning.
Victoria Marsick and Karen
Watkins have done research work on the effects of informal learning
at the workplace. They suggest that informal learning is a process of
learning that is included in every day experience, often at subconscious
levels. Informal learning is unique to the individual and the control
of learning rests primarily in the hands of the learner. Marsick and
Watkins define that the learning process is neither determined nor designed
by an organization, regardless of the formality or informality of the
goals and objectives toward which the learning is directed. As European citizens we need a manyfolded knowledge about the machanisms how the modern society works. Today a relevant information sources are Internet, the press, the TV and radio, journals and magazines. Other ways are talking with colleagues, consulting experts, being on Internet a member in a theme related discussion circle or a chat group. Data collected from these sources forms often the base for decision making and actions in questions of interest. Bob Mosher describes that the popularity and the power of informal learning used in working environments depends on the immediacy and relevancy of the learning. The learner can take advantage of the new obtained skills right away. Another reason is the shortness of studies and the possibility to guide them in a more meaningful and self-directed manner. The informal learning is felt to be more student-driven and job-relevant than most formal options. Capital Works has reported that today informal learning accounts for over 75% of the learning, which takes place in organizations. Often the most valuable learning is serendipitous. Capital Works found out that learning at work occurs through the following means.
Informal learning plays
a crucial role in helping citizens on a learning pathway. Sometimes
the new acquired skills encourage the learners to continue the studies
within more formal, structured and accredited learning. It is still
good to keep in mind that the outcomes are not necessarily the most
important benefit of the informal learning. The effects are often
far more wide-ranging. Read more: Overwien, Bernd: Internationale
Sichtweisen auf "informelles Lernen" am Übergang zum
21. Jahrhundert. In: Otto, Hansuwe; Coelen, Thomas (Hrsg.): Ganztagsbildung
in der Wissensge-sellschaft. Wiesbaden 2004, S. 51-73 Informal and Incidental Learning Informal and incidental
learning is at the heart of adult education because |
||||||||||||
| [back
to the ABC] |
||||||||||||
|
Internet by Ingemar Svensson One big problem in creating a European identity, a common feeling of being European citizens, is of course the fact that most of us have our close contacts, both socially and professionally, within our own country, culture and language. To develop a common identity as Europeans takes much more of cross-national contacts and discussions, much more of curious questions about foreign culture, history, language and habits, to develop a respect and deep understanding for all our European neighbours and to build networks for creating common ideas and actions. This is especially important in the contact between people in the western and "richer" part of Europe and the new and rapidly developing member states in the east. To be short, Europeans must cross their borders, find meeting points and meet much more then today. Building a common identity takes time and must be given time. How can we make this possible? To travel and stay abroad cost a lot and it takes a lot of efforts to arrange natural meeting points. People can not leave their work or their school, and besides, a common identity takes more then just some short weekend meetings. It takes continuous communication and close contacts over time. Unfortunately there is a widespread and deeply conservative European misunderstanding, or rather lack of experiences, saying that you can not meet on the net, that the only kind of meeting with quality is the face-to-face meeting or the expensive video conference meeting, that a dialogue is not possible using asynchronous text based communication etc and for that reason, internet is mainly used for information and, if we talk about adult studies, for old fashioned e-learning (using self learning models). For more then 10 years, we have in the liberal adult education sector in Sweden, developed well functioning methods for democratic group based learning and for exchange of experiences on the net, and even if we find that a good combination of net meetings and face to face meetings is preferable, we have also found out that you can very well organize high quality meetings totally on the net using asynchronous text based communication which gives you a freedom both in place and in time, which is of great importance since it becomes more and more difficult to gather people to real time meetings. We have combined the communication possibilities that Internet gives us, using platforms especially designed for group communication, with the traditional study circle methodology that focuses on small group learning and exchange of experiences. The study circle is a democratic method for learning, not for teaching, not using an expert teacher, but instead a study circle leader, who is "first among equals" and who is responsible för the group process, being a good listener always willing to support dialogical activity in a democratic way. The democratic form or meetings and studies is essential, we think, if you want to develop among Europeans a common identity and if you want to support the development of a more democratic European Union. Several successful attempts have been made also with trans-national net based study circles within EU - projects. In one such totally net based study circle, a small group of Swedish folk-high school teachers met with a group of young Romanian students and their teachers from the University of Iasi. The two groups had never met face to face. The study circle, focusing on European citizenship and EU - democracy, was planned on the net in a democratic process, lasted for 9 weeks and was a great success. Not only that we had good, hot but respectful discussions from our different national perspectives on the issues agreed, the study circle meeting also contained an important social process with discussions on language, culture, habits, religion etc. and the deliberately supported social process actually brought the participants close together also on a personal level, although we did not meet face to face during the study circle. This is a good example of how you can bring people together in Europe in learning together and in developing a respect for national needs and identities, which obviously is important if you want to develop a European identity. One important reason why this study circle was a success was no doubt the fact that the Romanian participants, including their teachers, were young people (The Swedish participants were much older but well experienced in participating in net based study circles), open minded and without conservative prejudices about internet as a platform for good and democratic dialogues. For people who are even younger, our teenagers, the question if you can or can not meet in a text based asynchronous group dialogue on the net, is only ridiculous and totally impossible to understand. They spend hours every day in their net communities on the internet. Net communication for them is not virtual, it is certainly real, and if we understand the possibilities that this development opens for future trans-national dialogue and identity-building within Europe, and support it, we will create a powerful tool for building a large amount of networks that will in the long run challenge the existing European political elitism and support a real popular European unity. Links: |
||||||||||||
| [back to
the ABC] |
||||||||||||
|
IRI Europe was founded in 2001. The Institute's main mission is to develop insights into the theory and practice of direct democracy among politicians, the media, NGOs, academics and the public throughout Europe. IRI Europe is an independent non-partisan and non profit-making organization with headquarters in Marburg (Germany) and representation offices in Brussels (Belgium) and Bülach (Switzerland). Since the early days of this millennium IRI has assisted and advised the EU constitution drafters - first in the Convention and subsequently in the EU institutions and member states and finally within the electorates across Europe - in seizing the opportunity of developing democratic tools which are both issue-based and pan-European. IRI Europe has quickly become the premier research and educational institute on the Initiative and Referendum process across Europe. With a comprehensive network
of experts and correspondents throughout the region, the Institute is
uniquely equipped to provide the know-how and the tools Europe now needs.
The Institute is led by politicians and academics from different political parties, backgrounds and countries. A small team of staff coordinates IRI Europe, which has an open approach to cooperation and which has developed a far-reaching reputation as Europe's Direct Democracy Think Tank. In 2006 the Initiative & Referendum Institute Europe will - launch several new COUNTRY PROGRAMMES in cooperation with governmental and non-governmental partner organizations in many countries including HUNGARY, POLAND, FRANCE, RUSSIA and the BALKAN REGION. - develop a comprehensive TEACHING TOOLKIT for secondary schools across Europe with educational sequences and dedicated materials for teachers. - complement its INITIATIVE FOR EUROPE Programme with a transnational development project for a more structured dialogue between authorities and initiative committees - publish new editions of the renowned IRI GUIDEBOOK TO DIRECT DEMOCRACY in English, French, German, Spanish and Italian. - continue the efforts to establish Europe´s first DIRECT DEMOCRACY RESEARCH CENTER at Marburg University including the launch of a comprehensive I&R Database, the publication of scientific literature and the holding of annual Research Conferences. - offer extended availabilities for tailor-made democracy assistance projects linked to legal and political DD developments, Initiative Consultancy and Referendum Monitoring across Europe. For more information check
out our Web services at www.iri-europe.org
and/or contact one of our offices and experts: info@iri-europe.org,
Infoline: +32 26 48 59 71. |
||||||||||||
| [back to
the ABC] |
||||||||||||
|
Lifelong learning
What is learning Learning can be explained through three, even four different metaphors: learning as active, constructive knowledge acquisition, learning in participation to associations, work organisations (communities of practice) and learning through knowledge creation that can include also learning by making. Lifelong learning (LLL) 1. Strategic LLL Lifelong learning is quite expensive to implement. Continuing education and training are an important additional input into the development of human capital. 2. Inclusion Promoting educational equity is a longstanding goal and one of the keys for social inclusion. Improvements are growing, but learning opportunities remain unevenly distributed. In many cases educational supply does not meet needs of those running risks of exclusion. 3. Personal challenge For those with just basic education offers of formal learning do not compose a challenge. Their human capital comes from experience and skills learnt by making and taking part in work processes, in local communities. This is how they also want to continue: their needs are very concrete and down-to-earth. Nearly all adults have small personal learning projects that are running all the time. Usually they not consider these actions as education, they are connected to everyday needs. It is here where the joy of learning is situated. Here lays the basis of lifelong learning. 4. Learning communities Learning in communities and work organisations is considerable non-formal and tacit. In is the nature of knowing, that comes from social learning, embedded knowledge and from practice. The idea of social capital has in recent research been highlighted. Here the established social relationships and mutual trust are the important factors that contribute to civic life and the spirit economic enterprising.
For personal motivation important is valuing learning, assuring quality of training and development of innovative pedagogies. Learning communities - both civic and work organisations - need more interest into social networks and in the social nature of knowing. Lifelong learning priorities are in basic skills and key competences, like learning to learn. Family-friendly life long learning policies should facilitate the combination of work and family life by promoting gender equality in learning opportunities. |
||||||||||||
| [back to
the ABC] |
||||||||||||
|
State-building in the European Union State-building in the
European Union (EU) is politically and conceptually disputed. How this
issue is dealt with often depends on the ideological position of the
persons confronted with it. It appears confusing, for example, that
the European Union on the one hand has a legislation, an executive and
an independent jurisdiction, but on the other hand does not have the
right to draw up legal instruments, which would permit it, among other
things, to independently conclude treaties with third states. Well,
this impression is both right and wrong at the same time. It is the
consequence of a complexity and an ambiguity, which makes public communication
on the European Union so difficult. The ambiguity partly results from
the process-related character of the European integration, in which
ever new aspects and levels are united, which do not necessarily fit
together harmoniously. This development becomes
outwardly apparent particularly in the "treaties": The "Treaty
of Rome" (1957) - the treaty establishing the European Economic
Community, the treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community;
the Single European Act (1986); the Treaty of the European Union (1992);
the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997); the Treaty of Nice (2001). Theses treaties
create the basis for a highly fragmented decision-making apparatus,
in which a multitude of different private and public players interact.
Parts of this system have a legal personality, and can thus, in the
context of their authority for example, conclude treaties with third
states; others may not and/or strive to have such an authority. The
complex contradictoriness, which is apparently the case in the European
Union, repeatedly provokes the use of metaphors in order to facilitate
understanding. One such metaphor is the image of the "three pillars",
which support the European Union building. The first pillar consists
of the European Communities, including the European Community (EC),
the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Atomic
Energy Community (EAEC). It is the EEC that is primarily known among
the general public, which after the treaty establishing the European
Union (1992) more or less smoothly merged semantically into the term
"European Union", without the two really corresponding to
each other in content. In this first pillar the European Union corresponds
closest to the characteristics of conventional states (people, territory,
government authority and contractual power). However, the second and
third pillars are only rudimentarily developed in terms of statehood.
The second pillar consists of the "Common Foreign and Security
Policy (CFSP)" and the third pillar comprises police co-operation
and cooperation in the area of criminal law. The European Union is,
so to speak, the outer shell of this construction, which, however, does
not have the right to draw up legal instruments and introduce legislation
itself. In the thus far as yet not completely ratified constitution,
however, the legal personality for the European Union as a whole is
intended. The conflict surrounding the present constitution is in principle
an argument between proponents of intergovernmental decision-making
on the one hand and supranational decision-making on the other. Because of the new and
complex construction of the European Union one could discuss it also
as state sui generis or supranational network state (M.
Castells). Power is not stabilized hierarchically, but by negotiation
and complex communication. The nation states are neither abolished
completely, nor are they subordinated, as in a federal state, to a superordinate
whole, but rather remain as independent and equal network knots.
Whether the European Union actually corresponds to such a statehood
remains to be seen, because its political formation process is still
under development. Nor has the problem of the legitimation of such political
systems been clarified in EU reality nor in theory. As network state
the EU would primarily have the problem that those in power are democratically
legitimized at the national level, but their supranational decisions
undergo a democratic control as far as possible, because they take place
in networks outside of the democratic system. A solution to this could
perhaps be the principle of subsidiarity ("lean" European
Union) and in the development of a direct democracy ("Swiss
Model"). In addition, new decision-making models are needed, which
help to avoid the group-dynamic eventualities in the European Union
councils. However, whether the European Union is already a network state,
or is moving towards it, has by no means yet been theoretically or politically
clarified. More realistic explanations of the possible direction of the development can be derived from the not yet ratified constitution. It contains the idea of a "participative democracy", which however is rather understood as a free exchange of opinions and not as general participation in decision-making by the citizens. The democratic life of the Union is understood primarily as a problem of transparency and information. Great hope is placed in this regard on the new information technologies. The ideas of the constitution on "representative democracy" follow more conventional approaches, however, except that in contrast to the nation state regime they differentiate between two addressees: besides the citizens of the union represented in the European parliament there are also the member states represented in the European Council and Council of Ministers. The European Parliament and the national parliaments are to gain authorities. Also citizens' action groups are foreseen at the union level. However, the concept of the "citizen", which is key for the political life in the nation state, disappears into a general world citizenship, which in substance has very little to do with citizens of nation states. The difference between "citizen" and "resident" is blurred to the point of being unrecognizable. In this context one also speaks of "output legitimation": The European Union as political system legitimizes itself through usefulness and efficiency. This is juxtaposed with "input legitimation": The European Union is legitimate, because its citizens take part in central decision-making processes democratically. It seems as if the European Union would like to leave the latter to its member states, because "government by the people" appears too unrealistic at a supranational level. The member states guarantee the continuance of democratic procedures, the European Union an efficient trans-continental policy. However, the question arises whether such a division of responsibilities is at all possible in practice. Whatever form of statehood the European Union can take on in the end, will depend to a large extent on the kind of political legitimation the citizens of the member states will agree to. Sources Baldwin, Richard/Widgren,
Mika: Winners and Loosers under Various Dual-Majority Voting Rules for
the EU's Council of Ministers, in: CEPES Policy Briefs, 50, April 2004, Burger, Rudolf (2005),
Re-Theologising Poltics?, (Springe: Klampen Verlag) Magnette, Paul/Kalypso
Nicolaidis: Large and Small States in the European Union - Reinventing
the Balance, Notre Europe, Research and European Issues 25 (2003). Mokre, Monika (Hg.) (2003), Europe's Identities, (Frankfurt/M.: Campus): 207-230. Olsen, Johan P.: The Many
Faces of Europeanization, ARENA Working Papers, WP 01, 2003, Putnam, Robert D. (2002), Democracy in Flux - The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society, (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press). Treaty on a European Constitution |
||||||||||||
| [back to
the ABC] |
||||||||||||
|
Youth Participation In the context of the catch phrase "disenchantment with politics", which is primarily attributed to the youth, emphasis is placed on the importance of youth participation, i.e. the inclusion, participation, co-operation and co-determination of young people in political processes of pedagogues, sociologists, psychologists, political scientists and politicians as substantial basis and prerequisite for the functioning and subsistence of our democracies. According to the Shell youth study of 2002 which surveyed the interest in politics, only 4 per cent of the 12- to 25-year-old German youth indicated that they were strongly interested in politics and 26 per cent stated a general interest in politics. In Austria the results of the youth study of 2000 was not much better - the majority of young people declared themselves as politically disinterested. At the last European parliamentary elections of 2004 only about a third of young persons entitled to vote participated, and the percentage of young people in the political parties and in the classical youth organizations is constantly on the decline. Upon closer examination one can observe, however, that the youth indeed does have interest in political issues and processes and is also prepared to be active (e.g. in human rights, the protection of the environment, animal rights, against the negative economic and social effects of globalization,…). The youth's disenchantment with politics presents itself mainly as querulousness and distrust in political institutions and structures - of both nation states and the European Union - but not regarding political issues. The
European Union recognized the need for action here and tried
in 2001 to launch a new initiative with "The White Paper of the
European Commission - New Momentum for Youth" in order to involve
the young people in the political decisions that affect them. The
majority of the measures and actions suggested in the White Paper
require the engagement of the individual member states. According
to the White Paper participation must be developed primarily at a
local level, including at school, a place in which participation can
be realized particularly well. Moreover, it is also necessary to include
those young people who are not organized in associations. By participating
in school life, districts, municipalities or associations the youth
can gain experiences and win the necessary self-assurance, in order
to later become involved in public life, even at the European level.
Thus, on the one hand the subsidiarity principle must be taken into
account, and on the other one must achieve a better co-operation at
the European level. The White Paper suggests a new framework for the
co-operation of member states in this respect, with primarily two
concrete measures: the application of the open method of coordination
in the area of youth politics and heightened consideration of the
needs during the elaboration of measures within other political areas.
[1] Participation is also inseparably linked to information - the current topics of the European policy must be communicated tailored towards youth. A target-group-specific information policy is needed, which is oriented at qualitative criteria of youth and educational work and which differs from the usually superficial information campaigns. It is necessary to include young people as information carriers more in public relations and thus connect youth information and youth participation. [5] Serious youth participation is just as inseparably linked to certain minimum standards and basic conditions such as voluntariness, appreciation, competent support, independent activity, non-partisanship, cross-generational dialog, transparency and comprehensibility, public relations, commitment, documentation and feedback. [6] Transforming Europe's youth from observers to active participants in society is a prerequisite for a progressive, democratic Europe and one of the greatest challenges in EU politics. Its earnest implementation will be measured by the given parameters and by the means it provides for the realization of effective youth participation.
|
||||||||||||
| [back to
the ABC] |
||||||||||||
|
The Youth and the European Union When the European Union speaks of "the youth", of the political disenchantment of these youth and of the fact that "the youth" need to be included in participation, then it seems that "the European Union" expects that the correct measures for reaching this goal, to a certain extent, presuppose successes. The European Union today has to do with different types of "youth". First of all with those, who grew up in the 15 founder states of the European Union, secondly with those from the 10 new member states and finally, thirdly, with the youth of the Southeast European region - everywhere the first generation, who has not been affected directly by the experience of communism. How ever the issue of expansion may be twisted and turned in Brussels, one day the Croats, the Romanians, the Bulgarians, the Macedonians, the Bosnians, the Serbs, the Montenegrins, the Albanians, the Kosovars (whether they are called West Balkans or not) will also be part of it. And then - if the actual entry is still a long ways away - it will to a large extent be "the youth" of today, who will in the meantime - in various forms and from various different positions - determine and contribute to their own society, politics, present and future. Political disenchantment has just as many different backgrounds and causes as the different "youth" we are talking about. In the classical countries of Western Europe - to put it simply and in general terms - the grandparents rebuilt their houses and existences from scratch after the Second World War. The parents were able to develop the individual prosperity, general social security, economic stability of their respective state. However, the young generation is suddenly witnessing that all these progresses and habits are now being challenged. They are experiencing a crisis of economic existence and of their own perspectives. This experience, however, takes place in the context of a functioning national and politico-economic apparatus. The youth know their rights and obligations - as well as the public structures. In the communist countries of Central Europe the grandparents and parents of today's youth were shaped by a regime (mostly not because they elected it , but because it was imposed upon them as a consequence of the Second World War), which they either actively supported or passively allowed to happen (whether they liked it or not) or actively rejected. Accordingly, this left an indelible mark on the children and grandchildren. When their zero hour came, namely the fall of the communist regime, they experienced a large gap in their socio-political being. The social network was gone - unemployment, poverty, lack of medical care took hold, so to speak, of the city and country. The politics, personified in the politicians, suddenly resembled "the emperor" in Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale, namely without clothing. They showed their greed for power and money, and their cynicism in view of the needs of the population in all its "nakedness". Some of them were turncoats. However, a better future hovered in front of all of their noses like a large sausage: the European Union. They, these turncoats, quickly learned the political language of the west and were accepted as legitimate representatives of the respective national power. The youth of these countries did not have an actual individual perspective during the communist era - except the hope of escaping to the "west" to Europe. They did not have any role models - communism did not leave any visions of "other" social orders or futures. Gaining access to money and a future by honest means seemed hopeless, appropriating mafia-like methods - despite everything - was not everyone's cup of tea. Political parties did not offer a persuasive power, let alone realities - parents did not have any authority, let alone could master their own existence anymore. The teachers at school and at the universities perhaps offered few and far between opportunities for dialog, but most did not differ from the general majority. For this generation the west remained the ideal, the life goal - especially Europe. However, the clearer it became that Europe was sitting in Brussels, that it was deciding on the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and other international institutions, imposing a number of regulations on "the succession states" of communism, but without promoting a concept for the economic development of the countries, the star of Europe faded and that of the faraway, but powerful and influential America began to shine. Today hope, but above all the influence on life conceptions, on commerce, leisure activities, entertainment, information technology of all sectors lies in the role model of the USA.
|
||||||||||||
| [back to
the ABC] |
||||||||||||
