UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Development of a framework for analyzing nonformal education systems Mumba, Elizabeth Cisece 1985

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1985_A8 M85.pdf [ 4.66MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0055772.json
JSON-LD: 1.0055772+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0055772.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0055772+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0055772+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0055772+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0055772 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0055772.txt
Citation
1.0055772.ris

Full Text

DEVELOPMENT OF A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING NONFORMAL EDUCATION SYSTEMS  by E L I Z A B E T H C I S E C E MUMBA Diploma  i n T e a c h i n g , Nkrumah T e a c h e r ' s C o l l e g e ,  B.A.  (Ed.), M.S.  The U n i v e r s i t y o f Zambia, Indiana  1970  1976  U n i v e r s i t y , 1979  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS MASTER  FOR THE DEGREE OF OF ARTS  in THE (Department  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e ,  We a c c e p t to  THE  this  And H i g h e r  t h e s i s as conforming  the required  standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH January  ©  Adult  COLUMBIA  1985  Elizabeth Cisece  Mumba, 1985  Education)  In presenting  t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the  requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference  and study.  I further  agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives.  It i s  understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  ^^^^cvUr>^- > IVl/aJU;  The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date ( V W c J U  DE-6  (3/81)  \«. Vjfa  frwJ V^AaSJ  ^CAA^CJM^L&T^.  ABSTRACT  This and  study  provides  systems.  analyzes  the  a framework  nonformal  education  f o r a n a l y z i n g nonformal  education  Nonformal e d u c a t i o n  funding  agencies  schooling  that  as  may  one assist  any  learning that  to  meet  the  the  by  policy  to  countries  Nonformal education i s provided  learning  makers  alternatives  developing  process.  systematic  of  i s seen  of  modernization  system  concept  and  formal in  the  is defined  o u t s i d e the  needs of a d u l t s a s  as  formal well  as  children.. In  order  separate review  literature of  education of  to achieve  the  issues  literature  characteristics  of  differences  between  education.  Various  education  and  selected education  research that i n the  cross-cultural for A  the  definitional  theories  is  are  twelve  that  provided  a  nonformal  the  concept  problems; and  relate  major the  major  and to  formal nonformal  discussed. analysis,  a  been  conducted  on  years  i s provided.  reviewed  Conclusions  how  education  conceptual has  of  two  I t d i s c u s s e s some  education  nonformal  studies are  comparison. framework  last  analyzes  study, Firstly,  concept  developed.  nonformal  the  provided.  the  review  has  development  Following  are on  The  education  regarding  o b j e c t i v e s of  reviews  i s provided.  nonformal  the  of t h e  for  as  they  and  . of  nonformal Only  provide  s t u d i e s are  analyzing  review  major  a basis  discussed. comparing  nonformal three The  levels  are  systems.  analysis: of  the  provided  The  framework  national,  regional,  framework  indicating  are  at which  identifies and  local.  discussed  and  level  can  they  asked. Major  of  of  major elements  questions be  education  conclusions  planning  recommendations  of  nonformal for further  the  study  are  education research  are  discussed  i n terms  systems.  Some  provided.  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS L I S T OF TABLES L I S T OF FIGURES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  vi v i i viii  CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION  1  Background of the Problem O b j e c t i v e s o f the Study Q u e s t i o n s t o be Answered D e f i n i t i o n s o f Terms t o be Used . Adult Education Formal Education Nonformal Education Informal Education R u r a l Development Learning E x t e n s i o n Workers Integration Developing countries Modernization D e l i m i t a t i o n of t h e S t u d y O r g a n i z a t i o n of the Remaining C h a p t e r s  1 7 8 8 8 9 10 11 11 12 12 12 14 15 15 16  CHAPTER TWO: NONFORMAL EDUCATION: A CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS  17  Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e on t h e C o n c e p t o f Nonformal Education H i s t o r i c a l Background of t h e Concept R e l a t i o n s h i p Between F o r m a l , N o n f o r m a l and I n f o r m a l E d u c a t i o n Purpose of Nonformal E d u c a t i o n Major Differences Between Formal and Nonformal Education E d u c a t i o n i n R u r a l a n d Urban A r e a s N o n f o r m a l E d u c a t i o n a n d Development Structural functionalism Conflict theories Conclusion  27 31 35 36 37 43  CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH ON NONFORMAL  45  Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e on Nonformal Education D e s c r i p t i v e Research Surveys F i n d i n g s of the Surveys I n a d e q u a t e Programs Facilities Costs Evaluation  EDUCATION  Research  17 17 20 27  on 45 46 51 51 55 55 56  V  Coordination O t h e r R e s e a r c h S t u d i e s on N o n f o r m a l E d u c a t i o n I m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e F i n d i n g s t o P l a n n i n g N o n f o r m a l E d u c a t i o n Programs Conclusion  56 57 59 63  CHAPTER FOUR: FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING AND COMPARING NONFORMAL EDUCATION SYSTEMS  67  Need f o r a Framework O r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e Framework E l e m e n t s of t h e Framework P o l i c i e s , G o a l s and O b j e c t i v e s L o n g - t e r m g o a l s and p o l i c i e s S h o r t - t e r m or immediate g o a l s and p o l i c i e s I n s t i t u t i o n a l g o a l s and p o l i c i e s Community g o a l s S o c i a l c o l l e c t i v e advocacy group goals Individual goals P o l i t i c a l and A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e s S t r a t e g i e s f o r Development Nonformal Education Agencies Participant/Program Characteristics Voluntary P a r t i c i p a t i o n Non-voluntary P a r t i c i p a t i o n L e a r n i n g Outcomes Evaluation A p p l y i n g t h e Framework Conclusion  67 68 68 69 72 72 72 73 73 73 74 76 78 80 82 82 83 83 85 87  CHAPTER F I V E : SUMMARY AND  CONCLUSIONS  ...  88  Summary Research S t u d i e s i n Nonformal Education A r e a s of F u t u r e R e s e a r c h A n a l y z i n g and C o m p a r i n g N a t i o n a l Systems A n a l y z i n g and C o m p a r i n g R e g i o n a l Systems A n a l y z i n g and C o m p a r i n g L o c a l S y s t e m s Conclusions  88 90 92 92 92 93 93  REFERENCES  96  vi  L I S T OF  Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table  TABLES  1: A C o m p a r i s o n of t h e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s N o n f o r m a l and F o r m a l E d u c a t i o n 2: 3: 4:  of 28  I l l u s t r a t i v e R u r a l O c c u p a t i o n a l Groups T h e i r L e a r n i n g Needs E s t i m a t e d E x t e n s i o n W o r k e r s and in Selected Countries  and  Farm F a m i l i e s 53  L i s t of Q u e s t i o n s f o r A n a l y s i s of G o a l s and O b j e c t i v e s  Policies,  5: L i s t of Q u e s t i o n s f o r A n a l y s i s of and A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e s  Political  6: 7: 8: 9: 10:  L i s t of Q u e s t i o n s f o r Development  33  70 75  f o r A n a l y s i s of S t r a t e g i e s 77  L i s t of Q u e s t i o n s f o r A n a l y s i s of Education Agencies  Nonformal 79  L i s t of Q u e s t i o n s f o r A n a l y s i s of Participant/Program Characteristics  81  L i s t of Q u e s t i o n s Outcomes  f o r A n a l y s i s of  84  List  f o r A n a l y s i s of E v a l u a t i o n  of Q u e s t i o n s  Learning . 85  vii  L I S T OF  FIGURES  Figure  1: L a B e l l e ' s T y p o l o g y  Figure  2: R e l a t i o n s h i p Between F o r m a l and Education Ladders  Figure Figure  24 Nonformal 26  3: V e r t i c a l l y and H o r i z o n t a l l y , t h e P r o v i n c e - D i s t r i c t L e v e l Committee  34  4: P a u l s t o n ' s Framework Systems  38  of Nonformal E d u c a t i o n  vi i i  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I would in  the  like  t o thank a l l t h e p e o p l e  completion  of  this  thesis.  who p l a y e d a  The g r e a t e s t d e b t o f  gratitude  i s owed t o my two s u p e r v i s o r s , D r . K j e l l  and  Thomas  Dr.  insight  Sork,  throughout  immeasurably  whose the  t o the f i n a l  during to  I  own p a r t i c u l a r would  understanding displayed  like  unfailing  and  during  areas  to  process  thank  some  of t h i s  father  for believing  of  thesis.  contributed  I am t h a n k f u l t o b o t h o f support  and  helpful  assistance  with  respect  of e x p e r t i s e .  forbearance  writing  their  entire  a l l s t a g e s , and were e s p e c i a l l y  their  Rubenson  p a t i e n c e , u n d e r s t a n d i n g and  result.  them e q u a l l y f o r o f f e r i n g  role  my  two  which  children  they  t h e more t r y i n g  I am t h a n k f u l  to  i n and f o r a l w a y s  so  f o r the generously  periods i n the my  mother  and  remembering me i n  prayers. I  would  McGillivray thank support  like  to  f o r typing the t h e s i s .  D r . John M a c K i n l e y through  inspiring  thank D r . S i t w a l a Imenda a n d B r u c e  my  interest  work i s d e d i c a t e d t o h i m .  I would  of I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y  h i s constant  initial  Lastly,  correspondence in this  like to  fora l l h i s  t o me  and f o r  area of study.  This  1  CHAPTER  ONE  INTRODUCTION Background of the Problem One o f t h e p u r p o s e s o f bring  social  communities of  has  1973).  It i s clearly  programs t h a t a r e r e s p o n s i v e i n order  of t h e i r  been  education  evident  requirements resulted  in  not  primary  usually  roaming about  skills  that  are  self-employment The  that  major  such  of  in  rural  the  investments  require adult they  c o n d i t i o n s of the  i s the area  that  t o some o f  of  nonformal  there  systems  high  of  and  costs  rural  school  f o r the r u r a l  for  the  t o employment  having  This  has  no j o b s a n d  employment  foster or f o r  children.  modernization  efforts  o f many  developing  on a few u r b a n c e n t r e s  the m a j o r i t y of the p o p u l a t i o n areas  of  The s c h o o l s do n o t  either  been  educational  sectors.  graduates  i n towns.  useful  have  educational  been matched o r r e l a t e d  c o u n t r i e s have c o n c e n t r a t e d neglect  most  of e d u c a t i o n  although  the  of the urban  in  and t h e i r  1968).  countries, have  help  t o the problems  One a r e a  e d u c a t i o n a l programs  investments  expansion  to  that  a s one o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s  (1968) a r g u e d  developing  will  the l i v i n g  populations.  (Coombs,  Coombs large  t o improve  identified  existing  is  and e c o n o m i c change t o i n d i v i d u a l s  (Apps,  facing  majority  the  education  the developing, c o u n t r i e s of the world  education are  adult  (Coombs,  1974).  that  at  still  Although  were made i n t h e e d u c a t i o n a l s y s t e m s ,  the live high  t h e r e has  2  been  a widening  traditional part of  of  of  rural  the  capital  teacher  solution  of  nonformal  on  process  1982;  changing  to  existing  Bock,  1976;  for  those  social  make and  new  skills  because  quality  populations. is  hoped t h a t  growing  gap  left and  i t can  efficiently. the  are  out  as  life  Since  of  between  the  i  left  on  definitions. of  nonformal 1974;  have c a u t i o n e d  that  be  limited  (Carnoy,  1976;  some  i t can school  as  without LaBelle,  a  powerful  provide  education  s y s t e m ; as t o the  educational  the  majority education  alleviate rural  are  alternative  and  it  can  rural  poor;  resources  more  i n t u r n l e a d t o an  nonformal  i t will  rural  (Coombs,  will  by  because  scarce  of  the  an  efforts  attitudes available  use  Coombs  1976).  i s seen  T h i s would of  order  expansion  reached.  potential  development  f o r development who  a s p a r t of  be  1972), o t h e r s  Nonformal education instrument  i n the  Paulston,  the  1983).  to dwell  development  Grandstaff,  the  can  that  improved  t h e p o p u l a t i o n s who  have t e n d e d  enhance  contributions  1975;  that  some have more f a i t h  Coles,  technology,  education  the  i s the i n t r o d u c t i o n  nonformal education  education  to  problems  and  recommended  (Bock & P a p a g i a n n i s ,  the m o d e r n i z a t i o n  education  (1968)  educational  s t r a t e g y so  formal  its  t o such  education  Discussions  While  Coombs  i n c r e a s e d f o r e i g n a i d and  advocated  development  to  areas.  training,  (1974)  between t h e modern u r b a n a r e a s  intensive  nonformal  out  gap  improvement  of  the  in  rural  is diversified, i t  poverty  urban a r e a s  and  reduce  brought  about  the by  3  earlier  development  efforts  and e d u c a t i o n a l  Much has been w r i t t e n a b o u t education  as  important  tool  Grandstaff, agreement  as  to  how  (Coombs,  existing  group  J  and  LaBelle,  has  utilize  countries. the  larger  educational This analyze  for  of  may  to other  the  i t  some  state  t h a t when  perpetuates  They a r g u e  independently be a c h i e v e d  so  that that  (Bock, 1976;  1976). to understand  and e x p l o r e  the best  education  the concept  ways  to  programs  should  of  organize  in developing  be seen a s  part  of  s y s t e m , and p a r t o f t h e f o r m a l  (Coombs e t a l , 1974). is  important  i n so f a r a s i t a t t e m p t s t o  of nonformal  education  a n a l y z i n g nonformal  makes t h e a s s u m p t i o n  including  operate  goals  While  be l i n k e d  i n the s t a t e .  socio-political  study  1976).  should  in  to function  1982) o t h e r s a r g u e  Nonformal e d u c a t i o n  system  ought  institutions  become n e c e s s a r y  the concept  framework study  should  nonformal  1974;  education  institutionalized,  inequalities  nonformal education and  is  1975; P a u l s t o n ,  It  (Paulston,  Coles,  individual  (Coombs,  nonformal  education  1980;  nonformal education  process  of  systems and o t h e r  1974,  s c h o o l i n g and a s an  nonformal education  countries  nonformal education the  role  that nonformal  educational  to formal  of nonformal  1982) b u t t h e r e h a s been no g e n e r a l  the  and  developing  advocate  the p o t e n t i a l  t o the development  1972; C o l e s  development in  an a l t e r n a t i v e  policies.  nonformal  that  education,  and  education  investment is  a  provides systems.  in  a The  education,  priority  of  the  4  planners past,  and p o l i c y  developing  amounts  a l l levels.  in  education,  education  modernizing a  beliefs  the  for  formal from  is  substantial  f o r the expansion  of e d u c a t i o n  continued  and f o r seen  a  tool  that  and  are  required  Papagiannis,  s c h o o l i n g nor the  1983).  amounts  demand  populations  the  the  new  is  seen  for national  of  for  system cannot  labour market.  T h i s has l e d t o g r e a t  in  h i g h c o s t s of  education  (Simmons,  education  But a l t h o u g h resources  c a n n e i t h e r meet t h e r i s i n g  increasing  of  To  w i t h modern v a l u e s and  from the formal  to  t o demand more  To t h e government e d u c a t i o n  invested large  they  investing  themselves.  as  6  providing citizens  (Bock  In the  invested  have  children  skills  g o v e r n m e n t s have education,  public  schooling  and t h e  development  countries.  W h i l e g o v e r n m e n t s have c o n t i n u e d  process.  tool  have  resources  for their  individual,  as  countries  of scarce  at  makers i n d e v e l o p i n g  1979).  resulting The o u t p u t  be a b s o r b e d  by  disappointments,  the both  i n d i v i d u a l s and t o g o v e r n m e n t s . While  education primary countries  many  education  is  (Coles,  1982).  Scientific,  far  from  According  to  invest i n formal  clear  being  that  to the  and C u l t u r a l  formal  compared  s c h o o l i n g world-wide  t o 128 m i l l i o n  in  1975.  i n many  United  Nations  Organization  (UNESCO,  who  i s 240 m i l l i o n These  who l a c k any k i n d o f e d u c a t i o n .  universal  attained  p r o j e c t i o n s , t h e number o f young p e o p l e  denied  adults  continue  i t has become i n c r e a s i n g l y  Educational, 1975)  countries  figures  will  be  i n 1985, exclude  5  Some formal its  the  major  educational  system  curriculum  function the  of  within  does  levels,  has  not  migration costs  of  of  allow  both  been matched w i t h Such  school  a  demand f o r more s c h o o l i n g has Formal  schooling  inequalities both  migration  and  Nonformal education  alternative  that  training  for self  within  rural  education  may  system  to  life.  But,  strategy  can  and  has  so as  communities those  acquire  are  knowledge  before  adopting  f o r development  employment  in  rural-urban  the  through  distribution  of  forward  an  able  out  skills  nonformal  i t i s important  the  existing  to  as  skills  function  1974).  left  The  1979).  leavers attain  t o be  and  of  centres  put  (Coombs,  who  secondary  (Simmons,  unequal  to of  r i s i n g while  urban  school  leavers  expansion  to  been  that  employment.  have been  the  help  employment  assist  of  been r i s i n g  rural  existing is  and  resulted  contributed  between t h e  labour  income.  has  great  expansion  in search  schools  school  primary  t r e n d has  leavers  maintaining  The  at  the  countries  young  communities.  system,  opportunities.  against  in developing  not  rural  educational  arguments  Nonformal  of  the  f o r an  formal improved  education  as  to understand  a the  concept. Adult efforts  on  education remedial  qualifications employment curriculum  of  (Lowe, of  programs  to c o n c e n t r a t e  a c t i v i t i e s that are those  1970).  the  tend  who  are  geared  employed and  T h e s e programs t e n d  formal  educational  to  improving  those to  system.  their  seeking  follow In  the  former  6  British  colonies,  liberal urban rural  areas.  programs  of  tend  are  in earlier  countries  where t o c o n c e n t r a t e education  times  are  their  designed  upon  s c h o o l i n g and n e g l e c t  other  faced  to  treated  many d e v e l o p i n g  with  whether  or of a d u l t s  of nonformal education  not  to  (Lowe,  i s often  ignored  as p a r t of the e d u c a t i o n  countries.  Coombs  departments  should  also  non-governmental This  means  and of  the  local  level  be c o o r d i n a t e d  (Coombs, with  those  s i n c e they  clientele. is  government  departments.  organizations co-ordinate  by  should  be  other  1974,  1980).  a c t i v i t i e s of  working a t the l o c a l  level  need t o  are addressing  same  clients  not  At times,  education  different  offered  level  the  f o c u s i n g on t h e a c t i v i t i e s t h a t a f f e c t their  that  o r g a n i z a t i o n s and v o l u n t a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n s .  that  work t o g e t h e r  and  be o f f e r e d u s i n g an i n t e g r a t e d  at  national  in  system i n  recommended  A l l educational a c t i v i t i e s that are  They  should  (1974)  approach.  at the  invest 1970).  education  integrated  activities.  t h e dilemma o f  nonformal  different  favour  build  efforts:  o f t h e young  The a r e a  British  to  a c t i v i t i e s such as nonformal e d u c a t i o n  developing  at  pattern  the m a j o r i t y of the p o p u l a t i o n of  These p r o g r a m s acquired  the  Such  g r o u p s and n e g l e c t  learning  the  follow  adult education.  foundations  The  they  seen  is  activities  termed  nonformal  a s an e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y Nonformal  departments separately. their  what  daily  efforts  and These  education other  i s offered  by  non-governmental  organizations  and sometimes  by t h e  do  compete w i t h  not each  7  other. in  offering  Ahmed, a  Many p l a n n e r s have a d v o c a t e d an i n t e g r a t e d nonformal  1974; C o l e s ,  strategy,  integrated The  educational  1982).  the planning  However,  (Coombs  i n o r d e r t o adopt  of nonformal e d u c a t i o n  at the n a t i o n a l  major problems  activities  level  approach  (Coombs,  should  &  such be  1974).  o f many d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s may be  l i s t e d as: 1.  111iteracy,  2.  Lack  3.  Inadequate  4.  Lack  of a g r i c u l t u r a l community  Lack  of r u r a l  these  rural  and f o o d  Lack  7.  Inadequate  8.  Constraining  problems  equipment and know how f o r  to retain  facilities  m a t e r n a l and c h i l d c a r e attitudes way o f l i f e differ  toward  the  selected useful  in  intensity  analysis  concept of nonformal literature.  changing  of the concept  a  life.  from one c o u n t r y t o in this  study.  conceptual  analysis  e d u c a t i o n through a review of  I t p r o v i d e s a framework t h a t  analyzing  from  o f t h e Study  study attempts t o p r o v i d e a  in  within  facilities,  t o a modern way o f  Objectives  of  populations  i n rural areas,  another, a l t h o u g h they a r e g e n e r a l i z e d  This  and l e a d e r s h i p ,  preservation,  industries  of marketing  traditional  skills,  communities,  6.  These  organization  of simple t e c h n o l o g i c a l  food p r o d u c t i o n 5.  and t e c h n i c a l  nonformal involves  education  may  systems.  the f o l l o w i n g :  be The  8  a.  Historical  b a c k g r o u n d of t h e c o n c e p t  of  nonformal  education b.  The  relationship  formal  education  between and  nonformal  informal  education  c.  Nonformal  education  and  d.  Nonformal  education  i n u r b a n and  Questions  t o be  This  study  seeks  to  education,  development rural  areas  Answered  answer  the  following  two  questions: a.  Under  what  conditions  contribute  to  development b.  What  are  can  development,  i n developing the  planning  Definitions  education  especially  rural  countries? implications  c o n c l u s i o n s of the r e s e a r c h  Adult  nonformal  of  the  s t u d i e s reviewed?  of Terms t o be  Used  Education The meaning  from  country  o f what c o n s t i t u t e s a d u l t e d u c a t i o n  to  country.  However, a f t e r  conferences,  there  constitutes  adult education  education 1964)  as a p s y c h o l o g i c a l and  while  education  others  (Freire,  (Faure,  1972)  falling  between  formal  (1972)  concentrate  1973;  others  Report  the t h r e e  seems t o be a g e n e r a l agreement (Lowe,  t h a t was  Lindeman,  1975).  social  and  what  Some view  adult  process  Coady,  views a d u l t education  world  of  (Verner,  on t h e outcomes 1926;  varies  of a d u l t  1939).  Yet  as a c o n t i n u u m  informal education.  The  Faure  a d o p t e d by UNESCO v i e w s e d u c a t i o n  as  9  a  life-long  leavers adult  in  process.  In  developing  order  countries,  to include early UNESCO  (1975)  school defines  education as:  . . . out-of-school education, education provided for t h e b e n e f i t and adapted t o t h e needs, of persons not i n the r e g u l a r school and university system and g e n e r a l l y f i f t e e n and o l d e r ( p . 6 ) . The  above  definition  includes  the  early  is  adopted  in  school-leavers  this  study  found  in  as i t  developing  countries. Formal  Education  Education learn  from  nonformal, the end.  different informal).  continuum  while  Education  learning not  is a lifelong  only  matter, household  skills  appreciation attitudes, education  it  Formal education  a t one end  lies  informal education  everyday  as  a  lies  life-long  of our l i v e s . "academic"  (training),  formal, of  at the other  process  whereby  Education  embraces  skills  i n c l u d e s the a c q u i s i t i o n  and a n a l y t i c a l  values  individuals  (i.e.,  the conventional but  whereby  educational processes  i s seen  occurs  process  and  subject  of o c c u p a t i o n a l ,  the development  of  aesthetic  modes o f t h i n k i n g , f o r m a t i o n o f  and i n f o r m a t i o n o f  many  kinds.  Formal  refers to  the hierarchically structured, chronologically graded educational systems running from primary s c h o o l t h r o u g h t h e u n i v e r s i t y and i n c l u d i n g g e n e r a l a c a d e m i c s t u d i e s , a v a r i e t y o f s p e c i a l i z e d programs and institutions for fulltime technical and professional training (Coombs, et a l . , 1973, p. 1 1 ) .  10  Although  this  education,  the d e f i n i t i o n  perspective UNESCO  definition  of formal  covers  many  by UNESCO  education  (1975) d e f i n e s f o r m a l  aspects  of formal  (1975) p r e s e n t s  than  t h e one  a wider  given  above.  education as:  . . . Education i n which students a r e e n r o l l e d or r e g i s t e r e d r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e mode o f t e a c h i n g u s e d ; i . e . , i t i n c l u d e s an e d u c a t i o n a l s e r i e s t r a n s m i t t e d by r a d i o or t e l e v i s i o n i f l i s t e n e r s a r e r e g i s t e r e d (p. 3 9 ) . This d e f i n i t i o n Nonformal  from  education  individuals birth  activities above.  in this  study.  viewed  as  Education  Since whereby  i s adopted  to  will  is  learn  the  take  Nonformal  from  time  place  their  they  a  has  process  everyday  experiences,  d i e , not  a l l learning  i n the formal  education  life-long  been  setting  discussed  d e f i n e d by Coombs  (1973) a s : . . . any o r g a n i z e d e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y c a r r i e d on o u t s i d e t h e framework of the formal system to provide selected types of l e a r n i n g t o p a r t i c u l a r subgroups i n the p o p u l a t i o n , adults as w e l l as c h i l d r e n (p. 11). Coomb's d e f i n i t i o n  was a d o p t e d  Nonformal education that  i t  without because  is  organized  differs while  any o r g a n i z a t i o n . there  education  i s no s u c h  from  study.  informal education i n  informal  education  Nonformal education  i s an i n t e n t i o n  there  for this  t o do so  intention.  while  occurs  takes in  place  informal  11  Informal  Education  Informal learning family,  activities h i s peers  as a w h o l e .  An  as a r e s u l t and  education  of  as  that  and  an  through  individual such  organization  discussed individual  d o e s not  such  refers  to  a c q u i r e s from  his  his interaction  activities, in  above,  nor  society  g e n e r a l l y plan to is  there  learning  (1974) d e f i n e s i n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n  with  learn  always  activities.  form Coombs  as  the l i f e - l o n g p r o c e s s of a c q u i r i n g and a c c u m u l a t i n g knowledge, skills and attitudes from ones environment. I n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n i s u n o r g a n i z e d and a c q u i r e d from ones own e x p e r i e n c e s ( p . 8 ) . The  r e s e a r c h e r adopted  Rural  this  be  study,  adopted. an  as  1974).  This resulted  extension  increase crops.  In t h e  which  view  of  development  rural  rural  that  study.  development  so  yields,  development  a c t i v i t i e s that  of  was  funding  (Coombs,  offering  they  could i n cash  viewed  in  a  agencies invested transforming  the m o d e r n i z a t i o n  urban  was  agricultural  that  i n t h e hope of  transforming  output  especially  development  lagged behind  development  were aimed a t  farmers  International  rural  rapidly  rural  agricultural  to  1970's r u r a l  development  was  in  programs  more i n r u r a l areas  1960's  agricultural  sense.  view of  i n the e s t a b l i s h m e n t  education  their  broader  the  increase  training  agricultural  the broader  In  viewed  that  for this  Development In  will  t h e above d e f i n i t i o n  centres.  integrates  c o n t r i b u t e t o an  process  The  all  the  broad  facets  improved  of way  12  of  life  rural  f o r the  rural populations.  development  refers  The  broader  view  of  to  . . . f a r - r e a c h i n g t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of t h e s o c i a l and economic structures, institutions, relationships and p r o c e s s e s i n any rural area (Coombs, 1974, p. 13). Learning Learning refers  to  the  behaviour,  differs  from e d u c a t i o n  psychological  cognitive of  sociological  processes  shaping  Extension  It  it  a f f e c t change  in  as  also  the  affective  refers  individuals  behaviour.  to  the  pass through  Learning  can  be  in  both  incidental.  term r e f e r s  organizations  administrative from the  that  well  sense that  Workers  The and  and  as  individuals.  individual  intentional  processes that  skills  orientations  i n the  t o members of  that units  work a t of  d e p a r t m e n t s of  education, veterinary  the  workers.  wide r a n g e of  or  extension  Extension  workers at  the  various  lowest  lowest  That  community workers,  w o r k e r s as  departments  levels  r u r a l areas.  health  agricultural  the  the  a  in  i s , workers development, forestry  (1980) d e f i n e s  administrative  integration  and  t e r m embraces a level.  Integration Coombs  the  as:  . . . C o m b i n i n g n a t u r a l l y r e l a t e d p a r t s i n t o a more cohesive and unified order to enhance their collective cost-effectiveness.  13  Coombs 1.  (1980) has d e v e l o p e d  Integrated the  national  national  planning  level  which  programs a t the l o c a l 2.  Integration  s i x categories  by t h e v a r i o u s may  involves  may  need  mastering  to  be  Integration  of s k i l l s  supplemented  between  programs  integrated  workers  do  not  t o i n t e g r a t i o n of  of a p a r t i c u l a r  otherwise the t r a i n i n g i n that 3.  lead  sectors at  level.  of t h e components  this  of i n t e g r a t i o n :  program:  i n one a c t i v i t y by  another  skill  activity;  may go t o w a s t e .  s e p a r a t e p r o g r a m s : many i n t o one p r o g r a m  o f f e r piecemeal  which  so t h a t  extension extension  education  t o t h e same  t o be t i e d  together to  clients. 4.  Horizontal offer that  i n t e g r a t i o n : programs  individual families may be l a c k i n g  This  is  focuses to  to those  similar  horizontal  to  integration  on t h e b a s i c  be s a t i s f i e d  services  basic  needs  f a m i l i e s a t t h e same  time.  the  as  i n other  above  defined  integration, by  Coombs  (1980)  needs o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l t h a t  a t t h e same  time  one  need  but  is  need being  taken care o f . 5.  Vertical  integration:  this  extension  w o r k e r s from  above,  financially with 6.  and m o r a l l y  refers  to supervision  offering  support  t o keep them m o t i v a t e d  of  both  t o work  the c l i e n t s i n the f i e l d .  Inter-organizational collaboration  integration:  of t h e s e p a r a t e  refers  organizations  to  the  accustomed  14  to  working  independently,  i . e . , the  non-governmental  organizations. Integrated condition, patterns  political of  involves  vertical  dealt  with  socio-economic  in rural  attitudes  and  communities.  planning  for  It rural  the  essential  components o f  of  related  activities  integration  i n s e p a r a t e programs;  horizontal  integration.  Integrated need t o r e l a t e orientations they  of  the  institutions,  national  integration  program;  that  structure,  integrated  conventionally and  p r o g r a m s f o c u s on  human r e l a t i o n s h i p s  development; each  rural  nonformal  e d u c a t i o n programs  to people's d a i l y and  are  their easily  activities,  aspirations  and  transferable  not  in rural their  areas  cultural  i n a vacuum  to  their  so  daily  activities. Developing This known as mainly to  be  countries term  third from  better  will  be u s e d  world c o u n t r i e s Africa,  to  the  author  changing  even  countries  are undergoing  One  ask  may  societies toward others, through  in  the term  the  to refer but  changing  societies  developed  many s o c i a l  modernity. through  from  Some social  the  societies mobility  t h e mass media and,  be  'developing countries'  and  the q u e s t i o n , "Developing  are  i s commonly  examples w i l l  since  least  t o what  are  areas.  from  rural  always  changes.  what?"  traditional a r e moving  seems  Developing  economic toward  drawn  Many  societies faster to  i n some c a s e s , t h r o u g h  than urban;  literacy  15  (Lerner,1958). Modernizat ion 'Modernization'  refers  from t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i e t i e s diffuse  to societies  changes  that  (Smelser, 1.  the  2.  in  application  the e v o l u t i o n  commercial  industry,  movement  are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . to  of s c i e n t i f i c  production  the t r a n s i t i o n  a n i m a l power t o w a r d 4.  roles  the  following  are Other areas  from s i m p l e and t r a d i t i o n a l i z e d t e c h n i q u e s  in agriculture,  3.  where r o l e s  institutional  p28):  change  toward  where  may o c c u r may r e l a t e  1968,  toward  t o a process of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n  from  the  knowledge.  from s u b s i s t e n c e of a g r i c u l t u r a l  farming  goods.  from t h e u s e o f human and  industrialization. farm  and  village  toward  urban  centres. Delimitation The of  study  nonformal  alternative  will  o f t h e Study  be l i m i t e d  education  in assisting  as  it  to bring  change t o d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s . part It for  is  perceived  about  will  also  be l i m i t e d  analyzing  I t has t o  problems country  a r e made, d i f f e r e n t  and t h e i n t e n s i t y to another.  be a d o p t e d  education  How  be  an  planned  as  countries.  a  framework  systems.  Although  of the problems  by t h e i n d i v i d u a l  of  countries  successfully  be  s o c i a l and economic  t o t h e development  nonformal  analysis  to  o f t h e whole m o d e r n i z a t i o n p r o c e s s i n t h e s e  generalizations  can  to the conceptual  have  d i f f e r s from one  nonformal  countries  unique  education  i s dependent  on  16  their  national  policies  and  their  national  developmental  goals. Organization The on  second  nonformal  c h a p t e r of t h e s t u d y  It  found  Chapter  Three  studies  education  and  these  will  i n the  selected  the  Chapters  reviews the  literature  e d u c a t i o n , i t s major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,  development. positions  of t h e R e m a i n i n g  analyze  major  theoretical  literature.  contains that  integrated  c o n c l u s i o n s and  the  and i t s  have  a  systematic  been  rural  conducted  development.  implications  analysis  that  of  on  nonformal  It  analyzes  have been drawn  from  studies. Chapter  Four  framework t h a t education  has  the  been d e v e l o p e d  major  for  elements  analyzing  of  a  nonformal  systems.  Chapter literature  highlights  Five  p r e s e n t s the major c o n c l u s i o n s  reviewed  and  provides  recommendations.  from  the  17  CHAPTER  TWO  NONFORMAL EDUCATION: A CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e Nonformal The  selection  was drawn ERIC  from  search  the  last  literature  from  Education  Education  Education  j o u r n a l s and o t h e r and  Comparative  of  (1975).  some  of  Review  concept  publications  and  review  through  publications  (1976)  Literature  the  included i n this  recent  Year  an  i n the  Book  of  t h a t h a s been p u b l i s h e d i n  12 y e a r s was s e l e c t e d .  discussion  on t h e C o n c e p t o f  Only  of  literature containing  nonformal  included.  The r e v i e w  of  literature  nonformal  education  is  organized  on  education the  under  concept  the  was of  following  headings: a.  Historical  b.  The  background of t h e c o n c e p t ;  relationship  informal  formal,  c.  Nonformal education  in rural  d.  Nonformal education  and d e v e l o p m e n t .  The  concept  some  of nonformal  of  countries  are  education  as  his analysis, countries  as  the  facing.  and u r b a n c e n t r e s ; and  education search  educational Coombs  a major a l t e r n a t i v e  has d e v e l o p e d out  for alternatives problems  (1968) to formal  he saw t h e e d u c a t i o n a l c r i s i s a  and  Background of the Concept  t h e p l a n n e r s ' and e d u c a t o r s '  solving  nonformal  education;  Historical  of  between  consequence  of  developing  saw  nonformal  schooling. in  in  In  developing  the u n s a t i s f i e d  and ever  18  increasing  social  demand f o r e d u c a t i o n .  been enormous e d u c a t i o n a l e x p a n s i o n countries,  the  problems  resulting  inefficient increases present  in  student  output  and  educational  to  1973;  Nearly  a l l the  system  to  at  1973;  the  educational  costs,  methods,  one  large of  the  available  for  dimension  of  development  The  an  of  nonformal  of  argue  for  literature  channel  and  reviewed  as  an  educational  as  it  rural  emphasizes  alternative  system  to  (Brembeck,  1972). in  the  (Coombs,  education  agricultural  developing the  formal  majority  populations  that  t h e W o r l d Bank i n  in nonformal  e m p h a s i s on  rural  the  agencies,  process  expense  Coles  1974;  nonformal  cannot  countries educational  of  the  be  left  Coles,  1982).  education  through which t h e s e  rural out  of  Both  seems t o  be  populations  reached.  Some of education  rapid  Grandstaff,  place  to provide t o be  numerous  resources  concept  formal  development p r o c e s s  Coombs and  are  the  more i n t h e  populations.  able  of  modernization  continues  with  (1968) saw  aid  concern  Harbison, The  and.  its  development  investing  i n the  faced  has  developing  unsuitability  of  Coombs  became i n t e r e s t e d  development.  the  be  the  teaching  scarcity  makers  particular,  the  and  there  systems.  Policy  related  to  rising  enrollment,  expansion.  solution  in a l l  systems are  from  management  educational the  educational  Although  the has  early been  research  on  conducted  the  concept  at  the  of  nonformal  Michigan  State  19  University  under  (1973) a n a l y z e d alternative learning out  the  leadership  t h e need  t o formal  for  of  nonformal  system.  an  public  improvement  agricultural (1973)  in  production  views each  has  nonformal  education  equality  as  social  is flexible,  He a l s o s e e s  to  the  related  control,  from  nonformal  functions.  he a r g u e s ,  access  to  Since  i t can e a s i l y needs  of  the  contributing to  to e l i t e positions  power. Nonformal education life-long  process Since  as a concept  i s b a s e d on t h e  l e a r n i n g , which views e d u c a t i o n  following  UNESCO  recommendations  as a  as part of  learning.  organizations  The  the  concept include  Commonwealth  International Council  Organization  f o r Economic C o - o p e r a t i o n  regional  Africa.  Adult  There  education educational  within  Education  f o r Adult  development  context  of  of  life-long  UNESCO,  The  Education, the  and D e v e l o p m e n t , and  Associations  of  1972).  the concept  of  has been an i n c r e a s e i n p l a n n i n g the  idea  life-long  (Faure,  1968, many o r g a n i z a t i o n s have a c c e p t e d  nonformal education  the  i n meeting  Brembeck  immediate  provides  drop  life.  nonformal education  since education  an  life-long  population  separate  different  t o i n n o v a t i o n and  learners.  health,  and b e t t e r f a m i l y  schooling  education,  which a r e  as  who  I t can as w e l l a s s i s t  of development  of  education  s c h o o l i n g as i t can p r o v i d e  t h e newer c o n c e p t i o n s  and  Brembeck  o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r the m a j o r i t y of youth  of the formal  adapt  Brembeck.  national  i n many c o u n t r i e s  (Lowe,  Asia  and  nonformal  plans 1982).  for In  20  some c o u n t r i e s m i n i s t r i e s have been e s t a b l i s h e d t o p l a n and coordinate  nonformal education  There  has  cooperation activities  in  been  the  through  activities  development  promotion  various  of  in  n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s (Lowe,  Definitions  of  nonformal  Coombs' d e f i n i t i o n . is  a  close  informal  Coombs  there  that  not  equate  education  (1974)  argues  that  Coombs should or  equate education  how  i t  process  occurs.  whereby  with  formal, to  followed  that  there  n o n f o r m a l and determine  the  t o be a new view o f e d u c a t i o n  a  with  formal  broader  schooling.  view o f e d u c a t i o n  learning regardless  Education  individuals  have  1976) a r g u e d  In o r d e r  relationships, does  ought  Nonformal  education  between  systems of e d u c a t i o n .  g o v e r n m e n t a l , and  Education  (1974;  relationship  education  1982).  R e l a t i o n s h i p Between F o r m a l , Informal  1982).  international  nonformal  international,  and  (Coles,  is  of  viewed as a  a r e l e a r n i n g from  where  life-long  birth  until  death. Using  this  i n c l u d e s those training  view  of  activities  programs, a d u l t  skills  training  clubs,  community  family  Coombs  literacy  education  programs,  programs  argued  are organized  that  farmer  occupational system,  in health,  and  education  extension,  outside the formal  cooperatives (1974)  nonformal  in agricultural  development  planning,  activities. nonformal  provided  education,  youth  nutrition,  income-generating both  t o complement  formal  and  and improve  21  upon  informal  skills  that  individuals  environment. education  learning  differ  in  in  groups  acquire  programs  organization  and d e l i v e r y .  that  are  may  to  serve.  use  formal  Although  methods  Coombs  between  largely  education  funded  programs  organizations or the s t a t e . privately close  funded  While  Coombs  relationship of  education,  education merits  in  education (Brembeck, determined the tend  (1973)  fostering  learning.  l i e in its ability He  charactersitics  of in  while  state  by p r i v a t e f o r the  p r o g r a m s t o have a system.  there  that  i n which  different turn  each  t o be u s e d  argued  by t h e e n v i r o n m e n t  have  the  formal  The  l e a r n i n g environments of f o r m a l to  since  difficult  that  systems  shape  close  two s y s t e m s  educational  saw  argued  on t h e  funded  education  argues  distinct  1973).  be  their  f o r m a l and  i s a close  f o r m a l , n o n f o r m a l and i n f o r m a l  Brembeck  a s two  may  the formal  (1974)  between  by  I t may be  nonformal  r e l a t i o n s h i p with  the  in  (1974)  exists  nonformal  nonformal  marked d i f f e r e n c e s between  is  systems of  Many  relationship  education  their  institutional  s y s t e m s , he was n o t c l e a r  formal  through  sponsorship,  nonformal education that  and numeracy  e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s and i n t h e  try  no  easily  their  educational  there  as l i t e r a c y  and n o n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n  their  they  such  cannot  But f o r m a l  arrangements, target  -  systems  and n o n f o r m a l  having  merits  i t s own  of nonformal  f o r immediate  needs  learned behaviour i s i t takes  place  and n o n f o r m a l  education  characteristics. learned  and  behaviour.  These The  22  educational  strategy  required  and  to create  support  and  alone  required  in out  those  encourage  education  pointed  i s to determine  i s not  society that  as  there  education  schooling  It  t r u e p o t e n t i a l of  may  appear kinds  nonformal  education.  learning  system  demanded  by  What  education  differs  relationship their  dividing  that  line  between them.  for  every  individual  useful  learning activities  e l e m e n t s of a  learning  'life-long  recommends  a  a  policy  will  proposing  two  but He  This  formal  system  the each  a n a l y s i s of  the  nonformal  (1974) education  saw  the  to  lie  a r r a n g e m e n t s and is  argues that  throughout  and  behaviour  and  there  and  by  required  Coombs  flexible  would be  of  nonformal  provided  education  i n f o r m a l , n o n f o r m a l and system  knowledge  no  to  diversified the  which formal  strengthened,  in  distinct  nations  l e a r n i n g systems' designed  with  further  i s to determine  institutional  objectives,  He  i . e . , schooling  be  society.  Coombs.  sponsorship,  He  will  formal  strive  time.  systems,  t o produce the  from  formal  behaviours  educational  (1973) was  between n o n f o r m a l and  educational  develop  i s required  particular  between  the  which  each.  educational  in order  a  relationship  their  of  that  characterize  the  Brembeck  environments  separate  in  that  the  distinct  to  behaviour  environments  to produce a l l  that  so  that  of  s t r o n g l y argued  i s a need  environments  reflect  He  kind  i t i s o f t e n assumed.  educational and  educational  i t . able  the  should provide  range  of  individual's life synthesizes  many  education.  Such  diversified  and  23  linked  more c l o s e l y  development. by in  Coombs  t o t h e needs and p r o c e s s e s  of n a t i o n a l  The d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e a n a l y t i c a l (1974) and Brembeck  t h e way t h e y  visualize  tools  (1973) seem t o be  formal  and  used  reflected  nonformal  education  systems. LaBelle between by  (1975)  outlined  a n a l y z i n g the predominant place.  his analysis.  three  modes  (1975) s e e s  Coombs and Ahmed  of  education  each other  is illustrated Figure  informal,  in Figure  1 illustrates nonformal  education  related  to  what  other  offers  curricular  formal  is  activities.  education in  like  education  Along  the  modes o f e d u c a t i o n  the dominant  type  the  observer  may d e c i d e learning  in  and a t  conflict.  to concentrate  modes  In  curriculum  is  pressures,  A t t h e same time  programs through vertical  line These  from t h e  the  extra-  are  the  reflect  perspective  F o r example, an h i s observation  that the teacher  of  systems.  group  or l e a r n i n g .  or t h e l e a r n e r .  activities  the  peer  of l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s  t o choose  i s , informal,  interactive  taught  processes  nonformal  LaBelle  1.  predominant  of  entities.  and a t t i m e s  the three  and  which  o f Coombs  a l l a t t h e same t i m e ,  r e g u l a t i o n s and o r g a n i z a t i o n .  school  through  t h e t h r e e e d u c a t i o n a l modes, t h a t  i n harmony w i t h  systems  (1974) seem t o t r e a t t h e  as d i s c r e t e  times  school  relationship  He f o l l o w s t h e d e f i n i t i o n s  to exist  formal  close  l e a r n i n g modes  n o n f o r m a l and f o r m a l ,  This  a  f o r m a l , n o n f o r m a l and i n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n a l  e a c h one t a k e s in  has  i s offering  observer on  the  b a s e d on  24  FIGURE the  curriculum  1:  rather  L A B E L L E ' S TYPOLOGY than  what  i s l e a r n t from  the  peer  groups. At  the  educational rather  top  of  types.  than  the  characteristics attendence,  process  reflect  educational  activity  must  be  toward  preplanned a  intentions  characteristics variety  of  day-to-day  education.  from  It  educational  ordering,  compulsory  and  reflect  environmental  or  the  certificates.  indicate  and may  lead be  that  learners  leaders.  that  the  schooling  defined  individual's  influences  the  structure  state-sanctioned  systematic goal.  the  of  Formal  characteristics  teachers  learning.  i s on  .requirements  and  of  characteristics  emphasis  of  separate  specific  are  hierarchical  admission  be  chart  Here the  Nonformal  but  the  by  to the  Informal  contact  with  result  a in  25  The  aim  of  interrelationships However, exist  apart  and  the  assessed  with  the l i f e  sees  the  educational  instructional  as  there  that  occur  setting.  LaBelle  o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s  nonformal  the  modes.  e d u c a t i o n a l modes,  life-time  and  on h i s a c c e s s  education  should  be  span.  relationship  education  educational  display  e d u c a t i o n a l modes, d e p e n d i n g  through  nonformal  three  to  opportunities  He a r g u e s t h a t  Coles  is  three  i n t h e same  out the importance  need.  the  learning  simultaneously  his contact  figure  among  from  other  points  the  linkages  systems of a c o u n t r y  between between  formal the  (as i l l u s t r a t e d  and  different in  Figure  2). Figure education ladders  2  illustrates  and  nonformal  the  education.  f o r nonformal education  sector.  I t excludes  nonformal  by  departments  like  other  community those  development  individuals  education between  system.  formal  education  who  linkages  The f i g u r e  formal  indicates  into  the  the  formal  e d u c a t i o n a l programs o f f e r e d  others  cannot  It  graduate  health,  and  between  agricultural which  participate illustrates  extension,  are offered for in  the  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  e d u c a t i o n a l and i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d  systems a t the d i f f e r e n t  formal  educational  nonformal  levels.  26  FORMAL LADDERS  NON-FORMAL LADDERS  THE "ACADEMIC LADDER  E X A M P L E S OF VOCATIONAL  DOCTORATE  MASTERS  FIRST DEGREE  NATIONAL CERTIFICATE  SCHOOL CERTIFICATE  ADULT CERTIFICATE  JUNIOR CERTIFICATE  BASIC EDUCATION CERTIFICATE  PRIMARY LEAVING  INTERMEDIATE CERTIFICATE  LITERACY CERTIFICATE  FIGURE  2:  R E L A T I O N S H I P BETWEEN FORMAL NONFORMAL EDUCATION LADDERS  AND  27  P u r p o s e of N o n f o r m a l  Education  Some of t h e p e r c e i v e d f u n c t i o n s of n o n f o r m a l are  ( G r a n d s t a f f , 1974;  1.  Activities  oriented primarily  skill  knowledge of members of  those 2.  already  Activities mostly  3.  and  the youth,  Activities  services extend  for entry to  beyond and  provide the  to  into  the  labour  of  the  force for  a  prepare  skill,  t h e work wide  s c o p e of  persons,  employment;  develop  which t r a n s c e n d  that  skills  t o the development  primarily  designed  Activities  1973):  employed;  designed  understanding 4.  Harbison,  education  and  world;  range  formal  knowledge g a i n e d  knowledge  of  learning  education  in formal  and  to  education;  and 5.  Activities  designed  to  educational  possibilities.  open  up  M a j o r D i f f e r e n c e s Between F o r m a l and Table of  nonformal  1 provides a comparison and  formal  education.  of  n e g l e c t e d domains of  Nonformal the  Education  characteristics  28  Table  1:  A C o m p a r i s o n of t h e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of N o n f o r m a l and F o r m a l E d u c a t i o n Nonformal  Formal  Structure  Flexible. Low d e g r e e of s t r u c t u r e . Little interrelatedn e s s of components.  Highly structured functionally interrelated sets of units. Graded s e q u e n t i a l system.  Content  Skill centered. Dictated by funct i o n a l needs of p a r ticipants. At t i m e s may conflict with s t a t u s quo and e l i t e values.  Standardized. Academic emphasis on c o g n i t i v e knowledge. Less emphasis on psychomotor skills. A b s t r a c t and f o u n d e d on t h e o r y . Reflects s t a t u s quo and e l i t e values.  Timing  Period depends on a c h i e v e m e n t of t a s k . Based on immediate learning needs a r i s i n g from t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s r o l e s and stages in life. Usually part-time and may be t i m e d in a v a r i e t y of ways.  Long in duration. Future oriented. Provides the basis for i n d i v i d u a l participation in society. Usually f u l l time. Does not p e r mit other parallel activities to take place.  Control  Control usually uncoordinated, fragmented, d i f f u s e , and involves a variety of agencies. Greater degree of local control.  Curricula and s t a n dards externally controlled at nat i o n a l and regional levels.  Takes p l a c e i n a variety of settings. Learning is functionally r e l a t e d to learning.  Takes place in i n stitutions. Learning is physically i s o l a t e d from a p p l i cation .  Delivery  system  29  Table  1  (continued)  Nonformal  Formal  Functions  Meets short-term learning needs of individuals. Students resocialization, acculturation and learning of p r a c t i c a l skills and knowledge t o be u s e d a t work or community situation. Terminal, closeended and seeks to bring distinct groups of people into conformity with p r i n c i p l e s and p r a c tices of other g r o u p s or a g e n c i e s .  Provides basis for individual's future. Based on credentials. S t r e s s e s socialization, encult u r a t i o n and p e r p e t u a t i o n of education bureaucracies. Legitimizes existing e l i t e s , their values and behaviours. Confers status, seeking for more schooling and s e e k s to b r i n g youth into conformity w i t h the c o n t r o l l i n g body.  Reward  Payoffs tend t o be tangible. Immediate short-term gains related to work or daily l i f e : employment, better pay, higher agricultural yield, self-awareness, power t o c o n t r o l environment.  Payoffs tend t o be deferred in longterm gain in s o c i a l and e c o n o m i c s t a t u s .  Method of Instruction  Methods relatively f l e x i b l e ; r e l a t e d to application due to flexible nature of nonformal education programs.  T e a c h i n g methods a r e dictated by policy since knowledge is standardized. Inflexible. Noninnovat i v e .  Part ic ipants  Learners are from all age groups. Job-mobility concerns predominate among t h e learners. Great variety of teacher qualifications and motivations .  L e a r n e r s age d e f i n e d predictable. S o c i a l - m o b i l i t y conscious. Teachers formally certified and their status correlated with their location in the school hierarchy .  system  30  Table  1  (continued)  Nonformal Cost  Costs have great Costs are standardvariation depending ized by l e v e l and on a p a r t i c u l a r p r o - i n c r e a s e moving up gram. the s t r u c t u r a l h i e r archy .  Although formal  Table  1  indicates  and nonformal e d u c a t i o n ,  a l w a y s so d i s t i n c t . take  Formal  place  formalized nonformal  (Coombs, education  authoritarian (Paulston,  Some  programs  at  d e g r e e a n d may n o t a l w a y s be h i g h l y  education  systems.  characteristics how i t d i f f e r s We w i l l rural  and  times  We  highly  be  may be v e r y be  a  very minimal  matter  of  visible. of  to the formal  have  functions  from t h e f o r m a l  areas.  a c t i v i t i e s do  may  may  also  nonformal  and i n f o r m a l  discussed  of nonformal educational  now d i s c u s s t h e d i s p a r i t i e s  and urban  a r e not  methods o f t e a c h i n g i n  t o d e f i n e the concept  a n d how i t i s r e l a t e d  educational  education  participation  Such d i f f e r e n c e s  We have a t t e m p t e d  differences  e d u c a t i o n a l system and a r e  1974).  and s t u d e n t  1973).  these  Some n o n f o r m a l  i n the formal  t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between  the  e d u c a t i o n and  system.  that e x i s t  between  31  Education The  education  i n R u r a l and  systems  have shown a d i s p a r i t y urban  areas  in their  (Coombs & Ahmed,  more s c h o o l s a t a l l l e v e l s teacher-pupil given  by  people  the to  rural-urban areas  on  ratios formal  (Simmons, migration  completion  employment  in  contributing  factor  rural  and  the  remain e n t a n g l e d are  no  traditional is  curriculum argument  follows does  necessary  to  The help  urban areas  the  rural  young  within  rural  has  traditional  for  young  resulted  in  leave  rural  the of  the  peasant to  a  gainful  become  exists  urban a r e a s  people  education  has  that  process,  lower  the  Education  modernization i n the  have  of  schooling in search  While  and  type  way  This  city.  that  the the not  to  have  offered  i n urban  a  schools.  that  develope  For  the  rural  totally  be  should  schools  premise  schools.  should  there  rural  function in  better  rural  1975).  meaningful  their  rural  b e t t e r e q u i p m e n t and  i n the d i s p a r i t y  argued for  there  The  i n w h i c h young p e o p l e  of  countries  a  between  are f o r g i n g rural  areas  economy.  There  remain  in  the  economies.  schools  that  1974).  1979).  the  incentives  It  a  urban a r e a s .  ahead w i t h  many d e v e l o p i n g  s y s t e m does not in  Areas  p r o v i s i o n between  with  (Lowe,  function  communities  of  Urban  But the  be  a  (Barber,  1976).  what  offered  is  skills  communities.  different Evans  and  The in  attitudes It  may  be  c u r r i c u l u m than  is  (1976) s t r o n g l y a r g u e s  same c u r r i c u l u m  political  different  reasons  f o r urban and  and fair  32  redistribution that as  rural  urban  schools  though  two  separate  gap  between  the  in  complementing of  its  those  organized organizations and  adults.  into  other  1974).  serve  They  The  rural  counterparts  for their  children.  education left of  would  is  out  of  in  the  molding  its  formal  supplementing  in  or has  serve  Such  a very  values.  developmental  programs  ministries  coordinated  developmental  different  of  goals  are  usually  and  s m a l l number o f  t o be  social  2 shows t h e  broad  a  generating  embraces e d u c a t i o n a l components  need  economic and  Table  existing  schooling  different  and  having  to  1974).  by  appears  Nonformal e d u c a t i o n  to  Ahmed,  It  schooling. formal  idea  education  communities.  are  a t t i t u d e s and  designed  of  idea.  their  who  the  the a l r e a d y  nonformal  Nonformal education  &  rural if  seems  argument, b e c a u s e  characteristic  formal  influencing  (Coombs  this  and  for  importance  programs  better  e d u c a t i o n a l system  for reaching  s y s t e m , and  skills,  urban  rationale  potential  accept  feel neglected  have a d i f f e r e n t  role  to  the  it  same t y p e  systems would p e r p e t u a t e  would  The  resources,  s h o u l d have t h e  s c h o o l s might be  difficult  people  of a n a t i o n s  voluntary rural  and  youths  integrated  goals  (Coombs,  l e a r n i n g needs of  rural  investment  rural  populat ions. There  is  need  areas  before  Even  where n o n f o r m a l  areas,  they  for  capital  e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s can  are  education  usually inferior  i n the  make a  contribution.  programs e x i s t to  those  i n the  found  in  rural the  Table  2:  I l l u s t r a t i v e Rural and T h e i r L e a r n i n g  GROUPS Persons directly engaged in agriculture 1.  Commerical farmers  2.  Small subsistence and semisubsistence farm families  3.  Landless farm workers  Persons engaged in off-farm commercial activities  Occupational Needs  TYPES OF LEARNING NEEDS (at varying levels of sophistication and specialization) Farm planning and management; rational decision making; record keeping; cost and revenue computations; use of credit. Application of new inputs improved farm practices. Storage, processing, food preservation. Supplementary s k i l l s for farm maintenance and improvement and sideline jobs for extra income.  1.  Retailers and wholesalers of farm supplies and equipment, consumer goods and other items.  2.  Suppliers of repair and maintenance services.  3.  Processors, storers and shippers of agricultural commodities.  4.  Suppliers of banking and credit services.  5.  Construction and other artisans.  6.  Suppliers of general transport services.  New and improved technical skills applicable to particular goods and services.  7.  Small  Quality control.  manufacturers.  Knowledge of government services, policies, programs, targets. Knowledge and s k i l l s for family, improvement of ref. health, nutrition, home economics, child care, family planning. Civic s k i l l s ref. knowledge of how cooperatives, local government , national government function.  Technical knowledge of goods handled sufficient to advise customers on their use, maintenance, etc.  General services personnel; rural administrators, planners, technical experts 1.  General public administrators , broad-gauged analysts and planners of subnational levels.  2.  Managers, planners, technicians, and trainers for specific public services (e.g. agriculture/ transport, irrigation, health, small industry, educations, family services, local government, etc.)  3.  Managers of cooperatives and other farmer associations.  4.  Managers and other personnel of credit services.  Management s k i l l s (business planning; record keeping and cost accounting; procurement and inventory control; market analysis and sales methods; customer and employee relations; knowledge of government services, regulations, taxes; use of credit. General s k i l l s for administration planning, implementation, information flows, promotional activities. Technical and management skills applying to particular specialties. Leadership s k i l l s for generating community enthusiasm and collective action, staff team work and support from higher education.  Groups  33  34  urban  areas.  Coombs both  and  Ahmed  national  (1974)  and  attributes  disparity  to  international  regarding  t h e a l l o c a t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s .  this  policies Within  the n a t i o n a l development p l a n s , formal education r e c e i v e s a larger  share  of  r e s o u r c e s b o t h i n r u r a l and  Urban a r e a s g e t a education  than  larger rural  share  areas.  of  funds  for  t o work w i t h .  are  regarded as p r i m i t i v e .  i g n o r e d and  nonformal  Such a s i t u a t i o n l e a v e s ' t h e  r u r a l areas very l i t t l e often  urban a r e a s .  Traditional  skills  Skills  that  r e q u i r e modern m a c h i n e r y a r e p r o m o t e d . In  order  to  meet  the  p o p u l a t i o n , a model d e v e l o p e d  learning by C o l e s  needs of t h e (9182) may  be  (see F i g u r e 3 ) .  Naclonal  c  o  to*  Local Coosnl CCees  FIGURE 3: VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALLY, THE PROVINCE-DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE  rural useful  35  The  diagram  horizontal  tries  integration  level.  If  national  development,  between  officials  local  nonformal  to  illustrate  of nonformal e d u c a t i o n education  i t should  at  vertical  is  an  and  at the l o c a l  integral  p a r t of  be a means o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n  the n a t i o n a l l e v e l  and those  at the  level. A  person's  feature  voluntary  participation  of nonformal e d u c a t i o n .  flourish  in  individuals 1982).  countries  are allowed  Like  education  where the  Coombs, C o l e s  programs should  i s an e s s e n t i a l  Nonformal  education  can  there  democracy  and  freedom argues  is to  develop  strongly that  be r e l a t e d  to the  needs  (Coles, nonformal of  the  people. Nonformal Education The because  concept i t holds  modernization 1980;  education change  order  that  i n these  theories  of  of nonformal e d u c a t i o n promise of b e i n g  process  Harbison,  1973). is  of  hoped  will  toward e i t h e r two  countries  how  relate  nonformal  societies.  change t e n d  to  e q u i l i b r i u m or c o n f l i c t  view  (Coombs,  i s one a r e a  bring social  change a s t h e y  promoted  to c o n t r i b u t e to the  of  and e c o n o m i c  I t may be i m p o r t a n t  h e l p t o b r i n g change t o t h e s e and s o c i a l  i s being  Nonformal education  countries.  social  able  developing  t o h e l p us u n d e r s t a n d  education  and Development  to look  at  to education i n education  Major  t h e o r i e s of  society  bending  and t h a t w i t h i n  main c a t e g o r i e s numerous p e r s p e c t i v e s e x i s t .  may  these  Included  36  in  t h e s e a r e some t h e o r i e s  which d i s p l a y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  b o t h t h e e q u i l i b r i u m and c o n f l i c t Structural the  social  state.  functionalism.  system  as  Such a s t a t e  natural  order  as  socialization Halsey,  i s arrived at as  social  or  control  results  disturbances  in  in  believes  forces  Coombs  result  of  mechanisms  offer  (1968)  relationship Nonformal  both  such  as  (Karabel  and  &  changes  pressure  Harbison  (1973) in  their  between n o n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n  when  t o overcome t h e believe  i s what  systems  use  Parson  occur  process  for mobility  as  Hence t h e y  of i n d i v i d u a l s . the  structural/  analysis and  nonformal  believe  programs  holds being  of  that  i n order  the  development.  i s seen a s a v e h i c l e t o b r i n g  a system.  be  Internal  Structural/functionalists  assumptions  change t o o c c u r .  to  disequilibrating  structural  opportunities  organize  change  system.  They v i e w e d u c a t i o n a l  education  change w i t h i n  t o some  the  the system a r e s u f f i c i e n t  together.  to  to  shows  and t h e s o c i a l i z a t i o n  functionalist  should  that  in  equilibrium,  able  shows  some a l t e r a t i o n s i n t h e s y s t e m .  of e q u i l i b r i u m .  society  a  processes  theory  external  changes a r e adjustments  (1970)  theory  1977).  internal  which  as  certain  Structural/functionalist either  Equilibrium  one w h i c h moves t o w a r d a p r e f e r r e d  well  and  positions.  the  desired state  for desired  37  Conflict theory  which  intervention history  the  social  thus  the  seen  to play  able  education Carnoy  to  offer  relative  role  in  shaping  political  the  manner t o  (1976),  Bock  nonformal  education  The  operation  Education i s  acquisition  (1976),  and  different,  for  LaBelle  assumptions  views  in  about  theory.  of  inequality.  (1976) use t h e  their  analysis  in a  formal  of  conditions. conditions  theorists  Paulston under  which  and f u n c t i o n .  social  perceive the  particular  country.  b e l i e v e i n the  there  and n o n f o r m a l  may e x i s t  and  authors  They b e l i e v e t h a t  i n both  p r o g r a m s may e x i s t  change.  mobility  education  t h e way t h e d i f f e r e n t  Nonformal education different  influence  have s t r e s s e d t h e r o l e o f  structuralists/functionalists  investment  of  to function  a system of s t r u c t u r e d  of nonformal e d u c a t i o n  human c a p i t a l  power  and d e v e l o p m e n t .  two d i f f e r i n g reflect  of  view e d u c a t i o n a l s y s t e m s a s  theorists  in maintaining  human  i n t e r v e n t i o n r e s u l t s as  opportunities  conflict  theoretical  more  the  t o i n f l u e n c e change.  effective  conflict  change  in  conflict  that  a t t r i b u t e s and t h e e x p e r t i s e n e c e s s a r y  individuals,  The  or l o s e  is  assumption  This  structural/functionalists  being  category  force  change.  important  an a p p r o x i m a t e l y  While  the  decisive  ability  an  The o t h e r upon  groups gain  and  skills,  rests  is  and  conflicting  in  theories.  should  be  education.  and o p e r a t e (1976) nonformal  under  many  outlines  the  educational  38  Dimensions o f Non-formal Education and ' D e v e l o p m e n t ' L i t e r a t u r e  I  Participant Control Pole  II  "Education i n Reformist S o c i a l E t h n i c Movements O r i e n t a t i o n "  Non-formal E d u c a t i o n Control Continuum  IV " E c o l o g i c a l or Func t i o n a 1 i s c O r i en t a t i or."  III "Life-long learning Or i en ca t i o n " Government Imposed Control Pole  Individual  Coa I s Con t i nuum  •Change Pole  k  Systems Change P o l e  FIGURE 4: PAULSTON'S FRAMEWORK OF NONFORMAL EDUCATION SYSTEMS Figure 4 indicates, the various p o l i c y s t r a t e g i e s taken on  two  axes.  The h o r i z o n t a l a x i s i n d i c a t e s t h e g o a l s f o r  n o n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n programs.  This  axis  is a  continuum  from t h o s e who v i e w t h a t t h e g o a l of n o n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n i s t o change i n d i v i d u a l a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v i o r , t o view  who  n o n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n a s a t o o l f o r s o c i a l and economic  change. degree  those  The v e r t i c a l a x i s i n d i c a t e s t h e c o n t i n u u m of  education.  control  of t h e  f o r t h o s e who p a r t i c i p a t e i n n o n f o r m a l  I t r u n s from  c o n t r o l by t h e p o l i t i c a l  full system.  participation  to  complete  39  The  framework  formulating  policies  'ecological' treats of to  or  utilization  the  educational  approach Ahmed,  system to  of  t o development  out  of  schooling  offer  skills  limited An  to  social  example  adults.  Such  this  approach  encourages  and  economic  needs  of  the  by  of  These  &  programs  o f a d u l t s who a r e the l i m i t e d  learners,  and,  an a p p r o a c h a l s o by t h e  human  (Coombs  t o supplement  will  system.  or f u n c t i o n a l i s t  1973).  school  change c o n t r o l l e d  of  use  proposed  1982; C a l l a w a y ,  f o r the e a r l y  maximum  a l l sectors  ecological  are those  level  nonformal and i n f o r m a l  maximum  the  coexistence  t o support such a  formal,  the formal system;  formal  an a p p r o a c h  It also  investment i n  ensure  Examples  1974; C o l e s ,  able  -  i s the  with  political  are developed t o serve the l e a r n i n g left  Such  i s concerned  resources.  are best  encourages  i n order  IV  from the s u b s i s t e n c e  i n the v a r i o u s  which  an a p p r o a c h  resources.  T h i s view  a l l human  Such  approaches i n  Quadrant  approach.  of p r o d u c t i o n  changes  institutions  systems,  f o r development.  level. of  different  as a p r o c e s s f o r harmonious  a l l the forces industrial  at four  functionalist  development  structural  looks  state  to  assumes  priorities.  be d i s c u s s e d  in detail  later. In Q u a d r a n t control  imposed  Lengrad  (1973).  I I I i s the " l i f e - l o n g from t h e o u t s i d e  the  According to Lengrad  education  s y s t e m must  and  future  the  as  find  so t h a t  learning",  outlined  by  (1973), t h e p r e s e n t  ways o f l i n k i n g changes  one  which has  with  the  past  b e i n g made a r e r e l a t e d t o  40  the  past  and  The vague  the  literature and  is  organizations these  on  life-long  (OECD, UNESCO and  different  nonformal  III.  and  examples a r e  The  discuss  Faure  concept  specifically  relating  Quadrant  I  which  movements.  Liberating  altering  social social  Movement  i n Canada, t h e  Quadrant in  any  Black II  Panther  i n d i c a t e s an  folk  literature  illustrate  on that  Quadrant Lengrad  terms  without  education. on  achieve  drawn  and  ethnic  programs  have  movement g o a l s through  from  schools  e d u c a t i o n a l programs u t o p i a which  nonformal  social  education  high  so  t h e work of  relations  be  education  in  collective  the  Antigonish  in  Scandinavia  i n t h e U.S.A..  is unlikely  to  exist  system.  Coombs  (1974) and  establishment  of  controlled  by  the  education  as  a  r e a c h i n g major the  may  E a c h of  learning exists  on  to  economic  of Rome).  literature  nonformal  movements  various  No  to  too  by  general  to nonformal  Examples  the  its  the  often  life-long  and  concentrates  and  of  mind.  report  in  efforts.  and  concept  available  contains  education  the C l u b  in  is  differently  life-long  (1972)  the  assisted  the  objectives  education  separate  learning  interpretated  o r g a n i z a t i o n s use  with  no  future.  formal  Harbison  nonformal state.  school  education  They  development  s e c t i o n s of system.  (1973)  the For  see  the  strategy  believed programs role  of  which  s o c i e t y who development  are  in  the  that  are  nonformal can  left  to occur  aim  at  out  of  in  the  41  developing utilized  c o u n t r i e s , human r e s o u r c e s  at  nonformal  its fullest.  education  distortions  t o be  c r e a t e d by  nonformal education level  jobs  Coombs'  i n the  formal  may  the  (1973) saw  education.  provide  model  developed the  and  role  a means of c o u n t e r - b a l a n c i n g  economy  (1974)  d e v e l o p m e n t and  Harbison  need be  people  in order  He  with  some  believes skills  of  that  for high  to maintain e q u i l i b r i u m .  differs  as  it  emphasizes  improvement  of  life  for  rural  the  rural  people. Both assume only  Coombs'  that the  (1974)  there  should  structural  development  and  and be  are  seen as  Bock tradition,  elites that  important  (1976) and  exist  argument,  between it  (1976),  nonformal  the  would  better.  However,  developing operating  countries. according  even when f u n d e d be  seen as  by  rural  locally  programs would s e r v e  the  does not Such  t o the  fund  the They  programs  strategy.  using  the  by  conflict  and  needs of  inequalities From  the  seem t o be  development  their  nonformal population  very  must  and  national  initiated  programs  governments.  the  sectors.  be  g o a l s of  private organizations.  t h r e a t s to  allow  institutionalization  u r b a n and  this  to  the d i s t o r t i o n s  education  to  resources.  education  appear  models  maximize  i n the development  the  further perpetuates  to  human  only w i l l i n g  that  of  of  Carnoy  argue  legitimization  required  utilization  (1973)  government c o n t r o l  changes  assume t h a t g o v e r n m e n t s a r e that  Harbison's  I f not  common i n seen the  as  state  they  may  42  Coombs' addresses  (1974)  the b a s i c  strategy  needs  of  for  the  rural  (1975) assumes t h a t  t h e r e i s concensus  country  he  because  assumptions. nonformal clear will  Although  he  to  how  served, since  programs.  He  the  are  that  clear  where  on  there  that  their is  people.  and  Coombs  harmony w i t h i n  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s on to function,  he  needs o f t h e r u r a l state  assumes t h a t  needs of t h e p e o p l e and state  offers  the b a s i c  development  a  structural/functionalist  e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s ought  as be  makes  rural  ought  to  how  is  not  communities  control  such  t h e p e o p l e a t t h e t o p know t h e both the r u r a l  developmental  democracy,  p e o p l e and  goals.  such  an  the  I t appears  argument  is  workable. Those  who  believe  (Carnoy,  1976;  the s t a t e  may  extend  the  in conflict  LaBelle, sponsor  influence  1981;  of  the  At  education  programs t o f o s t e r  social  nonformal of  its  nationalistic  graduates  in society.  encourage  to a l t e r  and  nonformal  power r e l a t i o n s  Papagiannis,  1983).  1976)  state may  and  the  programs the  to  formal  nonformal  promotion the  inferior  p e r p e t u a t e s the conflict  e d u c a t i o n systems in society  that  of  status existing  assumptions,  t h a t may  (LaBelle,  of  existing  institutionalization  i t legitimizes  Using the  society  argue  promote  values to maintain  therefore  may  beyond  participation  against  with  education  the s t a t e  They a r g u e  e d u c a t i o n , as  inequalities they  t h e same t i m e  order.  Bock,  nonformal  schools.  ideological  existing  1976;  be  able  Bock  &  43  Conclusion The  literature  concept  as  major  a  costs  faster  than  1968).  employment  of  Ahmed,  1974;  concept  of  makers  and  the concept  planners  Ahmed,  1974;  of 1974;  Nonformal  resource  development  literature played  reviewed in  able  the  have  been  to a f f o r d  them  matched  with  not  i n the  literature  its definition 1976;  has  on  been d e v e l o p e d as  an  the  (Coombs  L a B e l l e , 1976).  agencies  by  & The  policy  alternative  outcomes  have  countries  (Coombs &  nonformal  education  1979). recognizes  and  its ability  especially 1973;  education (Harbison,  done  analyzed.  created a large pool  a l l developing  Grandstaff,  being  on  funding  reviewed  people,  the  1979).  1973,  its flexibility  1973).  has  of  in  Simmons,  literature  is  has  were  e d u c a t i o n a l s y s t e m s whose  disappointing  numbers  and  Paulston,  formal  b e c a u s e of  that  (Simmons,  nonformal education  funding  The  this  the  i n which  training  have  i s a g e n e r a l agreement  development  Ahmed,  investments  of  have been made,  teacher  c o u n t r i e s are  o p p o r t u n i t i e s and  There  (1968) work  in education  these  Such  development  systems  s c h o o l s and  unemployed y o u t h s  been  of Coomb's  educational  of m a i n t a i n i n g  (Coombs,  to  of  t r a c e d the  l a r g e investments  rising  of  result  failures  Although  review  by  ignores  assisting  in  rural  Paulston, may  1973).  social  1976;  Except  (1976),  role  reach  areas  also assist  Paulston the  to  (Coombs & Callaway,  i n the f o r the most  nonformal  movements  large  in  of  human work the  education different  44  countries. minority  Nonformal e d u c a t i o n  groups  The  perceive  the  influenced  role  to  influenced  different  how  the  theorists  nonformal education  in relation to Those  Carnoy,  view  the  conflict be  existing  of  theories  studies  Those  as  that  are  nonformal this  will  society  (Bock,  1976; P a u l s t o n ,  1976).  They  that  education may  help  a s an a l t e r n a t i v e individuals  literature to  reviewed  support  shows  lack  bring  some o f t h e a s s e r t i o n s  (Bock & P a p a g i a n n i s ,  1983).  Little  of  empirical  that  are being  r e s e a r c h has  c o n d u c t e d on t h e m e r i t s o f n o n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n The studies education  next chapter that  have been  systems.  nonformal  attempts  to  analyze  The s t u d i e s  education  are reviewed  been  systems. a  conducted i n the f i e l d  have been d e v e l o p e d , and are.  may  in  nonformal  development  which  argue that  inequalities  stress  in society.  The  what  that are  (Coombs & Ahmed,  institutionalized  1976; L a B e l l e ,  role  systems  1972; H a r b i s o n , 1973).  the  the  education  modernization process  s h o u l d not  1976;  made  the  i t may be i m p l e m e n t e d .  the  by  perpetuate  changes  goals.  that  influence  nonformal  Grandstaff,  in  group  by t h e s t r u c t u r a l / f u n c t i o n a l i s t t h e o r i e s  contribute  system  of  and how  state-planned  education  indicates  orientations  development,  1974;  i n society to achieve  literature  theoretical  has t h e p o t e n t i a l t o a s s i s t  few  major  of n o n f o r m a l to  find  out  s y s t e m s e x i s t , how t h e s e s y s t e m s what  the  major  recommendations  45  CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH ON NONFORMAL EDUCATION Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e This  chapter  on R e s e a r c h on N o n f o r m a l  will  research  studies  nonformal  education i n the l a s t  criteria (a)  that  critically  were u s e d  the s t u d i e s  covered  in  the  have been c o n d u c t e d  in selecting  were  related  previous  formed  a good b a s i s  order  to  implications  analyze  will  evaluate  i n the f i e l d  surveys  the  impact  and of  populations.  The  been c o n d u c t e d  in Africa  and  those that  have  (1979)  and  in  research  studies  that  will  (1975)  in  Bock  1983).  countries  that  education  research  which  and  have  programs. studies  designed  education  that  on  to the have  Dejomaoh  (1972)  Other d e s c r i p t i v e  studies  conducted  Botswana  by  in  Coles  Ethiopia (1982).  be r e v i e w e d a r e t h o s e  Malaysia  reviewed  surveys a r e those that  1980). been  be  education, i . e . ,  studies  by S h e f f i e l d  Niehoff  by  were  and c o n c l u s i o n s  nonformal  Coombs e t a l . (1974,  include  the studies  will  of nonformal  descriptive  review  ( c ) most o f t h e s t u d i e s  The r e s e a r c h  results  t o be r e v i e w e d :  t h e r e a r e two k i n d s o f r e s e a r c h  be r e v i e w e d  descriptive  (b)  the  following  literature  developing  f o r p l a n n i n g nonformal  Generally  the  of  i n t h e f i e l d on The  the s t u d i e s  f o r comparison, 1970.  some  years.  chapter,  c o v e r e d a number o f t h e  in  12  to  large,  were c o n d u c t e d a f t e r  review  Education  and L a t i n  America  by The  conducted (LaBelle,  46  Descriptive Sheffield c o v e r e d many Africa. date. and  and Dejomaoh types  There  nonformal  education  problem.  the study  International investments  The  to policy  in  makers i n A f r i c a  through  funds  Development. in  from  After  formal schooling,  budgets.  i n j o b s f o r many  especially  observations  l e d the p o l i c y  education.  t h e U.S. Agency f o r  a  decade  increasing  those  of  large  that the  much f a s t e r  than  i n s c h o o l i n g d i d not pay  completed  schooling,  Institute  i t was r e a l i z e d  Investments who  dimensions of  African-American  f o r f o r m a l s c h o o l i n g were  the n a t i o n a l  that  projects  funding agencies to look at c r i t i c a l  conducted  nonformal  a survey  has been no f o l l o w - u p s t u d i e s c o n d u c t e d t o  t h e unemployment  off  of  Surveys  (1972) c o n d u c t e d  The s u r v e y was a r e s p o n s e of  costs  Research  different  with  makers  The o b j e c t i v e s  low  to  levels  levels.  gain  Such  interest  of t h e s u r v e y  of  in  were  to i d e n t i f y p r o d u c t i v e nonformal e d u c a t i o n programs in selected c o u n t r i e s e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e t h a t were s u c c e s s f u l , i n n o v a t i v e and t r a n s f e r a b l e so that A f r i c a n g o v e r n m e n t s and e x t e r n a l a i d a g e n c i e s c o u l d learn from these projects and d e v e l o p useful projects elsewhere (Sheffield & Dejomaoh, 1972: xii ) . Sheffield education 1.  and  Dejomaoh  programs t h a t  programs  that  (1972)  looked  had t h e f o l l o w i n g  served  as  a t nonformal  qualities:  alternatives  to  formal  schooling; 2.  programs schooling  that  served  for skills  as  training  an  extension  f o r employment;  of  formal  47  3.  programs t h a t  were d e s i g n e d  f o r upgrading  the  skills  of  t h o s e a l r e a d y employed; 4.  programs t h a t early  were  designed  community. training  Some in  developed  i n response  programs  preparation  as  on-job  training.  et  for  for  (1973) c a r r i e d  Included  i n the  Indonesia, Korea,  Jamaica).  The  guidelines  1.  developed  wage  training  al.  Caribbean  funding  t o t h e needs of  were  UNICEF t o l o o k a t ways o f a s s i s t i n g  the  for  the  the  for  skills  employment.  Some  the  urgently  needed  manpower.  Coombs  (China,  self-employment  school-leavers.  Most p r o g r a m s d e v e l o p e d  skilled  for  and  that  agencies  America  aimed a t  for  rural  in  Lanka,  (Brazil, finding  by  skills Asia  Thailand),  Columbia, information  Cuba, and  b o t h d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s and  areas:  a s s e s s t h e needs w i t h i n education  youths  funded  s t u d y were c o u n t r i e s from  would a s s i s t in these  rural  Malaysia, S r i  Latin  s t u d y was  out a s u r v e y  a given country children  and  for  youth,  nonformal  particularly  the o u t - o f - s c h o o l s , 2.  plan e f f e c t i v e needs,  including  nonformal 3.  and  and  economical attention  t o the  time,  and  to  meet  relationship  these between  formal e d u c a t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s ,  d e v e l o p means t o e v a l u a t e and over  programs  s t r e n g t h e n such  programs  48  4.  define  the  greatest  help  nonformal This  to  external  countries  educational  in  strategies  being conducted  (Coombs  out-of-school  &  covers  t h e same range  of  and L a t i n  were i n c l u d e d funded  1974).  youth while the  populations  Caribbean,  b u t whose  Ahmed,  adult  Bank  i n which  a g e n c i e s c a n be o f implementing  and  their  programs.  s u r v e y was c o n d u c t e d a t t h e same t i m e a s a n o t h e r  s u r v e y was later  ways  from  the  The  1974  was  aimed a t  aimed  areas.  of c o u n t r i e s  published  1973 r e p o r t  report  rural  America,  report  The  1974  from A f r i c a ,  the  report  Asia,  a l t h o u g h many o t h e r  other developing countries.  the survey with the o v e r a l l  at  projects  The  purpose  of  the  World finding  out: 1.  what  extent  financing programs, 2.  what field  be  the  World  extended  to  Bank's  educational  nonformal  educational  and  strategy and  appropriate The  could  should the what  might  World be  types of p r o j e c t  specific  objectives  Bank  the  pursue  most  in  promising  this and  to support.  o f t h e s t u d y were  t o d e v e l o p the b a s i s of examining p a s t experience, present evidence, and any f r e s h i d e a s - improved information, analytical methods and practical guidelines, t h a t would be u s e f u l t o t h o s e a c t u a l l y i n p l a n n i n g , i m p l e m e n t i n g and evaluating programs of nonformal e d u c a t i o n geared t o r u r a l development (Coombs & Ahmed, 1974, p . 4 ) . The  survey  programs t h a t  was  concerned  with  were d e s i g n e d t o improve  nonformal education the  knowledge  and  49  skills  of farmers,  rural  artisans, craft  workers,  and s m a l l  entrepeneurs. Some n o n f o r m a l response  to  national Some  some  specific  government a s p a r t  took  needs  e d u c a t i o n programs  the  as  well  organization  shape as  changes  to  conducted at  youth  communities.  programs  The s t u d y  the  studies  major  finding  willing The surveyed  programs  free  research  integrated  non-governmental governmental  were  rural  rural  small  to  areas  bring  looked of the  o f some  by  rural  ( I n d i a , S r i Lanka, as  a  basic  environment.  unit  Most o f t h e  organizations  and  supervision.  One  vertical  study  was  the  question  people  of  were n o t  areas.  development  scale  organizations  departments).  surveyed  sponsored  survey  The l o c a l young e d u c a t e d  t o work i n t h e s e  were  from  the  i n t h e 1973 s u r v e y  by n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l  and  of  organizations.  a reserch  as i t s b a s i c  of t h i s  personnel.  programs  f o c u s e d on t h e f a m i l y  were f u n d e d  autonomous  the  process.  t o community  objectives  i n Asian countries  community  were  local  of  in  by t h e  by UNICEF s p e c i f i c a l l y  Youth  (1980) c o n d u c t e d  integrated  i n response the  and n o n g o v e r n m e n t a l  Coombs  modernization  were a v a i l a b l e i n r u r a l  countries.  governmental  identified  Most p r o g r a m s  by Coombs s p o n s o r e d  different  and  Most  developed  government p r o g r a m s d e s i g n e d  programs t h a t  Korea).  took  achieve  involved.  as  of the  they  to  seemed t o be l a r g e l y  needs  were  projects  programs (and  in  These p r o j e c t s  that  were  developed  by  some were  cases  by  intended to  50  help  the  all  the  major  rural  projects  role  ministries such  poor  as  by  t o have an  improved  surveyed,  private organizations  working  involved health,  very  i n the  rural  education,  and  associations  have c o o p e r a t e d  improving major  the  agriculture.  family  f i n d i n g of  transferable The private  developing  these  The  and  program o b j e c t i v e s , the  context  of  so  is that  family  and  crafts,  Voluntary  and  private  lesson  This  which  cooperation  in  is a  can  be  between  departments support.  to  t h e y view  the  socio-economic  of  these  life  provide  both  of  personnel  the  project  cultural  and  family  Part  reorient  the  financing,  programs aimed a t  government  support  a  government  r e l a t e d t o the  in planning,  administrative  administrative  play  countries.  agencies  integrated  In  industries  a  indicate close  public  with  these p o p u l a t i o n s .  to other  improvement.  in  of  s t u d y , and  and  finacial  life  life.  w i t h government d e p a r t m e n t s  this  projects  evaluating  closely  activities  labour,  family  the to  the  programs  m i l i e u of  the  attempt  to  suroundings. The  survey  follow-up  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s of  recommended It  an  o f f e r s lessons  private  to  integrated  the  was  an  previous  approach to  surveys  rural  development.  cooperation  in  planning,  f i n a n c i n g , and  nonformal  education  programs.  The  educational  components  incorporate  v a r i o u s -programs f o r  appropriate improving  the  among  which  in  agencies  integrated tried  projects  the  q u a l i t y of  public  and  evaluating  rural  projects of  family  51  life.  They  also  indicate  some  element  of  community  participation. Findings The  major  though each surveys,  there  nonformal  had  was  surveyed,  agricultural  extension  institutes  Inadequate  the  observed the  the  plans  indicated  development i n  some  kind  of  agricultural colleges,  short  But even of  Second  the  with  such  agricultural  Development  Decade  1974).  extension  of  s e r v i c e s a r e g e n e r a l l y inadequate  workers  t h a t they of  gap between  In  most  in  their  the a l r e a d y  the smaller  the r i c h  farmers.  farmers  This  at the l o c a l  the relates  level,  an  with  authoritarian  In some c a s e s , prosperous  i t was  farmers a t  This contributed to  and t h e  the extension  i n terms of  to serve.  having  knows b e s t . "  served  situations jobs  often  "teacher  the  personnel  of  In n e a r l y a l l t h e  through  UN  d a t a and  Programs  neglect  supposed  fell  even  a l l the  personnel  and r u r a l  s e r v i c e s with  t a r g e t s f o r the  extension  attitude  and  and u n i v e r s i t i e s .  they  (Coombs & Ahmed,  The  resources  In  on e x i s t i n g  development  to agricultural  are similar  focus.  reliance  national  their  production  different  p r o j e c t s surveyed.  allocating  developments,  a  the surveys  the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s  low p r i o r i t y  research  of  great  education  countries very  findings  survey  interviews with  of the Surveys  peasant  farmers.  workers a r e overburdened  population  size  t o the inadequacy  they  are  of other  who c a n n o t d e a l b r o a d l y  with  52  all  education  interested not  and  in  interested  to  find  All  the  deprived  actively other  of  opportunity  including  other  through  participate Another relationship  finding between  of  formal  off, especially  education many  1974).  maintained.  if a  close  for  a  rural  education.  It  and  in  women  Although of  women  crops,  and  overlooked.  societies).  leave  T h i s may  responsibilities, them l i t t l e  time t o  activities.  studies  the  add  early  lack  of  education  on t o where t h e school  leavers  same t i m e ,  the formal  nonformal education  systems i n  link  T h i s c a n be r e l a t e d  the  is  nonformal  can  f o r the At  is  who a r e most  have been  and  education  system can support  ways  the  low.  Such  i n nonformal education  Ahmed,  is  of c a r i n g f o r c h i l d r e n , the  chores,  school  &  girls  marketing  participation.  Nonformal  (Coombs  of  (in traditional  programs. left  order  most d e p r i v e d o f  nonformal  f u n c t i o n s , they  household  there  are similarly  i n farming,  management  low  only  This  opportunities  p r o g r a m s was v e r y  participate  their  that  i n d i c a t e s that those  education  and t h e e l d e r l y  explain  in  programs.  indicate  Women have t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s sick  education  such  educational,  education  farm  are  o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and a r e  that the p a r t i c i p a t i o n  nonformal  They  3.  surveys  of formal  found  improving  the evidence  educational was  narrow a r e a  of  by T a b l e  and  factors.  i n e v a l u a t i n g nonformal  maldistribution people  their  ways  illustrated  development  between  t h e two s y s t e m s i s  t o t h e use o f  facilities,  Estimated  E x t e n s i o n Workers and Farm F a m i l i e s in S e l e c t e d C o u n t r i e s , 1971 1  Farm Families  Extension Workers  936,444  111  448,333  206  1,432,200  125  Zambia  470,000  560  .. 2 India  53,594,242  1  Mali  -  2  Senegal . 2 Uganda  K o r e a Rep.  3 of '  Bolivia  .  839 828 4  1,074,883  239  571,600  70 1,556  2,176  11,458  J 3 ,628 | 5 I 6,049  8,624,902-  Brazil  8,4 36  64,720  2,506,000  Argentina  Farm F a m i l i e s p e r E x t e n s i o n Worker  691 414  8,165 6  5,543  368  1,057  1,832,453  350  5,236  140,000  37  3,784  351,000  61  5,756  Guatemala  627  ,170  40  15,679  Honduras  323,653  51  6,346  4,585,4 61  514  9,452  169,531  38  Colombia Costa El  Rica  Salvador  Mexico Nicaragua  """558  1,220,000  Peru  272  559,811  .Venezuela  5  4,497  389,206  Chile  4  4,461 2,383 2,058  The sample i s h e a v i l y drawn from the L a t i n A m e r i c a n r e g i o n b e c a u s e o f a r e c e n t s t u d y on t h e s u b j e c t . D a t a on o t h e r c o u n t r i e s o f A f r i c a , t h e F a r E a s t and t h e Near E a s t were h a r d l y c o m p a r a b l e p.nd were t h e r e f o r e not i n c l u d e d As f a r ar p o s s i b l e , o n l y e x t e n s i o n p e r s o n n e l i n d i r e c t c o n t a c t w i t h f a r m e r s were i n c l u d e d . 2 J  4  6  1967. 1965.  The  Includes  Economy o f K o r e a , V o l . 3, only general  Seoul,  guidance workers  1966.  (village  level).  Includes a l s o subject s p e c i a l i s t s of a g r i c u l t u r a l extension (excluding p r o v i n c i a l and n a t i o n a l l e v e l s ) . Host are i n d i r e c t c o n t a c t w i t h farmers. ^ • I n c l u d e s v e t e r i n a r i a n s and o t h e r t e c h n i c a l s t a f f h o t d i r e c t l y d e a l i n g w i t h a g r i c u l t u r a l extension. . ' SOURCE:  Food and A g r i c u l t u r e O r g a n i z a t i o n , StDfce o f Food and A g r i c u l t u r e 1972 (Rorne 1 9 7 2 ) , p. 137, T a b l e 3-4. t  54  personnel,  and  evaluation and  services  colleges.  education Ahmed,  of  research  f o r nonformal  While  ought  surveys  between  is  flexible  observed that  nonformal  employment linkage  education  opportunities.  between n o n f o r m a l  self-employment  community.  linkage  systems does  education  not  and  formal  (Coombs &  that  that  the  exist,  the  skills  linkage  difficult are  to  scarce,  utilized  i n self-employment  (Coombs  &  Ahmed,  1974).  value c e r t i f i c a t e s in  nonformal inferior  turn  leads  apathy  instructors  formal used  as  i n the of  the  the s o c i a l where  this  this  leads  of such programs. where  improved  Such  employment  way  of  education  judge  life  sometimes  does  programs.  among t h e p e o p l e they  to  g a i n e d s h o u l d be  The l a b o u r market  them  towards to  be  schooling.  In most o f t h e n o n f o r m a l that  into  and  from n o n f o r m a l to  market  gained i n nonformal  but t h e s k i l l s f o r an  labour  But  maintain  e d u c a t i o n programs, to formal  fora  graduates  communities.  among t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s  opportunities  i s need  are available  the  p r o g r a m s may n o t be u t i l i z e d  is  and  there  programs a r e a b s o r b e d  of  of l i n k a g e  education  e d u c a t i o n and t h e  frustrations  found  nonformal  and i n n o v a t i v e  Firstly,  ensure  education  economic  This  necessary,  there i s a lack  opportunities  T h i s may  nonformal  not  and  e d u c a t i o n by u n i v e r s i t i e s  such a l i n k  t o remain  planning  1974).  The  and  provision  methods  education  programs,  of t e a c h i n g  authoritarian  methods.  it  was  were u s e d and t h e Such  methods  55  reduce  the  flexibile  programs.  I t was  audio-visual were are  mainly  This  due  concerned  gives  formal  found  a i d s and  available  qualities that  of  nonformal  most p r o g r a m s d i d not  printed  materials  even  to those a u t h o r i t a r i a n with  nonformal  education  the  old  education  where  they  attitudes  which  methods an  utilize  of  inferior  teaching. position  to  schooling.  Facilities The  1973  education formal  programs  recommends nonformal There  surveys  require Most  facilities  existing  that,  1974  education.  require from  and  of  in  lower  nonformal their  facilities  that,  indicate  capital  i n the  own  as t h e s e c a n  situations,  a r e a s , use  be  institutions.  f o r more i n v e s t m e n t  rural  nonformal  expenditure  it  e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s t o have t h e i r  i s a need  most  than  e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s do  of o t h e r  some  that  borrowed  The  survey  i s better  own  for  facilities.  i n nonformal  low-cost  not  education  equipment.  Costs Athough the c o s t usually difficult programs. The  lower to  than know  Such  utilization  voluntary  nonformal  that some  costs  of costs  vary  Most  procedures  makes  e d u c a t i o n programs  in  from  it  programs for  education  formal  of o t h e r e x i s t i n g  instructors  such a c t i v i t i e s . accounting  of nonformal  their are  programs  education,  nonformal one  program  facilities  and  is  it  is  education to  another.  t h e use  of  difficult  to account  did  indicate  cost  Since  many  not  programs. conducted  by  for  different  56  organizations,  i t is difficult  t o have a common  accounting  system. Evaluation The  other  systematic whether  major  evaluation i t  be  effectiveness) in  relation  supported  the  to  program's  the  internal  investment  Such e v a l u a t i o n  by n a t i o n a l  discussed  research  of the nonformal e d u c a t i o n  or i t s b e n e f i c i a l s o c i a l  relationship).  as  f i n d i n g o f t h e s u r v e y s was t h e l a c k of  earlier  ought  research (Coombs  made  efficiency  impact  in i t (cost-benefit  t o be a c t i o n  research  and u n i v e r s i t i e s ,  Ahmed,  e f f o r t s even a t t h e n a t i o n a l  (cost  and economic  institutes &  programs,  1974).  level  But  such  are lacking.  Coordinat ion The is  final,  the lack  nonformal Dejomaoh  but i m p o r t a n t ,  of c o o r d i n a t i o n programs.  Although  in  Advisory  Boards  statutory  many have  have  coordination,  been  different  referred  coordination  planning  stage  to  to at  from t h e s u r v e y s  agencies  observed  Coombs  et  a l . (1973, Adult  instituted,  they  agencies  the  1974).  Education often  and  institutional as  providing  by S h e f f i e l d and  countries,  Different  requires  government  as  the  was  African  powers.  departments  among  This  (1972) a s w e l l  observation  lack  government  goals.  Such  i n t e g r a t i o n Coombs  (1980),  national  implementation  i s aware o f t h e o t h e r ' s  so  level that  activities.  from  each  the  arm o f  57  O t h e r R e s e a r c h S t u d i e s on N o n f o r m a l The  surveys  Dejomaoh  (1972);  (1973);  and  in  the  t h a t have been c o n d u c t e d Coombs and Ahmed  Coombs,  prescriptive  (1980)  emphasizing  planning,  education  The  surveys,  education nonformal  these  although  education (1976)  the  in  and  nonformal state time by  LaBelle  available  conducted  determine  small  scale  nonformal  institutionalized  (1983),  have a r g u e d  against  approach  which  Bock  their  analysis  Bock,  education  a  of  nonformal  (1976),  u s i n g an e m p i r i c a l  the  institutionalization  that serves  to  as formal  legitimizes  (1983)  without  target population.  helps  extend  education  their  of  does.  A t t h e same  t o c o o l o u t e x c e s s i v e demand its  graduates  positions in blue-collar  1983;  Papagiannis,  study  to  on income  study  l e g i t i m i z a t i o n of  t h e o c c u p a t i o n a l a s p i r a t i o n s of  1983;  to  on  structural/functionalist  argues  (Dall,  nonformal  i n the f i e l d  favour  nonformal  nonformal education  i t  to  information  They  authority just  since  used  systems.  education  lowering  be  education  programs.  Malaysia,  to  programs.  Coombs e t a l . (1973) u s e i n education  d e s c r i p t i v e and  valuable  tools  tend  et a l .  and e v a l u a t i n g o f n o n f o r m a l  recognizing  institutionalized  challenge  be  programs on t h e i r  programs,  Bock such  of  Coombs  t h a t ought  systems t h a t e x i s t  u s i n g much o f t h e s t a t i s t i c a l impact  to  strategies  They p r o v i d e  nonformal education  by S h e f f i e l d and  (1974);  tend  financing,  programs.  the  Education  find in  out  industry  1983)-. the in  jobs  LaBelle impact  of  Venezuela.  58  The  findings  nonformal The  of  education  salary  with  appear  that  the  substituted  by  true.  study  of  the  amount  belief  programs  in order  those with  l e s s formal  economic  and  nonformal  professional  and  the  secondary  the  legitimizes their  inferior  nonformal will  be  already  used exist  to  can  be to  for  a  tool  while secondary  legitimize  in society.  makes  They not the  that  are  of The  clearly  managerial labor  sector  and  from  the  Formal  maintains  nonformal  such  education  t o be  content  in  therefore,  that  institutionalized  as i t  social  Although  role  difficult.  argue, be  political,  mobility  sector  should  the  countries  in the  development.  blue-collar  as  to  the  secondary This  paradigm  the  white-collar,  position.  (1976) a r g u e a g a i n s t  at  primary  i n the  education  look  national  structures those  may  nonformal  education  in determining  primary  seen  institutional  use  a conflict  in developing  the  workers.  is  They  in  agricultural to  It  income b e n e f i t s  nonformal  factors  structures  between  were  a l w a y s seem  to  improve  (1983) use  process.  education  schooling  unrealistic  r o l e of  cultural  occupational segmented  the  benefits.  education  does not  in  schooling.  Papagiannis  a n a l y s i s of  income  schooling.  nonformal  to  engaging  participation  formal  nonformal education  education  modernization  o f f e r s few  of  that  i t is  their  that  educational  Therefore,  Bock and  indicate  activities  benefits  associated  be  the  Bock  inequalities (1976) and  institutionalization  of  that  LaBelle  nonformal  59  education, small  they  do  not  offer  specific  s c a l e n o n f o r m a l educa-tion Implications  programs w i l l  of t h e F i n d i n g s t o  Nonformal E d u c a t i o n The  f i n d i n g s of n e a r l y a l l  (Sheffield Coombs,  and  1980;  for  nonformal  find  ways  prescriptive  and  especially to  have  of  best The  surveys  the  planning  ways  integrating  r e s e a r c h both  policies  and  at  the  1974;  were l o o k i n g  tended  of  to  planning  indicated  extension.  education  agronomic  science  similar  1974,  at  a  of  the  of  and  of  education, possible  research  in research affects  programs.  level  too  lack  not  adequate  research  the  level  It i s  be  nonformal  e v a l u a t i o n of n o n f o r m a l  Such a gap  of n o n f o r m a l  are  surveys  they  surveys  in a g r i c u l t u r a l  evaluation.  organized.  p r o g r a m s t h a t were s u c c e s s f u l t o  funding,  systematic  the  While  how  Planning  Coombs & Ahmed,  improve the  be  on  Programs  s u c c e s s f u l programs w i t h o u t  systematic  for  1982).  programs.  research  1972;  education  to  education  Dejomaoh,  Coles,  guidelines  There  is a  related  and the need  social  formulating national  farmer  (Coombs  &  Ahmed,  1974). Another and  implication  resources.  countries  to  There  nonformal  may  to the  in  many r u r a l  in  the  rural  education  building  areas  the  with  required s k i l l s  findings relates  i s a great  i n v e s t i n the  effective relate  of  need  areas  f o r most in order  programs.  of m u l t i p u r p o s e  low  f o r an  c o s t equipment improved  to  life  costs  developing to  Such  develop  investments  learning centres to t r a i n style  people  (Coombs &  60  Ahmed, 1974;  Coombs,  There are  a  specialized  work a  is  as  1980).  need  in their  p a r t of t h e  single  effort  horizontal  f o r the  by  own  own  integration to r e t r a i n  teaching  methods  area  Coombs  personnel  and  the  and  It  utilization  of v i s u a l  who  their  (referred  (1980)).  i n the  use  view  process  department  by  of p e r s o n n e l  so t h a t t h e y  whole m o d e r n i z a t i o n  their  necessary  retraining  not  as  to  as  is also of  a i d s and  modern printed  materials. It and  is  formal  nonformal learned 1973;  important education  especially  education  i n the Coles,  t o have a l i n k a g e between  is  formal 1982).  able  so t h a t  i t r e i n f o r c e s some of  (Coles,  1982).  emphasize  the  so  traditional  that  with  nonformal education crafts  are  The tend  left  surveys  to  nonformal integrated  be  of  might  the  and  programs.  Very  al.,  should  be  educational  sector  learned at  school.  within be  skills  that skills  et  systems  their  necessary  informal educational  crafts  so  (Coombs  skills  function  It the  formal  the  youth  complement system  the  youths to  link  rural  Nonformal education  t o the a c t i v i t i e s  sector  to  education  similar  T h i s would a s s i s t  for  nonformal  are  often  rural here  to  activities  incorporated in the  traditional  out. (Coombs e t a l . , 1973;  highly  education  prescriptive  programs t h a t w i l l  in their  programs s u r v e y e d .  approach be  to  planning  effective  Coombs & Ahmed  They  1974)  a n a l y s i s of  the  recommend  an  nonformal  in transforming  education the  lives  61  of  the r u r a l  the  y o u t h s and a d u l t s .  largest  single  surveys that  a n a l y z e what goes on i n many provide  a framework  nonformal  transferability strategies. tend on  without  t o r e v i e w and  countries.  the  national  a basis  various  prescriptive.  nonformal  considering  different  f o r c o m p a r i s o n and  nonformal  value  of  educational  prescriptions  countries They  developing  since  they  they  recommendations  a s p i r a t i o n s of  or  the  assume  countries are  i s that  p r o g r a m s may be p l a n n e d  the s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l  systems.  the  They o f f e r  education  developing  traditional  They  development  One m a j o r weakness o f t h e s u r v e y s  best  makers  in  also provide  of  t o be h i g h l y how  developing  programs  They  have t r i e d  been  f o r c r o s s - c u l t u r a l a n a l y s i s of v a r i o u s  education  strategies.  The two s u r v e y s have  coming  the  consumer's  that  the  will  accept  from  the  policy such funding  agenc i e s . In  the survey  approaches studies  to  that  (Coombs & Ahmed,  rural  development  are discussed.  extension  approach,  approach,  and  the  recommends  that  integrated  in  management, with  national  unit  (Coombs  and  decentralization  four  planning  Ahmed,  of a u t h o r i t y  The  p r o g r a m s ought  Such  so t h a t  lowest  study t o be  structure,  i n t e g r a t i o n should  to the  1974).  i n the case  the cooperative  organizational Such  different  approaches are: the  approach.  education  planning,  staffing.  level &  integrated  four  are analyzed  the t r a i n i n g approach,  nonformal the  These  1974),  start  administration  integration calls for local  personnel  are  62  allowed  to  make some d e c i s i o n s w h i l e a l l o w i n g  participation that  as  well.  programs are  It also c a l l s  related  to  the  for  needs  for  community  flexibility of  the  so  client  system. The  integrated  programs between such  at the  all  levels,  different  activities  activities achieved  and if  approach  all  education  related  services.  integration  both h o r i z o n t a l l y  rural  and  requires  Such  people  and  activites  non-educational an  involved  approach have  a  of  vertically and  between  development  can  only  broad view  be of  development. This  study  recommendations countries  to  makes be  the  undertaken  (Coombs & Ahmed,  1974,  p.  following by  the  specific developing  240):  1.  All organizations concerned (external as well as i n t e r n a l ) must find ways to collaborate much more closely, guided by a b r o a d view of r u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t that transcends t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r s p e c i a l i t i e s .  2.  Each country needs to evolve a coherent national strategy for r u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t and t o o v e r h a u l any of its national policies (applying, for example, to agriculture, and water, trade, prices, and fiscal a f f a i r s ) t h a t a r e i m c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the g o a l s of their r u r a l development s t r a t e g y .  3.  Within this n a t i o n a l framework, d e v e l o p m e n t p l a n s be t a i l o r made f o r e a c h rural area, adapted to p a r t i c u l a r p o t e n t i a l i t i e s and constraints.  4.  To d e s i g n and implement s u c h s p e c i f i c a r e a d e v e l o p m e n t plan requires a greater decentralization of authority, including more latitude in financial control, to district and subdistrict levels, a corresponding b u i l d u p of competent a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and e x p e r t s t a f f a t t h e s e l e v e l s and s t r e n g t h e n mechanisms whereby local p e o p l e can p a r t i c i p a t e i n the whole p r o c e s s of p l a n n i n g  can its  63  and d e c i s i o n These  making  recommendations  planning  of  nonformal  necessary  to  plan  national in  level  ministerial  in  investing  countries  levels  s y s t e m s have (Ethiopia,  Apart  involvement  from s u c h  national  nonformal  education  the  of  evaluation  national  t o the  1974).  been a d o p t e d i n s e v e r a l Kenya,  involved  be  (Coombs & Ahmed,  Botswana,  the  planning  i n systems from  at  in  should  and f i n a n c i n g  be b u i l t  programs  areas.  the  I t would be  departments  there  accountability  administrative  integrated  Asian  programs,  for  programs.  education  departmental  There should  financial  lowest  education  p r o c e s s of r u r a l  nonformal education  and  implications  to include a l l relevant  and  commitment  have  nonformal  the development  programs.  and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .  Such  developing  Zambia,  and  some  countries). Conclusion The  s u r v e y s c o n d u c t e d by S h e f f i e l d  and Coombs e t a l . (1973, functionalist education  system.  assumption  systems.  nonformal  They  education They  offer  systematic  evaluation  priority level  that  and needs  where  their  use  a  structural/  analysis  of nonformal  u s e t h e s y s t e m s a p p r o a c h and  specific  may  stress  in  1980)  (1972)  view  a s one o f t h e s u b s y s t e m s o f t h e l a r g e r  countries  They  1974,  and Dejomaoh  follow  guidelines  in of  planning,  nonformal  developing  implementing, education  nonformal education t o be p l a n n e d a t t h e  a l lministries  which  and  programs.  s h o u l d be s e e n a s a national  planning  and d e p a r t m e n t s c o n c e r n e d w i t h  64  nonformal  education  educational system. level, is to  components o f t h e i r  While there  close  integration  i s need  agencies  t h e community There nonformal economy.. that  is  usually  education There  agencies  programs.  Many  1979;  no  integration  many  will  be  training  But t h e r e  young  trainees  of  training.  Since  1974) t h e r e  the  training  enable  nonformal  to  but a n e c e s s a r y  education  agencies,  when  system  between training  t o g e t employed on is  a  lack  countries  encourage  to  to  started. It is  develop credit  This  isa  useless  for  links  with  develop  that  of  (Simmons,  them t o a r r a n g e  one.  i t i s clear  gainful  skills  there  get  the  there  are  very  employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s . Systematic  tool  them  either  program  facilities  few  the  activities  i s a need t o  a t t i t u d e s and a s s i s t  venture  into  i s no l i n k  hope  self-employment  employing  levels  t r a i n e e s from  absorbed  for  opportunities in developing  to  that  and n o n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n  of t h e i r  participants  the  there  programs a t  nonformal education  for skills  Coombs and Ahmed,  difficult  one  among  education  guarantee  or self-employment,  employment  so t h a t  from t h e l o w e s t  nonformal  systems  are  employing  completion  as  level.  are designed  employment  seen  integration  horizontal  offering  so t h a t  i s recommended a t t h e n a t i o n a l  for vertical  as  plan together  programs a r e  s u p e r v i s i o n of a c t i v i t i e s  the t o p as w e l l  various  programs s h o u l d  for  any  e v a l u a t i o n and r e s e a r c h program  to  be  is  effective.  an  invaluable  These  surveys  65  indicate  the  need  for  developing  countries.  Such  cost-effectiveness p r o g r a m s , and the  difficult  research  and  determine  Systematic  i n programs  that  The  systematic  surveys  Sheffield  by  are  programs.  recommendations these  only  their  was  their that  and  the  studies  effective  The  other  (1976,  education  1980;  seems  1980)  1982). and  recognize sponsored  more  by  both  nonformal  likely  rural  by  necessary  Coles,  1974,  that  Although  their  the  nonformal  tended  focus  education be u s e f u l  nonformal  education  funding  prescriptive  education the  s t u d i e s conducted  by  aid  agencies.  Bock  (1976)  use  a  see  the  institutionalization  programs as They  initiatives.  a way  seem  projects  conflict  to as  most  c o u n t r i e s may I t may  be  theoretical  in assisting favour  in  small  threatened  necessary  t o have  of the  scale  effective.  feel  as  programs  1983)  not  process.  t o be  by  g o v e r n m e n t s of d e v e l o p i n g local  in  separately  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s may  have  research  nonformal  such  the  i n t e r m s of  They do  nonformal  existing  i t is s t i l l  adopted.  to analyze  paradigm.  modernization  of  sector.  o b j e c t i v e was  LaBelle  on  be  f i n d i n g s and  are  determine  run  (1972)  seems  easily  t h e modern u r b a n All  But  privately It  may  studies  programs, in  and  the  also  accountability  (Coombs,  Dejomaoh  institutionalized  of  research  in  f u r t h e r investment  Coombs e t a l . (1973,  and  education  can  financial  non-governemental o r g a n i z a t i o n s . to conduct  research  cost-efficiency  i n so d o i n g ,  program.  coordinated  The by both  66  institutionalized small  scale  local  initiatives. In  nonformal  literature  as w e l l  nonformal education p r o j e c t s developed  the f o l l o w i n g  analyzing  e d u c a t i o n programs  c h a p t e r a framework  nonformal  education  on  the  concept  research  that  has  been  programs,  certain  be u s e f u l  in analyzing  elements  of  through  i s developed  systems. nonformal  as  for  In r e v i e w i n g t h e education  and  c o n d u c t e d on n o n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n have been  identified  which  nonformal e d u c a t i o n systems.  may  67  CHAPTER FOUR A FRAMEWORK FOR  ANALYZING AND  COMPARING  NONFORMAL EDUCATION SYSTEMS Need The reveals  review  countries.  and  to  investing  what e m p l o y e r s , nonformal  capable  formal  trying and  surveys exist  developed  in formal  formal  flexible,  of  nonformal by  education  has  the  education  planners  schools are  citizens,  education  on  in  too  costly  people  and  producing  and  parents  been p r o m o t e d b e c a u s e  i t is  diverse in i t s characteristics  r e a c h i n g many p e o p l e  who  are  an  developing  schools are  young  as  left  out  of  and the  system.  Most  exist  was  Because the  assumed t o be  on  literature  i s a m i s m a t c h between what  need,  is  the  t h a t the concept  alternative  there  of  f o r a Framework  r e s e a r c h on to f i n d  nonformal education  out  what  nonformal  f o r which groups they  are  t h a t have been c o n d u c t e d have  information  made on  developing activities  an  are  e l e m e n t s w h i c h a r e common t o most After nonformal analyzing framework  reviewing  and  education, and  a  comparing  provides  find  a  what  programs research programs  that e x i s t  nonformal  in  education  s t u d i e s have c l a r i f i e d  the  programs.  analyzing framework  nonformal  out  The  activities  Although  diverse, previous  education  contribution in providing  nonformal education  countries.  concentrated  designed.  to  important  has  research was  been d e v e l o p e d  education  structure  studies  for  systems.  on for The  systematically  68  collecting  information  required  Organization The  framework d e s c r i b e d  analysis  of  national, use  of  nonformal regional,  the  three  comparison. element  at  discusses  major  as  use  reviewed,  the  the  research  •  political  and  •  s t r a t e g i e s f o r development;  •  nonformal  •  participation/program  •  l e a r n i n g outcomes;  •  evaluation.  Some of  and  levels:  framework  may  analysis  and  questions that  on  each  follows  levels  questions  may  indicated  i n the  the  literature  developed:  administrative structures;  t h a t may  questions  and  objectives;  education  different the  ask  three  an  Framework  f o l l o w i n g e l e m e n t s were goals  the  for  framework  studies  policies,  at  The  basis  The  •  Questions  levels.  e l e m e n t s and  levels.  at  i s b a s e d on  elements.  on the  chapter  systems  the  E l e m e n t s of Based  Framework  in this  local  levels  three  the  education and  I t may  for comparative a n a l y s i s .  only  be  agencies; characteristics;  be  useful  are  may  be  in c o l l e c t i n g  included  under  each  asked at a l l l e v e l s  asked at  one  t a b l e of q u e s t i o n s  of  the  levels.  f o r each  information element. while This  element.  some is  69  Policies,  Goals  The  and  planning  educational  of  determined policies  by  are  and  political  which  of  nonformal  formulating  their  may  with  may  be  joint  important  education  Such and  determined.  involves  ministries  be  goals  to  working  identify  that are  as  The  planning  operational ministries  It  i s important It  links  to  the  involved in so  that  p a r t of t h e  whole  that  local  level  list  questions  that  information  to understand  level.  The  list  include  essential  in  the  such  exist  to  Table  be  useful  the  planning  different  planning  4  out  national, contains  a  collecting  process  exhaustive  and  find  for  for analyzing  and  committees  between  may  i s not  regional,  national  important  committees.  information of  national,  may  of q u e s t i o n s  process  the  identify  is  and  planning  at  involved  regional,  systems.  Policies  broad  politically  exist  that are  communication  the  in l i n e  at a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e v e l s  membership.  of  other  strategy.  levels  process.  t o be  country's  I t may  nonformal  Committees local  be  and  policies  development  a  from  bodies  identify  by  ought  and  economic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .  education  harmonously.  individuals,  they  education,  of a c o u n t r y .  and  may  representatives  together  goals  directed  objectives planning  nonformal  systems a t a l l l e v e l s ,  the major p o l i c i e s  with  Objectives  at  but  each  i t does  and  comparing  nonformal  education  70  Table  4:  L i s t of Q u e s t i o n s f o r A n a l y s i s of P o l i c i e s , G o a l s and O b j e c t i v e s Quest i o n s  N  • What a r e t h e p o l i c i e s , g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s ? i s t h e o f f i c i a l p l a n n i n g framework? • What Which a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r • planning? many p r o f e s s i o n a l s a c t i n t h e p l a n n i n g • How capac i t y ? a r e t h e major p o l i c i e s r e l a t e d t o t h e • What e d u c a t i o n a l system? other people c o n t r i b u t e t o the planning • Which process (e.g., s c h o l a r s , business l e a d e r s , expatriate consultants, international agencies, etc.)? What i s t h e s o u r c e o f p l a n n i n g f u n d s ( e . g . , d i r e c t t o p l a n n i n g agency, s e c t o r budgeting project allocations)? What a r e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c a p a c i t i e s o f t h e planning o r g a n i z a t i o n i n l i g h t of i t s responsibilities? What i s t h e d e g r e e o f i n t e g r a t i o n between planning agencies? How much d a t a and i n f o r m a t i o n r e s o u r c e s a r e available? What t y p e s o f p l a n s u t i l i z e d ( i . e . , s e c t o r a l project, etc.)? What a r e t h e e s t a b l i s h e d time h o r i z o n s and t h e amount o f f l e x i b i l i t y and a d a p t a b i l i t y a l l o w e d in the plans? What a r e t h e means f o r i m p r o v i n g t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s b u i l t i n t o the development plans? A r e t h e r e any d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n p o l i c i e s , g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s between t h e t h r e e l e v e l s ?  1  N - National  Level  R - Regional  Level  v/  R  L  •  v/ •  •  •  / /  /  j/ /  /  /  V  /  /  /  /  / y/  j/  y/  y/ y/ V /  y/ \J  /  /  L - Local  /  Level  71  The each  above  administrative  ministries, involved  at  all  represented tell  in  us how  t h e major p o l i c i e s  nonformal  education  and  administrative  levels:  the  and be may  degree  education  of  be  may  ministries  system  objectives  may  information  conducted,  at  various  Ministries  The  nonformal  that  education  between t h o s e  implementing  nonformal  planning.  is  plans  i n c l u d e the  of p l a n n i n g .  exists  who  organizations  of  planning  that  the  different  levels  that deal with  p l a n n i n g and  whether  T h i s may  other  at each l e v e l  integration  help understand  level.  c o u n c i l s and  organizations  also  i n f o r m a t i o n may  of  involved  as w e l l  as  i s incorporated in a  country  national,  at  the  regional  and  local. Discrepancies policies, local  will  provide  these  levels. such  information. at  are channelled  process  to f i n d  the  out  exist  national, t o ask  all  levels  and  planning  departments  and  refer  other  regional,  to  that  analyze  to understand  the comprehensiveness T h i s may  between  questions  I t i s important  to the h i g h e r  at a l l l e v e l s .  government  goals at  may  I t i s important  objectives  necessary  conflicts  o b j e c t i v e s , and  and  priority  and  levels. of  t o how  It  how is  the  planning  the  various  educational agencies  are  c o o r d i n a t e d or i n t e g r a t e d . Policies, finding nature.  out  goals  whether They  institutional,  and  they  may  are be  or community,  objectives  may  short-term analyzed or  social  or  be  analyzed  long-term  whether collective  they group,  by in are or  72  individual policies  goals.  and  We  goals  will  t h a t may  L o n g - t e r m g o a l s and policies  relate  Such p o l i c i e s regarding  the  relate  goals  may  relate  or  to  and  g o a l s of  immediate  community  nonformal  education  targets.  g o a l s and  type  activity  w e l l as  the  target population. the  of  policies.  the  by  and  relate  to  already  gainfully  of  the  styles  knowledge improving  skills of  and  and  policies  they  knowledge g a i n e d  goals  a g e n c y has  activities.  the  well  as  they  f o r those relate  the  relate  employment;  may  are  may  who  are  to the  for changing  the  to  use life  individuals.  education  in  These g o a l s  as  f o r promotion  Short  education  Such g o a l s may  for  e m p l o y e d ; and  Institutional  skills  acquired skills  nonformal  planners  c o n s u m e r s of n o n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n . skills  targets  and  to  identifiable  and o b j e c t i v e s .  services,  relate  easily  and  health  term g o a l s as  of  goals  national  education,  t o n a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s and  Short-term  Long-term  employment,  policies  type  analyzed.  of  extension, The  each  national policies  provision  agricultural development.  be  discuss  policies.  to broad  and  briefly  Short  and  policies term  knowledge t o be nonformal  and  goals  and  Each  nonformal  o b j e c t i v e s that guide i t s  goals  relate  gained  by  education guide  policies.  those  activity;  to  the  that while  nonformal education  immediate  participate long-term  activities.  73  Community g o a l s . aspirations They  community  motivational  general skills  idea  of  Social  collective  society.  nature.  to  what t h e i r needs  urgently  being.  require,  may  worker's  are.  well  as  have  either  be  under  education,  Some  a in  groups  i n t e r e s t s and  t r y to promote  fall  needs  terms.  their  T h i s may  the  as  group g o a l s .  further  to  usually  T h e s e g r o u p s have t h e i r  Groups t h a t  unions,  relate  Communities  i n economic  which they  groups' w e l l  and  advocacy  in order  policies  trade  they  knowledge or  organized  and  what  goals  prescriptive  needs.  and  change t o  the  the  r e l a t e both to t h e i r  their  are  of  Community  own  group  in order  economic this  to  or  goals  improve  social  g r o u p may  religious  bring  in  include  and  ethnic  usually  have  long-term  goals.  groups. Individual short-term  goals.  goals  Individuals  required  individual  may  It goals  in  with  skills to  a r t i c u l a t e d at  needs  both  may  the  lack  labour  find  motivational  find  out  have been e s t a b l i s h e d next  and  administrative  how  each l e v e l .  structures goals.  the  skills  and  market.  Such  an  that  may  a l l these p o l i c i e s  and  It  what p o l i t i c a l  element  and  job.  to  and  out  for a  important  The  cases  p a r t i c i p a t e in a nonformal a c t i v i t y  i s important  are  some  Individuals  knowledge  him  in  r e l a t e to t h e i r  prescriptive.  provide  and  Individuals  that  structures.  may and  be  administrative  t o a r t i c u l a t e the i s discussed  equally  is  policies political  74  Political  and  The each  Administrative  administrative  administrative and  objectives  will  education  activities.  may  vary  in different  necessary  to  ministries  at  levels  by  identify the  may  policies.  The  solicit  funds  continuation the  plans  of  committees  responsible  i n the  the  flow  for  funds  of  information  on  questions  process  activities.  in  operation  of  the  useful  administrative  planning The  of  new also  well  implementation activities.  administrative  the  the  as  and  be  between  a v a i l a b l e may  political  t a b l e may  and  exist.  assist  i n the  following  be  may  i n the  the  may  local  may  c o m p a r i n g p o l i t i c a l and involved  It  5  Table  to  labour  legislation  structures  planning of  and that  Such  such m i n i s t r i e s  links  which a f f e c t nonformal education  questions  The  regional,  the  nonformal  the  countries.  communication  administrative  of  at  nonformal  relate  some o f  organization  national,  be  direct  agriculture,  developing  identifying  committees  help  The  plans.  implementing  include  health,  etc.  implement  objectives in  established  national  that  involved  education,  be  and  i n the  those  may  may  plan  The  list  services  to  outlined  include  The  ministries: social  goals  ministries  activities.  structures  level  objectives  different  Structures  collection  of The of  structures.  in analyzing  structures nonformal  the  that  and are  education  75  Table  5: L i s t of Q u e s t i o n s f o r A n a l y s i s of P o l i t i c a l and A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t r u c t u r e s Questions  • What m a j o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s e x i s t ? p o l i t i c a l structures exist? • What What i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r • f i n a n c i n g p e r s o n n e l and c u r r i c u l a a s s o c i a t e d • • • • • • • • • • • •  with nonformal education? What c o m m u n i c a t i o n n e t w o r k s e x i s t ? What a r e t h e major s o u r c e s o f f u n d i n g f o r nonformal education activities? What l i n k s e x i s t between t h e n o n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n s y s t e m and t h e l a b o u r m a r k e t ? To what e x t e n t a r e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s r e s p o n s i v e t o t h e demands of citizens? To what d e g r e e i s t h e r e d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n t o r e g i o n a l and l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t s ? What a r e t h e c h a n n e l s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n ? What a r e t h e major i n t e r e s t g r o u p s ( t r i b a l , labour, r e l i g i o u s , business)? What a r e t h e major i n t e r n a t i o n a l p r e s s u r e groups (e.g., i n t e r n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , trade a s s o c i a t i o n s , f o r e i g n a i d donors, multi-national corporations, etc.)? What a r e t h e s o u r c e s o f f u n d i n g ? What a r e t h e unemployment l e v e l s ? What a r e t h e e d u c a t i o n and s k i l l s l e v e l s ? Are t h e r e d i s c r e p a n c i e s between what t h e n a t i o n a l government r e q u i r e s and what i s done a t t h e r e g i o n a l and local levels?  N - National  Level  R - Regional  Level  N  R  L  V  • • •  • •  •  • •  V yj  •  •  V  •  V  •  •  •  •  • •  • V  v/  v/ v/  V V  L - Local  • •  •  Level  76  All  the  departments  different  government  are represented  a t each  is  coordination  are  formulated at the n a t i o n a l ,  for  in planning  effectiveness  structures  horizontal  levels  so  that  integrated  nonformal  communication  link  region.  The s t r u c t u r e s  maintained levels.  through r e p o r t s They  education  and  participation offered  are also skills  and  Strategies resolved. order include  in  others  level  the  are level.  serve as  and l o c a l  vertical  responsible  The  a  levels,  needs  of  the  integration i s  local  or  national  f o r c o l l e c t i n g d a t a on  unemployment  nonformal  rate,  education  and  activities  ministry.  f o r Development  Strategies alternative  that  levels,  rates  to  from e i t h e r  by e a c h o p e r a t i o n a l  Strategies  means  tailored ensure  government  down t o t h e l o c a l  at the r e g i o n a l  be  levels  necessary at a l l  and  between t h e n a t i o n a l  p o l i c i e s can  p o l i c i e s that  committees.  i s very  level  there  and l o c a l  various  and  Ideally,  These  activities  from t h e n a t i o n a l structures  that  in  integration  Administrative  so  regional,  efficiency.  may work t o g e t h e r  of  level.  and i m p l e m e n t i n g  and  notion  ministries  for  methods  development of  constraints deal  in  achieving of  terms  the of  Some o f t h e q u e s t i o n s  to collect  can  information  some o f t h e q u e s t i o n s  be  stated  equated goals,  existing  how that  the  on d e v e l o p m e n t in Table  6.  given the structures.  problems  may  with  be  may be  raised  in  s t r a t e g i e s may  77  Table  6: L i s t o f Q u e s t i o n s f o r A n a l y s i s of S t r a t e g i e s f o r Development Questions  N  • What a r e t h e m a j o r d e v e l o p m e n t s t r a t e g i e s (major economic a c t i v i t i e s ) ? • To what e x t e n t i s t h e n a t i o n a l government i n v o l v e d i n the c o n t r o l of economic a c t i v i t i e s (self-reliance, socialism)? • What s t r u c t u r e s a r e e s t a b l i s h e d t o a d o p t s u c h development s t r a t e g i e s ? • What a r e t h e p r o d u c t i o n t e c h n i q u e s a v a i l a b l e ( c a p i t a l versus labour intensive)? • What a r e t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y l e v e l s i n v a r i o u s economic a c t i v i t i e s ( a g r i c u l t u r e , manufacturing, industry)? • To what d e g r e e . i s a g r i c u l t u r e m e c h a n i z e d ? What a r e t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y a n d t e c h n o l o g y levels? What a r e t h e b a s i c p r i m a r y r e s o u r c e p r o d u c t s and a n n u a l o u t p u t s ? What e x t e n s i o n s e r v i c e s a r e a v a i l a b l e ? What a r e t h e p h y s i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s t o a g r i c u l t u r e (e.g., climate)? What i s t h e e x t e n t o f s u b s i s t e n c e f a r m i n g and cash c r o p farming? What c o m m u n i c a t i o n n e t w o r k s e x i s t ( r a d i o , t e l e p h o n e s , newspapers, t e l e v i s i o n ) ? What i n f r a s t r u c t u r e s e x i s t ( r o a d s , railways)? What p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s e x i s t ( m a r k e t i n g c e n t e r s , c r e d i t u n i o n s , c o o p e r a t i v e s , and o t h e r financial institutions)? What s o c i a l s e r v i c e s a r e a v a i l a b l e ( s c h o o l s , h o s p i t a l s , h e a l t h c e n t e r s , farmer t r a i n i n g centers)?  1  N - National  Level  R - Regional  Level  1/  / \f  /  / /  •  • V  • • •  /  V  V  /  V V  V  •  V  •  •  • • •  V  •  L - Local  Level  78  are  Strategies  that  important  because  modernization national  administrative  to  adopted they  process.  level  responsible  are  the  that  adopting  available  agriculture type  of  are  reflect  regional  major e c o n o m i c a c t i v i t i e s , services  national the  S t r a t e g i e s may  structures  for  for  and  and  have  priorities directed local  been  such s t r a t e g i e s . the the  important  be  degree  of  the  from  the The  discussed  are  Information and  determine  are  on  social  mechanization  t h e s e may  activities  in  levels.  infrastructure  because  nonformal education  development  in  what  o f f e r e d by a l l  levels. Nonformal E d u c a t i o n It  Agencies  i s important  to e s t a b l i s h  nonformal  education  populations  are  that  are  at  involved  activities  all  it  is  agencies, types  of  skills  Table  required,  required  the  target  participation standards.  be  useful  in  involved, target  types groups  of  Agencies include  organizations. education  identify  specific  t y p e s of  rate,  learning  drop-out  rate,  questions  listed  in  information  on  the  activities,  f o r the  target  nonformal  groups,  providing  their  activities  to  The  sponsor  levels.  voluntary  important  health  and  who  identify  and  7 may  agencies  to  equally  activities,  education  and  in nonformal education  important  i t is  agencies  administrative  government, n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l , and While  which  t y p e s of  learning  skills  activities.  79  Table  7:  L i s t of Q u e s t i o n s f o r A n a l y s i s of Nonformal Education Agencies N  Questions  •  • • 0  •  • • • • •  What a r e t h e major g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c i e s t h a t provide nonformal education activities ( g o v e r n m e n t , n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l , and v o l u n t a r y assoc i a t ions)? What a r e t h e major t y p e s o f n o n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s that e x i s t ? Who a r e t h e major c o n s u m e r s f o r e a c h t y p e o f nonformal education activity? What a r e t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s ? What a r e t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n c h a n n e l s w i t h i n t h e a g e n c y and between a g e n c i e s ? I s t h e r e a c o o r d i n a t i n g body f o r a l l t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n s (whether i t e x i s t s o r n o t ) ? What a r e t h e s o u r c e s o f f u n d i n g f o r p a r t i c u l a r organizations? What a r e t h e e d u c a t i o n a n d s k i l l s l e v e l s ? What c o m m u n i c a t i o n n e t w o r k s and i n f r a s t r u c t u r e s exist? What m a j o r s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and organizations exist?  N - National  Level  These q u e s t i o n s the  types  education, This  leads  of  R - Regional  are useful  activities,  and c o m m u n i c a t i o n us  characteristics.  Level  the  consumers  channels  i n t o the next  that  element:  • •  •  •  •  • • • •  / /  •  •  /  /  Level  information of are  L  V  •  L - Local  in obtaining  R  on  nonformal available.  participant/program  80  Participant/Program Important learner  Characteristics  information  and  program  demographic  information  required.  The  a  about  may  and k e p t  Information to  Questions  may  be  religious  affiliations  asked  educational  learning  sex a n d  during  skills  educational  r e g i s t r a t i o n of The o r g a n i z a t i o n  on t h e p a r t i c i p a n t may of  the  client  on t h e s o c i o - e c o n o m i c of  those  who  be a l s o system.  s t a t u s and  participate  i s n e e d e d on t h e programs t h a t  manages  type  of l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s  in  the  age,  structure  who  are  the  program,  who  i n Table  data.  providing  This  8 may  list  information  are planned  of  a program.  Such  and  comparing d i f f e r e n t  assist  i n the program  in  the  i s not e x h a u s t i v e on t h e  information  relate  s p o n s o r s t h e program,  the d e l i v e r y systems of the l e a r n i n g  questions  such  age,  in  activities.  Information  The  on  include;  information.  collected social  what  and  and c o m p i l e d  of  the  nonformal  sex,  in analyzing  may  by t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n .  be a good s o u r c e  relate  rate,  information  be c o l l e c t e d  program  be u s e f u l  characteristics  background, p a r t i c i p a t i o n  l e v e l s may  t h a t may  may  b u t may  be u s e f u l  nonformal education  what and  activities.  collection  administrative  to  of  be u s e f u l procedures  in analyzing  programs.  81  Table  8: L i s t o f Q u e s t i o n s f o r A n a l y s i s o f Participant/Program C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Questions  N  • What a r e t h e d e m o g r a p h i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f l e a r n e r s ( s e x , a g e , number)? • What i s t h e n a t u r e o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n ( v o l u n t a r y or n o n - v o l u n t a r y ) • What i s t h e e d u c a t i o n a l b a c k g r o u n d o f l e a r n e r s ? • What s k i l l l e v e l s do t h e y have? • What i s t h e p r i m a r y o c c u p a t i o n o f l e a r n e r s ? • What a r e t h e h e a l t h a n d n u t r i t i o n s t a n d a r d s ? • What i s t h e i r r e l i g i o u s o r e t h n i c a f f i l i a t i o n ? • What a r e t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g and t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f w e a l t h ? • What a r e t h e unemployment l e v e l s and s p a t i a l distribution? • What i s t h e work f o r c e c o m p o s i t i o n and l a b o u r p a r t i c i p a t i o n rates? • What a r e t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e program? • Which t y p e o f a g e n c y manages t h e program? • What a c t i v i t i e s a r e p l a n n e d i n t h e program? • What s t r a t e g i e s a r e o u t l i n e d f o r t h e d e l i v e r y of the. l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s (methods, techniques)? • Who i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r managing t h e p r o g r a m s ? • How do p l a n n e r s communicate w i t h t h e t a r g e t population? • Who a r e t h e members o f t h e t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n ? • What a r e t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n c h a n n e l s u s e d w i t h community l e a d e r s and t h e t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n (formal or i n f o r m a l ) ? • How i s t h e t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n segmented? • How a r e community needs a s s e s s e d ? • What a r e t h e e d u c a t i o n a l and s k i l l l e v e l s o f the t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n ? • What a r e t h e h e a l t h and n u t r i t i o n s t a n d a r d s ? • What a r e t h e i r r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s and a t t i t u d e s ? • What a r e t h e unemployment l e v e l s ? • Who i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e a c h t a s k ? • Does t h e p r o g r a m have a t i m e s c h e d u l e f o r implementation? • What a b o u t f l e x i b i l i t y ? What i f s o m e t h i n g goes wrong?  N - National  Level  R - Regional  Level  R  L  1  / yf / j/ / y/ y/ y/ V y/ / / / y/ y/  y/  / y/ v/ y/ / \J y/ / y/ y/ yf  y/ y/  y/ / / / / y/ / / y/ y/ y/ y/  L - Local  /  y/  y/  Level  82  It from  may n o t be p o s s i b l e t o c o l l e c t  the l i s t  of q u e s t i o n s  questions  on  the  provide  information  i n the t a b l e .  characteristics on  education  activities.  analyzing  and  who  The  comparing  a l l the  of  information  However, the  learners  participates information  specific  in  is  will  nonformal  useful  learner characterisitics  in  between  systems. Some  of  the  questions  program c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s program; target and  the  time  participation asking  such  t h e communication  population;  will  links  the types  schedule  as:  provide the  Voluntary  of t h e  o f l e a r n i n g outcomes  f o r implementation.  i t i s voluntary Participation. involve  objectives  between t h e a g e n c y and t h e  i n nonformal education  whether  i n f o r m a t i o n on  or  may be  determined  by  nonformal  education  activities  that  education,  agricultural  extension,  community d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d l i t e r a c y  programs a r e  voluntary  in  determined  by i n d i v i d u a l  nature.  Non-voluntary youth  may  not  that  i n d i v i d u a l s improve work The  training  be v o l u n t a r y .  or s o c i a l  i n these  programs i s  need. Some p r o g r a m s o f f e r e d  and i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g The o r g a n i z a t i o n s their  knowledge  programs  involved and  require  skills  in  situations. element  characteristics from  Participation  Participation.  for  their  skills  life  The n a t u r e of  non-voluntary.  Most  family  planned;  following  the  participant/program  i s t h e l e a r n i n g outcomes t h a t  the nonformal education  activity.  a r e expected  83  Learning  Outcomes  Learning nonformal element, the  education the  general  goals  outcomes may  may  type  of  Information be  a t t a i n e d by  each  type  activity kinds  of T a b l e  concerning  nonformal  outcomes. learning  of  be  is  Under e a c h q u e s t i o n , be  may  the  The  by  goal.  skills  to  looking  at  The  of  type  the  The  questions  of  learning  type  questions questions  what  by The  determines  acquire.  other  on  by  activity.  enrolled  asked.  information  this  activity.  collected  education  learner  outcomes may  the  classified  l e a r n i n g outcomes or  useful in determining  specific  be  of  from l e a r n i n g g o a l outcomes  l e a r n i n g outcomes he 9 are  type  purpose  nonformal education  p a r t i c i p a n t s may  of  the  the  l e a r n i n g outcomes of e a c h g e n e r a l  i n which a  of  more  the  on  For  by  l e a r n i n g outcome w i l l  differentiated  asking questions  determined  activity.  g o a l of be  be  on  specific  will  skills  provide  participants  acquire. Evaluat ion Evaluation  is  an  important  nonformal  education  systems.  t o g i v e an  account  the  education also  systems  required  of  order  as  a  projects  and  important  to decide  system  will  be  measuring progress  to  how  assessed.  planning  Evaluation allows  to ensure  basis early  in  outcomes t o s p o n s o r s  in order  in  element  the  of  nonformal  future funding.  revise for  educators  and  future impact  Evaluation  towards achievement  improve  It i s ongoing  planning. of is  the a  It i s  educational process  of o b j e c t i v e s .  of  84  Table  9:  L i s t of Q u e s t i o n s f o r A n a l y s i s of L e a r n i n g Outcomes Questions  N  • Are a c t i v i t i e s designed p r i m a r i l y to prepare persons, mostly youth, f o r entry i n t o employment? • Are a c t i v i t i e s designed f o r i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s o r i e n t e d p r i m a r i l y t o the d e v e l o p m e n t o f s k i l l s and knowledge o f t h e members o f t h e l a b o u r f o r c e ? • Are a c t i v i t i e s d e s i g n e d t o o f f e r e d u c a t i o n a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s in a g r i c u l t u r a l extension, health, family l i f e education, functional literacy, basic l i t e r a c y , income-generating activities? • A r e a c t i v i t i e s d e s i g n e d f o r community improvement w h i c h i n c l u d e community development, s e l f - h e l p p r o j e c t s , i n c o m e - g e n e r a t i n g a c t i v i t i e s ( a t community l e v e l ) , and c o o p e r a t i v e education? • Are a c t i v i t i e s designed t o o f f e r c i v i c s k i l l s , e.g., knowledge of how l o c a l and n a t i o n a l governments f u n c t i o n ?  \/  N - National  Level  R - Regional  T h e r e a r e two k i n d s  of e v a l u a t i o n :  evaluation.  of  useful  in  questions evaluation levels.  Some  providing  are useful  the  in providing education  on  in  and Table  \f \f  \J  activities  1/  /  \/  /  Level  summative 10 may  evaluation.  information  / /  L - Local  formative  questions  information  of nonformal  Level  j/  be  These  for analyzing at  the  three  85  Table  10: L i s t  of Questions  f o r A n a l y s i s of E v a l u a t i o n N  Questions  • What  p r o c e d u r e s a r e u s e d t o a s s e s s t h e impact of t h e program? Who c o n d u c t s t h e e v a l u a t i o n ( i n s t r u c t o r s , outside consultants, p a r t i c i p a n t s , sponsors)? Who i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e e v a l u a t i o n ? What i s t h e r o l e o f e a c h t y p e o f e v a l u a t i o n a n d how a r e t h e i r e f f o r t s coordinated? When does e v a l u a t i o n t a k e p l a c e ( f o r m a t i v e and summative)? • How i s t h e e v a l u a t i o n a c h i e v e d ( d a i l y , weekly, monthly assessments, d i s c u s s i o n s , meetings, interim reports)? What a r e t h e s o u r c e s f o r f u n d i n g t h e e v a l u a t i o n process? How a r e t h e d a t a be c o l l e c t e d ? What k i n d o f d a t a a r e c o l l e c t e d ? How a r e t h e d a t a a n a l y z e d ? a How a r e t h e d a t a u s e d ?  • • • •  • • • •  N - National  Level  R - Regional  Applying The can  t o use  different three  nonformal  levels  Questions  for  Since  framework education  analysis the  is a  nonformal education  under  to  compare  systems.  each and  questions  u s e d when c o l l e c t i n g  •  •  • • • •  •  • •  /  • V  • •  V •  Level  that Iti s  contrast  The framework  element  will  comparison  information  and  regional,  that  tool  systems.  are  framework have n o t been t e s t e d , a l t e r n a t i v e be  •  t h e Framework  of a n a l y s i s : n a t i o n a l ,  developed  information levels.  the  L  •  L - Local  framework t h a t has been d e s c r i b e d  be u s e d t o a n a l y z e  possible  Level  R  at  and  uses  local.  provide the a l l three  provided  i n the  questions  on a l l e l e m e n t s .  may  86  In  the  national planning  useful  in identifying  goals  and  involved  those  objectives;  in planning integration  nonformal  education  i n the  policies  and  congruent  with  provide  goals those  education.  analyzing  and  different  learner  may  are  activities;  the  implementation  of  the  nongovernment to  organizations  local  national  whether  levels  level.  It  r a t e s and  information  nonformal  various  identify  and  participation Such  is  are will  funding  useful  education  program  It provides  vary  the  education  from  characteristics  on  the  of for  programs  of  participant/program  i s u s e f u l f o r the a n a l y s i s  characteristics  form the  the  policies, that  between  possible  collected  and  nonformal  similar  and  be  systems.  characteristics  of  on  comparing  Information  systems.  planning  regional  at  information  nonformal  of  at  national  education  other  is  framework may  departments  activities  It  the  plan;  government  government m i n i s t r i e s and associations.  who  nonformal  d e g r e e of  and  process  characteristics  from  b a s i s f o r comparing activities:  or n o t .  situation  of t h e  and  learners  b a s i s f o r a n a l y s i s and  The  whether  list  to would  the  comparison different consumers they  of q u e s t i o n s  situation be  comparison.  but  identified  have used the and  87  Conclusion The and  framework d e v e l o p e d  comparing  systems.  nonformal  is a useful tool  education  Nonformal education  operates  under d i f f e r e n t  activities  takes  overall  p u r p o s e of  is  to  provide  educational a c t i v i t i e s may  communication, order  the  achieved  through  radio,  such  objectives  to achieve  within  be  nonformal  broad  national  it  activities  to d i v e r s e groups  through  planning  of  face-to-face television.  has  and  countries,  education  through  or  different forms  conditions in different  the  This  of  different  but  people.  for analyzing  to  and  be  In  planned  modernization  process. Although this  study  analyzing nonformal regional,  as  yet  provides and  would be  used  analysis  and  a  local. to  the  potentially  comparing  education and  untested,  provide  comparison.  useful  the p l a n n i n g  systems The  framework d e v e l o p e d  at  the  process  three  questions  structure  levels:  raised  necessary  of  on  in for  different national,  each  element  information  for  88  CHAPTER F I V E  SUMMARY AND  CONCLUSIONS  Summary One social  the  purposes  and economic  Freire, to  of  1973).  emphasize  Verner,  change  Although  individual  1969),  learners  situation  (Lowe,  countries  where  difficult  and  have  attitudes area  general  change This  their  is  care  (Knowles,  on a d u l t  to health,  food  the  that  to learn  with  (Coombs & Ahmed,  has attempted  education  by  developing  general as  agreement  developed  agreement  on  by the  at  of the past  change  role  rural i f the  knowledge and  education  i s the  satisfying  diverse  the  areas  of  1982).  concept  of  i t s development  as  12 y e a r s .  on t h e d e f i n i t i o n Coombs  i n very  production,  1974; C o l e s ,  analyze  looking  i n the l i t e r a t u r e  is  to  assist  general  skills,  Nonformal  i s concerned  1980;  education  may  in  These c o n d i t i o n s c a n o n l y  opportunities  tend  s o c i a l a n d economic  important  and  1973;  programs  the l a r g e m a j o r i t y of a d u l t s l i v e  countries  study  reflected  education  (Apps,  needs o f t h e m a j o r i t y o f a d u l t s i n r u r a l  nonformal  there  to  that are required.  developing The  to focus  i s to bring  l e a r n i n g outcomes t h a t  1970).  of e d u c a t i o n  learning  self-actualization  child  infrastructure.  individuals  most a d u l t e d u c a t i o n  conditions relating  maternal  adults  to  i t i s important  programs t h a t emphasize individual  of a d u l t e d u c a t i o n  (1974),  Although  of nonformal there  is  no  of n o n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n i n  89  national  development.  was d e v e l o p e d formal  as a  schooling  Nonformal  response and  education  alternatives  The c o n c e p t to  other is  of nonformal  finding  adult  seen  education  alternatives  education s t r u c t u r e s .  as  one  of  the  t h a t c a n be u s e f u l t o d e v e l o p i n g  t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n who a r e l e f t  formal  schooling.  both  planners  and  has  received  funding  agencies  building  supporting  education  p r o g r a m s and e s t a b l i s h i n g  Evans,  1983;  programs are  to  planned 1982).  at  It  impact  Such p l a n n i n g body  ensuring  and  that  should  such  through  political  situation. others education  most  (Coombs, 1980; education  on t h e p o p u l a t i o n  to maintain  their  would  individuals  participation their  that  programs may are  up  t o nonformal  coordination  improve  programs  they  1974, 1980; C o l e s ,  i n v o l v e the s e t t i n g  their  argue  nonformal  nonformal  (Coombs,  may c o n t i n u e  programs,  nonformal  by  existing  new ones  to give d i r e c t i o n  education  But  attention  a r g u e t h a t programs need t o be  t h a t t h e most d e p r i v e d  reached  by  by government and n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l  the l a t t e r  i s believed  since  a greater  the n a t i o n a l l e v e l  conducted  though  For  out  which has r e s u l t e d i n  into  1982).  some t h e o r i s t s  coordinating both  Coles, have  to serve,  structures  much  major  countries to  uplift  Nonformal education  to  agencies autonomy.  run  their by  in  in society are nonformal  economic a n d  institutionalization limit  a  programs  assist  in  social,  of  of  effectiveness  non-governmental  90  organizations  (Bock,  1976; P a u l s t o n ,  The  institutionalization  to  extend  of nonformal  from  nonformal  may  education  a s one o f i t s p o t e n t i a l s .  also  limit  the  From  such  countries  set  education  programs as w e l l  positions, up  both  are organized  organizations  studies  nonformal  will  included  that  have  developing nonformal  education  of  factors  programs  non-governmental The p o l i t i c a l  of  education  a  particular  programs and  s e t up  how  much  of the d i f f e r e n t nonformal  &  i n Nonformal  a review  been  Education  of s e l e c t e d major  c o n d u c t e d on n o n f o r m a l  1974; Coombs, 1980; L a B e l l e ,  Diejomaoh,  1972).  The s t u d i e s  (1974) and S h e f f i e l d and D i e j o m a o h most  relatively of  that  associations.  be e s t a b l i s h e d  study  Sheffield  that  nonformal  programs.  (Coombs & Ahmed,  Ahmed  initiative  economic  Research Studies The  of  This  d e t e r m i n e how much s t a t e c o n t r o l w i l l  supervising  coordination  flexibility  as nonformal  of the  programs.  i t i s important  voluntary  social,  will  education  state  government-instituted  by t h e  and  environment,  for  encourages the  education  process  country  1976)  i t s powers by l e g i t i m i z i n g t h e low s t a t u s  participants  that  1976; L a B e l l e ,  of small  clientele  the  in size,  for  nonformal education comparison  nonformal  to their  which  education  i n v o l v i n g a very they  programs t h a t  research education  1975,  1976;  by Coombs and  (1972)  indicated  projects small  were d e s i g n e d .  were  fraction Even  those  were l a r g e , were s m a l l i n  o v e r a l l needs f o r e d u c a t i o n a l  services  91  of  a  developing  nearly  country.  a l l projects  (LaBelle  (1976),  One  major  America  was  knowledge  Africa,  the  to  idea  Asia  and  skills.  Such  function  better  strongly  c h a n g e , t h e impact  (1976) i n  will  not  Latin  help  i n a s o c i e t y where are  unless  of nonformal  America  individual attitudes,  change  relations  argues that  Latin  studies).  made by L a B e l l e  f o r changing  e c o n o m i c , and p o l i t i c a l (1976)  findings are r e f l e c t e d i n  f o r the L a t i n American  observation  and  individual  in  Such  changed.  other  education  social  an  social, LaBelle  relations  programs w i l l  be  minimal. Some f i n d i n g s linkage  of  between  the  studies  nonformal  education  agencies.  Bock and P a p a g i a n n i s  education  generally  formal  education  education finding At  the  certain does in  lacks  employment same amount  exclude  does  since  of s c h o o l i n g large  t o reduce  formal education  employment nonformal which  nonformal  schooling. requires a  requirements,  i n the population  As s u c h n o n f o r m a l  the i n e q u a l i t i e s that  in  of  the p r o b a b i l i t y of  entrance  groups of p e o p l e  need o f t r a i n i n g .  help  with  nonformal as  lack  c r e d e n t i a l i n g power  increase  as i s the case  time  and  Participating  not  a  (1976) a r g u e t h a t  the  possesses.  programs  indicate  education  exist  does  in society.  i t most not  92  Areas of F u t u r e A framework t h a t analyzing  and  the elements conduct  comparing that  research  comparison  regional,  Analyzing  and  gathered possible  through  and  nonformal regional the  some  of  the q u e s t i o n s  how  framework  regional education involved  planning  s y s t e m s by  structures,  comparison systems  The would  policies, agencies in planning  a n a l y s i s and  three  levels:  different using  information  provided.  nonformal l o o k i n g at  and  nonformal  other  It i s  education the  is  political  organizations  Systems of  can  questions form  the  and  be  planning  be  performed  process at  basis  for  of the in  analysis  and  each element d i s c u s s e d .  The  other  nonformal  the  t h a t have been p r o v i d e d  administrative  s y s t e m s can  of  process.  between s y s t e m s on  different  of  Comparing R e g i o n a l  level.  comparison  the  compared  education  to  Systems  be  and  possible  an  the  can  i n the p l a n n i n g  Analysis  in  local.  in different  A n a l y z i n g and  systems at  process  administrative  involved  for  useful  s y s t e m s on a l l  is  planning  to analyze  conducted  It  data  Comparing N a t i o n a l  systems  is  education  developed. collect  and  national  education  developed  nonformal  were and  been  between d i f f e r e n t  national,  The  has  Research  structures, organizations  education  compared.  nonformal that  activities  are  within  93  A n a l y z i n g and Since and It  Comparing L o c a l  nonformal  flexible, i s a t the  the  the  local  formal  is  at  level  education  this  be  systems  activities  level  s y s t e m can local  to  using  that are  be  diverse  important.  left  out  demands a r e and  questions  of  Planning  i s important,  analyze  the  so  reached.  level  that peoples'  conducted  are  a n a l y s i s i s very  where t h o s e  a t the  level  R e s e a r c h can level  education local  nonformal education  Systems  as  of it  articulated.  compare  provided  local in  the  framework. Conclusions Most two  r e s e a r c h on  major a r e a s ,  the  nonformal education contribution  to  the  has  p r o b l e m and  clientele  and  surveys  have  dealt the  its  major  with  impact impact  to  on or  (Sheffield  and  their  linkage  & Diejomaoh,  identify  They have  characteristics,  organization  systems  tried  p r o j e c t s which e x i s t .  their  their  educational  tried client  with  1972;  other  Coombs  &  1974).  The  s t u d i e s were c o n d u c t e d  impact  of  order  to  nonformal studies  on  research  identify  Ahmed,  definitional  education  systems,  education  to n a t i o n a l development.  Several nonformal  nonformal  nonformal e d u c a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s find  ways  education  of  improving  tends  to  t h a t have been c o n d u c t e d  nonformal  in order  education  on  the  be  to on  them.  find  t h e community Research  descriptive.  focus  on  out  the in on  Empirical  the  impact  of  p o p u l a t i o n without  finding  out  94  what  changes  really  occur a f t e r  t h e s e programs a r e o v e r .  Although nonformal  programs a r e f l e x i b l e  participation  their  been done find  life  education  little  community been  groups  It  of  effects  of c e r t a i n  effects of  because  a program Research  determining  determine  have  where t h o s e  what  the  social  easier and  to  education  economic  who  have  participate  argued  the  some  in  a a  negative  that  i n a program in  for  Individual  those  She  individuals  impact  is  against  while may  have  situations,  may be, have n e g a t i v e t o come t o  participate  are p a r t i c i p a t i n g . has  education  Few r e s e a r c h  nonformal  an i n d i v i d u a l t o  argued  individuals  nonformal  in  it  only  individuals  on n o n f o r m a l  on  together.  communities,  some  for  but  o t h e r s may n o t w i s h  where t h e y e x i s t . to  on  most  o u t how c o m m u n i t i e s  well-off  (1979)  in  or  their  participation.  participation effects  and  to  group  style  change  i n order  participation.  conducted  difficult  encourages  Pigozzi of  i s individual  find  ensure  r e s e a r c h has  i s encouraged  working  also  participation positive  to  self-concept  program.  that  to  participation.  participating  very  through  participation  to  in his l i f e  people  little  participation,  been  through is  change  situation  positive  has  participation  transformed  implement  system,  change t h r o u g h  programs  research  education.  in  styles  type of p a r t i c i p a t i o n  nonformal But  client  i n the a r e a of c l i e n t  o u t how The  of  enough  concentrated  p r o g r a m s e x i s t and  s t u d i e s have been  of nonformal  on  education  conducted programs.  95  Research  into  those  participate  who  needs of  t o be  done.  structural  foster  what  social in  economic changes o c c u r  nonformal  It i s a l s o necessary  education to assess  for  program the  type  r e q u i r e d i n t h e community  to  change.  those  who  of  research  participate  investigation  of  foster  i s needed.  change  Many  the  are excluded has  been  local  levels  have  education test  planning.  factors  and  way  this  to  on  education. which  the  the  This  t h a t promote  influence future  systems,  of An  impede  or  potential  of  l a r g e p o p u l a t i o n s of  programs a t the  determine the in  to the m o t i v a t i o n  nonformal  written  in reaching  done  of  in  from o t h e r  nonformal education  relates  psychological factors  theorists  nonformal education  work  a  changes t h a t are  Another area  who  and  but  people little  t h e o r i e s of i n t e g r a t e d national, k i n d of or  regional, research  hinder  planning.  and  would  integration  96  REFERENCES  Ahmed,  M. & Coombs, P. (1975). Education development. New Y o r k : P r a e g e r .  for  rural  American  Psychological Association. (1983). M a n u a l of t h e American Psychological Assocaition. Washington: Author.  A n d e r s o n , C.A. (1973). F o s t e r i n g and i n h i b i t i n g factors. In C.S. (Ed.), New strategies for educational development. L e x i n g t o n : L e x i n g t o n Books. Anderson, C.A. (1974). Effective education for agriculture. In P. Forster and J.R. Sheffield ( E d s . ) , E d u c a t i o n f o r R u r a l Development. The W o r l d Book o f E d u c a t i o n . L o n d o n : E v a n s B r o t h e r s . Apps,  J.W. (1973). Towards a w o r k i n g education. S y r a c u s e : ERIC.  p h i l o s o p h y of  adult  Apter,  D.E. (1968). System, p r o c e s s and t h e p o l i t i c s o f economic development. In J.L. Finkle and R.W. G a l d e ( E d s . ) , P o l i t i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t and s o c i a l change. New Y o r k : John W i l e y & S o n s .  Barber,  E.G. (1981). General education versus special education for rural development. Comparative E d u c a t i o n Review, 2 5 ( 2 ) , 216-243.  Bennett,  C.F. (1975). Up E x t e n s i o n , 13, 7-12.  the  hierarchy.  Journal  of  B e r t e l s e n , P.H. (1980). The r o l e o f adult education in reducing inequalities and raising levels of p r o f e s s i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and standards. Paper presented t o UNESCO C o n f e r e n c e o f A d u l t E d u c a t i o n . New D e l h i . Bock, J . C . (1976). The i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f n o n - f o r m a l education. C o m p a r a t i v e E d u c a t i o n , 2 0 ( 3 ) , 346-367. Bock,  J.C. (1983). Institutionalization of nonformal education: a response to conflicting needs. J.C. Bock and G.J. P a p a g i a n n i s ( E d s . ) , Nonformal education and national development. New York: Praeger.  Bock, J . C . & P a p a g i a n n i s , G . J . ( E d s ) . (1983a). education and national development. Praeger.  Nonformal New York:  97 Bock,  J . C . & P a p a g i a n n i s , G.J. (1983b). The p a r a d o x e s o f nonformal e d u c a t i o n : the unplanned emergence of strong participation. In J.C. Bock and G.J. P a p a g i a n n i s ( E d s . ) , Nonformal education and n a t i o n a l development. New Y o r k : P r a e g e r .  B o r g , W.R. & Gall, M.D. (1979). New Y o r k : Longman. Bowles,  Educational  Research.  S. (1979). E d u c a t i o n , c l a s s , c o n f l i c t , and uneven development. In J. Simmons ( E d . ) , The e d u c a t i o n dilemma . New Y o r k : Pergamon P r e s s .  Brembeck, C.S. (1973). The s t r a t e g i c u s e s o f f o r m a l and n o n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n . In C.S. Brembeck (Ed.), New s t r a t e g i e s f o r e d u c a t i o n a l development. Lexington: L e x i n g t o n Books. Buskey,  J.H. & S o r k , T . J . (1982). From c h a o s t o o r d e r i n program p l a n n i n g . Paper presented at the 23rd Adult Education Research Conference. Lincoln.  Callaway, A. (1973). Frontiers of out-of-school education. In C.S. Brembeck and Thompson ( E d s . ) , New strategies for educational development. L e x i n g t o n : L e x i n g t o n Books. C a r d a s c o , F. & G a t n e r , E.S.M. (1964). R e s e a r c h and Writing. New Y o r k : B a r n e s & N o b l e I n c . Carnoy,  Report  M. (1980). Can e d u c a t i o n a l o n e s o l v e t h e problem of unemployment? In J. Simmons (Ed.), The e d u c a t i o n dilemma. New Y o r k : Pergamon P r e s s .  C a r n o y , M. (1982). E d u c a t i o n f o r a l t e r n a t i v e development. C o m p a r a t i v e E d u c a t i o n Review, 2 6 ( 2 ) : 160-177. Coady,  M.M. (1939). Harper.  Coleman,  J.S. development. Press.  Coles,  Coombs,  M a s t e r s of t h e i r  destiny.  (1966). Education and P r i n c e t o n , N.J.: P r i n c e t o n  New  York:  political University  E.K.T. (1982). The maverick of the education family: two essays i n nonformal e d u c a t i o n . New Y o r k : Pergamon P r e s s . P.H. systems  (1968). analysis.  The world educational c r i s i s : a London: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  98  Coombs,  P.H. (1973). How shall we plan nonformal education? In C.S. Brembeck a n d Thompson (Eds.), New strategies for educational development. L e x i n g t o n : L e x i n g t o n Books.  Coombs, P.H. (1974). Attacking r u r a l poverty, The John H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  Baltimore:  Coombs,  P.H. (1976). Nonformal education: myths, realities, and opportunities. Comparative E d u c a t i o n Review, 2 0 ( 3 ) , 281-293.  Coombs,  P.H. (1980). Y o r k : Pergamon  Meeting Press.  t h e needs  of the poor.  New  Coombs,  P.H., e t a l . Y o r k : UNICEF.  (1973).  New p a t h s t o l e a r n i n g .  New  Cross,  P. (1981). Jossey-Bass.  Adults  D u v e r g e r , M. (1961). L o n d o n : George Evans  as l e a r n e r s .  San F r a n c i s c o :  Introduction to the s o c i a l A l l e n & Unwin L t d .  D.R. (1981). Educational policy areas. Comparative Education 232-243.  sciences.  dilemma f o r r u r a l Review, 25(2),  Evans,  D.R. (1981). The p l a n n i n g o f n o n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n . Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.  Evans,  D.R. (1983). P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n nonformal e d u c a t i o n at the l o c a l level: Ghana and I n d o n e s i a . In J.C. Bock and G . J . P a p a g i a n n i s ( E d s . ) , N o n f o r m a l education and n a t i o n a l development. New York: Praeger.  Faure, E. (1972). L e a r n i n g t o b e : e d u c a t i o n f o r tomorrow. P a r i s : UNESCO. Foley,  G. (1976). Diffusion or mobilisation? An important t h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e . Australian Journal of A d u l t E d u c a t i o n , J_6( 1 ) , 18-23.  Forster,  P. & S h e f f i e l d , J.R. (1974). E d u c a t i o n and r u r a l development. The W o r l d Year Book of E d u c a t i o n . London: Evans B r o t h e r s .  Freire,  P. (1973). The pedagogy o f York: Seabury P r e s s .  the  oppressed.  New  99  Freire,  P. (1982). Education f o r c r i t i c a l consciousness. In R. G r o s s ( E d . ) , I n v i t a t i o n t o l i f e l o n g l e a r n i n g . Chicago: F o u l e t t .  Grandstaff, M. (1973). Are formal schools the best schools f o r education? In C.S. Brembeck and Thompson ( E d s . ) , New strategies for educational development. L e x i n g t o n : L e x i n g t o n Books. G r a n d s t a f f , M. (1974). Team Reports. University. Grandstaff, M. indications 20(3) .  A l t e r n a t i v e s in education. East Lansing: Michigan  (1976). f o r use.  Study State  Nonformal education: some C o m p a r a t i v e E d u c a t i o n Review,  G r e e n , D.G. (1974). Nonformal education f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l development: a systems p e r s p e c t i v e . I n P. F o r s t e r and J.R. S h e f f i e l d (Eds.), Education for rural development. The w o r l d book o f e d u c a t i o n . London: Evans B r o t h e r s . Guyot,  Hall,  J. (1973). Who gets what when education is deformalized. In C.S. Brembeck (Ed.), New s t r a t e g i e s f o r e d u c a t i o n a l development. Lexington: L e x i n g t o n Books. B. (1975). Participatory research: change. C o n v e r g e n c e , 2, 24-32.  Hall,  an a p p r o a c h f o r  B. (1978). Creating knowledge; breaking the monopoly, research methods, participation and development. Participatory Research Project, Working Paper No. 1_. Toronto: Toronto International Council f o r Adult Education.  H a r b i s o n , F.H. (1973). Human resources and nonformal education. I n C.S. Brembeck ( E d . ) , New s t r a t e g i e s f o r e d u c a t i o n a l development. Lexington: Lexington Books. Hoghielm, R. & education  Rubenson, for social  K. (Eds.). (1980). Adult change. Stockholm: Lund.  Houle,  C. (1972). The d e s i g n Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  of  education.  Karabel,  J . & Halsey, A.H. (Eds.). (-1977). idealogy in education. New Y o r k : O x f o r d Press.  San  Power and University  100  Reesing,  R.M. (1981)development without of A d u l t E d u c a t i o n ,  From the ground up: t o w a r d s dependency. Australian Journal J_6(4), 122-126.  LaBelle,  T.J. (1976). G o a l s and s t r a t e g i e s o f n o n f o r m a l education i n L a t i n America. Comparative Education Review, 2 0 ( 3 ) , 328-345.  LaBelle,  T . J . (1979). L i b e r a t i o n , development and rural nonformal education. In R.O. Niehoff (Ed.), Nonformal education and t h e r u r a l poor. East Lansing: Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y .  LaBelle,  T . J . (1981). An i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e n o n f o r m a l education of c h i l d r e n and y o u t h . Comparative E d u c a t i o n Review, 2 5 ( 3 ) , 313-329.  L e n g r a d , P. (1980). An i n t r o d u c t i o n t o l i f e l o n g l e a r n i n g . P a r i s : UNESCO P r e s s . Lindeman, E.C. Montreal: Lerner,  (1961). Harvest  The meaning o f a d u l t House.  D. (1958). The p a s s i n g the M i d d l e E a s t .  Lowe,  J . (1970). symposium countries.  Lowe,  J. (1975). perspective.  of t r a d i t i o n a l  education. society in  A d u l t e d u c a t i o n and n a t i o n b u i l d i n g . A on adult education in developing Edinburgh: Edinburgh U n i v e r s i t y Press. The e d u c a t i o n P a r i s : UNESCO.  of  adults:  a  M u l u s o , T. (1982). Structured courses a strategy rural development. Unpublished Ph. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Massachusetts.  world for D.  Muyeed,  A. (1982). Some reflections on e d u c a t i o n f o r rural development. International Review of E d u c a t i o n , 2 8 ( 2 ) , 227-238.  Myrdal,  G. (1957). Economic theory and underdeveloped regions. L o n d o n : Methuen & Co. L t d .  Neff,  (1979). W o r k i n g on n o n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n rural poor. I n R.O. Niehoff (Ed.), education and t h e r u r a l poor. East Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y .  K.  Niehoff,  R.O. ( E d . ) . rural poor. University.  (1979). East  and t h e Nonformal Lansing:  N o n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n and t h e Lansing: Michigan State  101  Oxenham, J . ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Nonformal education: approaches t o teaching literacy. East Lansing: Michigan State University.Parson,  T. ( 1 9 7 0 ) . A paradigm f o r the a n a l y s i s of s o c i a l systems and change. I n N . J . Demerath a n d R.W.K. Paterson ( E d s . ) , System, change a n d c o n f l i c t . New York: Free P r e s s .  Paterson, R.W.K. (1971). Aspects Studies i n Adult Education,  of adult education. 3 ( 1 ) , 15-27.  In  Paulston, R.G. (1973). Nonformal educational alternatives. I n C.S. Brembeck and Thompson (Eds.), New s t r a t e g i e s f o r e d u c a t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s . L e x i n g t o n : L e x i n g t o n Books. Paulston, R.G. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . N o n f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n : a symposium. C o m p a r a t i v e E d u c a t i o n Review, 2 0 ( 3 ) , 278-367. Paulston, R.G. (1977). Social conceptual frameworks. Review,  2J_( 2 / 3 ) ,  and e d u c a t i o n a l change: Comparative Education  370-395.  P a u l s t o n , R.G. & LeRoy, G. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Other dreams, other schools: folk colleges in social and e t h n i c movements. P i t t s b u r g h : U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h . Pigozzi,  M.J. (1982). Participation i n nonformal education projects: some possible negative outcomes. Convergence: I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Adult Education.  Rubenson, K. life.  (1982). Adult education Learning, 3 ( 4 ) , 6 - 8 .  and the q u a l i t y of  Rubenson, K. (1982). Interaction between formal and nonformal education. P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e ICAE c o n f e r e n c e , P a r i s : ICAE. Rubenson, K. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Barriers to participation i n adult education. Discussion paper prepared f o r S k i l l s Development Leave Task F o r c e . Ottawa: M i n i s t r y of L a b o u r Canada. Sheffield, in Simkins,  J.R. & D i e j o m a o h . (1972). Nonformal education Africa. New Y o r k : A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e .  J.T. (1975). Nonformal development. M a n c h e s t e r Monograph  education Series.  and  1 02  Simmons, J . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . An o v e r v i e w o f t h e p o l i c y issues in the 1980's. I n J . Simmons ( E d . ) , The e d u c a t i o n dilemma. O x f o r d : Pergamon P r e s s . Smelser,  Sork,  N.J. (1968). Mechanisms of change a n d a d j u s t m e n t to change. I n J . L . F i n k l e and R.W. G a b l e ( E d s . ) , P o l i t i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t and s o c i a l c h a n g e . New Y o r k : John W i l e y & Sons.  T.J. (1981). The p o s t m o r t e m p r o g r a m s by e x a m i n i n g f a i l u r e s . The A d u l t Y e a r s , 5 ( 3 ) , 6-7, 31.  audit: Lifelong  improving Learning:  Steele,  S.M. (1970). Program evaluation - a broader definition. J o u r n a l o f E x t e n s i o n , 8, 5-17.  Schatz,  S. Journal  (1969). Crude of Modern A f r i c a n  private neo-colonialism. S t u d i e s , 7 ( 4 ) , 677-688.  Turabian, K.L. (1973). A manual f o r w r i t e r s o f term papers, theses and dissertations. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s . Tuckman, B.W. (1978). Conducting educational New Y o r k : H a r c o u r t B r a c e J o v a n o v i c h .  research.  UNESCO.  (1975). education  of  UNESCO.  (1976).  Verner,  Manual f o r the statistics. Paris:  collection UNESCO.  Lifelong  Paris:  learning.  C. (1964). D e f i n i t i o n s of terms. A.A. Livergert, & W. Hallenbeck educat i o n .  adult  UNESCO. I n G. J e n s e n , (Eds.), Adult  W a i s e n e n , F.B. (1973). I n d i v i d u a l m o d e r n i t y and n o n f o r m a l education. I n C.S. Brombeck ( E d . ) , New s t r a t e g i e s f o r e d u c a t i o n a l development. Lexington: Lexington Books.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 11 2
Philippines 4 0
Malaysia 2 2
India 2 0
China 2 1
Brazil 2 0
Japan 2 0
France 2 0
Poland 1 0
Vietnam 1 1
Unknown 1 0
Canada 1 2
Russia 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 11 4
Ashburn 4 0
Santiago 2 0
Tokyo 2 0
Mumbai 2 0
Shenzhen 2 0
Nashville 2 0
San Juan 1 0
Sunnyvale 1 1
Wilmington 1 0
Redmond 1 0
Saint Petersburg 1 0
Mountain View 1 1

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055772/manifest

Comment

Related Items