This book sets out a contemporary perspective on music learning and participation, highlighting complex intersections between learner experiences and dreams, and the informal, non-formal and formal practices and contexts that they encounter. The role that these practices and contexts play in supporting the development of musical possible selves is a central theme of the book. At a moment when the boundaries between community music, music in school curricula, lifelong learning and self-directed musical learning and participation are increasingly blurred, we challenge a âsiloâ approach to understanding the diverse music education landscape and its influence in shaping our musical possible selves. We propose instead a multi-layered, âmanifoldâ model of musical learning, participation and facilitation that has relevance across a range of informal, non-formal or formal contexts. We argue that responsive, multifaceted music leadership is key in supporting learners across the life-course as they explore and experience new musical possible selves and rediscover lost musical possible selves.
This introductory chapter sets out the origins of formal, non-formal and informal learning designations. We discuss how these terms were defined by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in relation to different contexts for learning in the workplace and how they have been developed since then, taking account of the way that learning and teaching within those contexts can lie on a continuum between formal and informal. We then focus on the facilitation of learning, exploring this through the lens of Heronâs (1999, 2009) model of manifold learning. We consider the ways in which differing orientations to facilitation and learning intersect with formal, non-formal and informal practices and contexts, in turn shaping the development of learnersâ musical possible selves. We conclude with a detailed discussion of the theory of possible selves, where we highlight the key principles of âelaborationâ and âsalienceâ and propose that orientations to learning, facilitation and participation have far-reaching implications for nurturing, articulating and sustaining musical possible selves.
The Emergence of the Concepts of Formal, Non-formal and Informal Learning
In this section, we draw on the literature relating to adult learning and the historical context with particular reference to the definitions proposed by the OECD, as these form the basis for the designation of our chapters. The OECD (2019) suggests the following:
- Formal learning is always organised and structured, and has learning objectives. From the learnerâs standpoint, it is always intentional: i.e. the learnerâs explicit objective is to gain knowledge, skills and/or competences. Typical examples are learning that takes place within the initial education and training system or workplace training arranged by the employer. One can also speak about formal education and/or training or, more accurately speaking, education and/or training in a formal setting. This definition is rather consensual.
- Informal learning is never organised, has no set objective in terms of learning outcomes and is never intentional from the learnerâs standpoint. Often it is referred to as learning by experience or just as experience. The idea is that the simple fact of existing constantly exposes the individual to learning situations, at work, at home or during leisure time, for instance. This definition, with a few exceptions, also meets with a fair degree of consensus.
- Mid-way between the first two, non-formal learning is the concept on which there is the least consensus, which is not to say that there is consensus on the other two, simply that the wide variety of approaches in this case makes consensus even more difficult. Nevertheless, for the majority of authors, it seems clear that non-formal learning is rather organised and can have learning objectives. The advantage of the intermediate concept lies in the fact that such learning may occur at the initiative of the individual but also happens as a by-product of more organised activities, whether or not the activities themselves have learning objectives. In some countries, the entire sector of adult learning falls under non-formal learning; in others, most adult learning is formal. Non-formal learning therefore gives some flexibility between formal and informal learning, which must be strictly defined to be operational, by being mutually exclusive, and avoid overlap.
Some authors have proposed different types of informal learning that contradict the OECD model in some respects. For example, Eraut (2004, p. 250) outlines a continuum of informal learning, comprising implicit learning that results in tacit knowledge; reactive learning, which is ânear spontaneous and unplannedâ; and deliberative learning, âfor which time is set asideâ. Kaplan (1975, p. 26) would consider the latter âleisure activityâ, whose core elements are âadventure, curiosity, play ⌠and delight of discoveryâ. Schugurensky (2000) identifies self-directed, incidental and socialisation as three types of informal learning. Self-directed learning (SDL) is both conscious and intentional, while incidental learning is unintentional but conscious. The third type labelled âsocialisationâ (also referred to as tacit learning, and resembling Erautâs implicit learning) refers to the internalisation of values, attitudes, behaviours, skills, and so forth that occur during everyday life, where the learner has no a priori intention of acquiring values, attitudes, and so on and is not necessarily aware when learning has taken place. In contrast, Marsick and Watkins (2001) argue that informal learning is learner-led and usually intentional, albeit not highly structured. Examples include self-directed learning, networking, coaching, mentoring and performance planning. They suggest that incidental learning that comes about as an unexpected by-product of experience (such as learning from mistakes) can form part of informal or formal learning and can function as an impetus for deliberate and intentional reflection. In the next section, we consider how some of these ideas correspond with learning and teaching approaches in music.
Formal, Non-Formal and Informal Learning and Teaching Approaches in Music
Historically, much music education has been framed with an emphasis on a formal, hierarchical apprenticeship model that privileges practical learning (Mark, 2013). Notwithstanding shifting patterns of engagement with music, increasing cultural diversity and social change relating to globalisation and technology, formal, prescribed and teacher-led music education continues to dominate the landscape, particularly in the domain of instrumental learning (Creech & Gaunt, 2012).
However, increasingly, music education researchers and practitioners have turned their attention towards informal or non-formal pedagogies that promote holistic, experiential learning (Hallam, Creech, & Varvarigou, 2017; Ruck Keene & Green, 2017; Taylor, 2012). A specific interest has emerged, relating to the ways in which imaginative and intuitive learning intersect with cognitive understandings and procedural knowledge (Muhonen, 2016; Saetre, 2011).
Folkestad (2006) distinguishes between informal and formal learning in music, arguing that formal learning involves activities that are pre-planned and directed by a teacher. This orientation to formal learning may be understood as hierarchical, where the teacher functions as a gatekeeper with responsibility for decisions about the âwhat, how, and whenâ relating to learning. Informal learning, on the other hand, is thought to encourage learner autonomy (Green, 2008; Jenkins, 2011), developing naturally from musical...