Search

This paper provides an overview of the meaning of adult giftedness in nonformal education. Although the concept of giftedness is historically related to adulthood, then (Põlda, 2018) as nowadays public communication mostly talks about the gifts of children, whilst adults with their abilities, skills, and giftedness have been left in the background (Brown et al., 2020; van de Ven, 2022). The reason for the lack of discussion of a lifespan approach to giftedness is that existing models fail to understand adult giftedness primarily because (a) they do not take into account the social roles of adults; (b) they focus excessively on achievement and comparison with peers; and (c) they rely on external definitions, ignoring the individual's internal motivation (van Thiel et al., 2019). The aim of this paper is to clarify the term's content and describe how the development of adult giftedness is supported in non-formal education. The research questions fulfilling the purpose were: (1) How do non-formal education practitioners construct the meaning of adult giftedness, and (2) What opportunities do practitioners see in their work to support the development of adult giftedness and abilities? Rooted views present giftedness as a high level of people's mental abilities (high IQ) and also describe giftedness as different types of intelligence divided into cognitive modules based on sociocultural context (Theory of Multiple Intelligences) or as a system made up of different components (Kaufman & Sternberg, 2008). In order to fulfil these criteria, it is necessary to expand the understanding of giftedness as a phenomenon specific to children and formulate the meaning of giftedness over the lifespan, including defining the concept of adult giftedness (Brown et al., 2020). In order to comprehend the meaning of adult giftedness, it is necessary to consider an adult's experiences, including gifted adults' experiences, in various contexts and stages of life (Brown & Peterson, 2022). It is claimed that supporting the development of an adult's giftedness strengthens and empowers the individual in daily work, improves people's mental and physical well-being, and improves relationships in the organisation (Nauta & Ronner, 2013). Thus, the need to conceptualise the development of giftedness over the entire lifespan is a key issue in the concept of lifelong learning. Non-formal education is one of the most suitable types of education, as it creates a supportive environment for individual development and considers people's individual development needs (Põlda et al., 2021a). Research shows that in non-formal education, the development of general competencies takes place continuously and essentially in every field and across the lifespan, including in adult education, and that through the development of general competencies, we also support the development of gifts and abilities (Põlda et al., 2021b). The requirements of this study called for a qualitative approach to be used for both data collection and analysis. The research material consisted of a secondary dataset of 17 focus group interviews with non-formal education practitioners (n = 64), who represented the fields of adult education, youth work, culture, well-being, economy, and environmental education. The research was based on interview material in which non-formal education practitioners describe their daily work in supporting learning. Representatives of these fields deal with issues of personnel development and career development support, including specialists, consultants, and adult trainers, as well as organisers and facilitators of interest in education and activities and youth work. We used qualitativedirected content analysis by Saldaña (2012) and grouped the marked codes by research questions based on common features. As a result of the answers to both research questions, a total of six main categories emerged: content of the term, personal characteristics, development, environment, practitioners' role, and responsibility. The findings revealed that practitioners of non-formal education describe their work by creating linguistic connections with the concept of adult giftedness and using three important constructions. The concept of giftedness is associated with the phenomenon's direct or indirect signifiers (gift, skills, abilities); with the personal characteristics of the bearer of the gifts (internal motivation, self-directedness, analytical ability); and with the developmental aspects of the giftedness, which can happen by itself but rather takes place with support and awareness. The prerequisites and unique features of adult giftedness are autonomy, professionalisation at work, being aware of one's giftedness or potential, taking responsibility for the development, and realising that it is possible across the lifespan. It must be understood that the recognition of gifts requires the individual's willingness to work hard in competition or for the sake of success and the willingness to stand out, requiring special attention and support from the surrounding environment. Our results show that in supporting the development of adult giftedness, the non-formal education environment is an enabler of good opportunities and interest-based activities, assuming that the created environment takes into account the changing world, is flexible, and enables a person-centred approach. In supporting the development of adult giftedness, both the role of the practitioner of non-formal education and the importance of the environment are highlighted. The study revealed the need for flexibility in the environment and the importance of transferable skills for individuals in the context of adult giftedness. According to the study, finding opportunities and resources for the development of one's giftedness and its transfer, as well as for coping with changes in society, is primarily the individual's own responsibility. Theorists refer to "adult giftedness" as the individual's struggle with isolation and social disapproval (Jacobsen, 2000). The study also confirmed the understanding that giftedness in adulthood is related to differentiation and competition, e.g., in a professional career and elsewhere. Giftedness is related to adult social roles, and non-formal education supports a person in the struggle between these roles. The study showed that non-formal education is a non-judgmental environment that an adult enters voluntarily, and it offers different options in various fields. This is where the main activities of supporting giftedness in non-formal education can be highlighted as important, which we venture to recommend based on the study. The results of the research allow adult educators (e.g., lecturers at universities and vocational schools) to understand the meaning of adult giftedness and to see opportunities to support the development of the gifts of their adult learners by offering specific activities and solutions. Both practitioners working in non-formal education as well as creators and developers of non-formal education opportunities, could benefit from the research results. The more clearly the importance of adult giftedness and the opportunities to support it are highlighted, the broader the benefits will be for the whole society. Its recognition is a priority in education codes and strategies of different countries (UNESCO, 2016). Glück and Tischler (2021) argue that 'Perhaps we should move from "giftedness" to "giftingness" from individualistic competition to collaboration. 'This is the idea we should follow. Based on the processed theoretical material for this research and the analysis of the practitioners' interviews, we are able to offer recommendations for supporting adult giftedness in non-formal education. A safe and supportive learning environment can be created through flexibility, freedom of choice and equal opportunities. From the lifespan perspective, the development of giftedness is the learner's responsibility. The practitioners' role is to consider the demands of a changing world and to support giftedness by noticing it and using a person-centred approach. When identifying giftedness, we should use the vocabulary referring directly to the phenomenon. It is important to consider all social roles of an adult and to support transversal skills and career competencies. Considering the above discussed, it can be summarised that the meaning of adult giftedness includes individual awareness, responsibility for developing one's gifts, safe and supported environment, professionalisation, and consideration of adult's social roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As a result of the global school closures in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, distance learning, educational technology and learning by oneself has gained the attention of both teachers and parents, as well as schools worldwide. So far, knowledge regarding distance learning has been contradictory and gathered mostly in a quantitative manner. Aim: The aim of the following article is to examine the distance-learning experiences of four youngsters aged 16 from the DigiGen project exploratory pilot study in Estonia—a country known for its digital development. The study focuses on how learning was construed during distance learning in the experiences of young people. Method: These experiences, gathered in four semi-structured in-depth interviews, are placed in the framework of the theory of transactional distance and critical discourse analysis. Results: As the results indicate, the distance-learning experiences are derived from the structure and organisation of the distance learning—the more rigid the structure, the more difficult it was for the students. Five main discourses emerged regarding how youngsters construed learning during distance learning: (1) school building is for learning; (2) teachers teach instead of self-learning; (3) learning as a forced activity; (4) avoiding asking for help; and dominant in all the discourses was (5) avoiding responsibility. Discussion and conclusion: According to the results, distance learning is multifaceted and young people have ambivalent experiences from a distance learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides a conceptual mapping of key competences in nonformal education (NFE) contexts. Key competences refer to transferable skills and knowledge that transcend domains of practice and support developing an active citizen, ready to take responsibility for their own life in socially responsive ways (Kikas, 2015; Westera, 2001; De-Juanas Oliva et al., 2016). In Estonia, several definitions and taxonomies of key competences are at work. European Council (2018) has defined key competences for lifelong learning, while national curricula of basic education (PRÕK, 2018) and general education (GRÕK, 2018), standards of vocational education (2019) and higher education (2019) provide their own definitions, listing their context-specific key competences to be developed at all levels of education. It is unclear how the systems of such key competences are related or what is the role of NFE in developing key competences listed for formal education contexts. Education strategy (EEÕS 2014) prioritises learner-centred education while national curricula maintain that the teachers assess the level of key competences acquired by a student in or outside of school. This would require cooperation between formal education and NFE professionals within the community. Research so far shows that schools are underperforming in demonstrating the development of key competences (Valk, 2019). There is also lack of attention on key competences in NFE contexts (Dibou & Rannala, 2019). Our goal is to find out how are key competences and agency of participants reflected in policies and practices related to NFE. The following research questions guide us: 1) how do policymakers and NFE facilitators construct development of key competences in NFE; 2) how do NFE facilitators construct the agency of participants in the learning process. We refer to the following key competences: values and cultural competences; social and citizenship competences; cultural competences; entrepreneurial competences; self-determination competences; learning to learn competences; digital skills and competences; maths, science and technology-related competences. For our empirical study, we used a variety of methods that entailed several steps of data collection and analysis. As our sample, we explored the post-2000 Estonian policy documents (n=23) from six fields (adult education, youth work, culture, environment, economy, and wellbeing) that construct NFE (Karu et al., 2019). We analysed how the aims they construct for NFE in their specific policy domain relate to key competences. We then conducted focus group interviews (n=17) with NFE practitioners (n=59) representing the six fields in question to understand how their reflections of various aspects of NFE relate to key competences. The policy documents were selected so as to mention NFE at least once. We carried out a critical discourse analysis to distinguish how they define the aim or function of NFE in the context of their field. We then did the close reading of those aims, to highlight specific codes carrying a meaning that could relate to developing key competences. We later related each emerging code to one of the key competences, mapping specific thematic discourses for each key competence in each of the six thematic fields. We managed to show that even though the term key competences may be absent from the policy document, the policy makers may have still proposed that key competences be developed within the NFE setting. Three key competences were present across five of the six fields, two in four fields, and three in just two or even less. We describe the emerging thematic discourses of key competences as they appeared in policy documents. The interviews were intended to gather facilitators' understandings of what NFE is, exploring their definitions of formal and NFE and learning, prompting to describe the learning environment and methods they relate to NFE settings, and inquiring about their visions for the future of NFE. There was no direct mention of key competences in the questions nor in the answers, and instead, we will analyse how key competences are reflected in the focus group discussions. Applying sociological critical discourse analysis (CDA) following Wodak & Krzyzanowski (2008) we explored the corpus of two focus interview transcripts per field, altogether 12 interviews with NFE practitioners (n=46). We used data triangulation with different researchers running the first round of thematic analysis of the data to find the mentions of key competences that align with the pre-set list of eight. Then we determined if the interviews with NFE practitioners of each field covered any of these. Indeed - while practitioners did not use the term key competence or names of specific key competences, the way they described their views and experiences with NFE revealed a myriad of occasions and opportunities to develop key competences in NFE. Some of the eight key competences were referred to more prominently across all fields, others were represented very modestly. Given the richness of the meanings related to each of the competence, we systematised them across the interviews into two to five meaningful categories per competence and thus provided a map of discourses of key competences that reflected the way NFE practitioners discuss learning in NFE. Following our theoretical framework whereby developing key competences enables supporting agency in the learners, we also sought to analyse how agency emerges when NFE practitioners discuss NFE in the focus group interviews. We distinguished between the agency of the learner and the agency of the facilitator, especially recognising it in the phases of goalsetting and assessment of learning activities. Our results show that practitioners construct NFE as supporting learner agency, extending responsibility for the learning, goalsetting and assessment to the learners themselves. They appear to oppose the external assessment of learning fiercely, as the way they see learners benefit from NFE is often related to different kinds of difficult to measure key competences that the learner becomes aware of later in their life. This also means they see nonformal learner as bearing intrinsic motivation to learn, interest to direct their own learning, and able to reflect on their learning process and results - or, full of agency. If some do not, the practitioners describe these learners' lack of agency. In turn, their dominant concept of the practitioner in NFE reflects their supporting role in the learning process that involves careful but often masked facilitation of learning contexts that would enhance the learning experience and support the learner in achieving their goals. This intertwines with the less prominent concept whereby the practitioner performs the role of a teacher in the more traditional sense, providing knowledge, skills, confidence, or any other resource. The two approaches were present in all the interviews across the six domains. However, even in the cases where teacher agency was stressed, this was done in the context of full respect towards the learner and an aspiring cooperative approach to the learning (see also Smith, 2017). On the other hand, where facilitator agency was underlined, the practitioners decidedly rejected the notion that there was no role for them as practitioners. If anything, they saw a need for professional standards for adult educators since this kind of guidance is demanding. It appears then that in NFE development of key competences is directed and dependent on the learners, their needs and preferences, their environmentand demands it makes, as well as learning and didactical methods used in NFE, but not the policy documents in the field. Cooperation and communication between parties involved were proved relevant as foreseen by national curricula (GRÕK 2018, PRÕK 2018) and described by researchers studying agency (Biesta et al., 2015; Smith, 2017). The interviewed practitioners confirmed that development of key competences occurs daily, which was more than could be assumed, judging by the policy documents. It is possible that policymakers do not realise the role that NFE has in this (Valk, 2019, Männiste, 2019), and thus, common understanding of the meanings given to key competences should be sought (see also Kikas and Toomela, 2015). Our analysis suggests that NFE context should be seen as an important facilitator for developing key competences. It should complement the role that formal education system has, by providing a very different learning setting that provides both the learner and the professional with enough agency to secure success. Among the limitations of the study is the fact that the most recent strategies and policy documents were not taken into account. Since the policy trails were only analytical, as was our attempt to create focus groups based on the six thematic fields, it is possible that the specific comparison using fields is less fruitful already by design. Inclusion of policy documents across the fields and interviewing diverse groups of NFE practitioners provided us with a unique opportunity to reach at a conceptual map of discourses for the eight key competences in the field of NFE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Proceedings of the Institute of Estonian Language & Culture / Tallinna Ülikooli Eesti Keele ja Kultuuri Instituudi Toimetised is the property of Tallinn University, Institute of Estonian Language & Culture and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Proceedings of the Institute of Estonian Language & Culture / Tallinna Ülikooli Eesti Keele ja Kultuuri Instituudi Toimetised is the property of Tallinn University, Institute of Estonian Language & Culture and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)