CHAPTER 5
NFE VS FE & the School of Critical Thinking
As analyzed before, the process of critical thinking is no easy task. It is challenging, complex and requires not only skills but also knowledge. So, if we were to decide a certain type of practices to teach young people how to apply it, what would it be? Would it be through formal education practices performed by teachers and educational advisors? Would it take place in schools and educational institutions? Or would it be through non-formal education methods performed by youth workers and taking place out of the traditional educational environment?
The dilemma is deeper than it seems and the possible answers to these questions can vary. Let’s take a look at the basic characteristics of NFE and FE practices in the fight against hate speech through the School of Critical Thinking (SCT):
Non-Formal Education (NFE)
Formal Education (FE)
ANALYSIS
voluntary
compulsory
Although the voluntary participation creates a positive feeling to the participants, the mandatory element ensures that all learners will at least receive the basic information for the topic
Poor organizational framework
Well organized
FE seem to be ahead, as a solid structure is vital to ensure quality in the SCT
Participant-centered
Teacher-centered
NFE is probably a winner, given that the learning process focuses in the participants and ensures that their needs are adequately addressed, offering a lot of flexibility in adjusting the process accordingly
It takes place everywhere
It takes place in a set environment (schools, training institutions, colleges, universities)
NFE has the lead: being able to learn in different environments, avoiding the dry context of the school, makes the process more attractive and appealing to participants, who seem to engage more in the process
It takes place everywhere
It takes place in a set environment (schools, training institutions, colleges, universities)
NFE has the lead: being able to learn in different environments, avoiding the dry context of the school, makes the process more attractive and appealing to participants, who seem to engage more in the process
No official certification
Certification rules
NFE is falling a little behind, as the degree/certification of FE is stronger in terms of social-financial position and professionalization
Experiential learning
Theoretical approach
NFE is allowing participants to experience the process of critical thinking in practice and are able to digest the information through interactive activities – certainly a weak point of
Self-evaluation of outcomes
Testing processes for outcomes
FE keeps a leg up – testing processes include certified and objective criteria that can evaluate the progress/level of understanding of participants, while self-evaluation is rather subjective and might be misleading
Variety of learning principles, methodologies and learning approaches
Defined curricula
NFE is winning here, as changing the learning approaches according to the participants’ needs guarantees that the message will reach the target successfully
Democratic
Hierarchical
NFE is the solution, as it creates a sense of belonging, inclusion and openness
Interactive
Less interactive
Although interaction and active participation are vital elements of the learning process, in sensitive topics such as those tackled in SCT (stereotypes, prejudices, discrimination, hate speech) it might lead to the situation getting out of control
Going through this table is quite obvious that both NFE and FE practices in the context of SCT share advantages and disadvantages, while equally maintaining their importance and effectiveness. In other words, both forms are complementary to one another and mutually reinforce elements of a lifelong learning process. For this reason, it would be ideal to be able to incorporate non-formal education methods into the formal educational curricula and vice versa, in order to achieve the utmost effectiveness of the School of Critical Thinking.