Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

In Chapter One “Lifelong Learning: Concepts and Conceptions” David Aspin and Judith Chapman note that, although the term “lifelong learning” is used in a wide variety of contexts and has a wide currency, its meaning is often unclear. It is perhaps for that reason that its operationalisation and implementation has not been widely practised or achieved and such application as it has had, has been achieved primarily on a piecemeal basis. They show that “Lifelong Learning” has been the subject of a range of various attempts at analysis, exploration and justification for some time now - since the publication of the UNESCO 1972 Report of the Fauré Committee, to further analysis and exploration in the Report of the UNESCO Delors Committee in 1996; and the Reports of the OECD, the European Parliament and the Nordic Council in the later 1990s. Since then policy-makers in countries, agencies and institutions have urged that a "lifelong learning" approach should be promoted in education policies to provide a strong foundation to underpin continuing education and training, social inclusion and individual opportunities for personal growth and emancipation. However the meanings and values implied by policy-makers’ use of and commitment to such ideas and values of “lifelong learning” remains ill-defined and unclear.

In this chapter some versions of lifelong learning are reviewed, some conceptions of education they imply are explored, and some of the ways those concepts may be partial, faulty, misleading or mistaken are delineated. To obviate opaque, tendentious or reductionist versions of “lifelong learning”, they propose looking pragmatically at the problems that policy-makers are addressing when urging that learning be lifelong and open to and engaged in by all people. They argue that, just as there is a myriad of such problems, some of them unique to particular countries, educational systems or institutions, some much more general and widespread, so there will be differences, not only in kind but also in degree of complexity and sophistication, in the type and scale of the solutions proffered to them. They end by advocating adopting a pragmatic approach as one of the principal modes of operation in the examination and attempted solution of some of the problems facing education today: what departments, systems and countries, what national and international institutions, agencies and organisations of learning, ought to do about the challenges posed by the need and demand for our educational policies to be “lifelong”.

A central notion in the UNESCO literature of lifelong education in the 1970’s and after was that of the learning society. The notion had strategic pedagogical implications and emerged from two considerations: (1) the idea that we should consider all kinds of learning not just the formal but the non-formal and informal also as educationally relevant, and (b) the idea intrinsic to lifelong education that education transcends schooling, that its concerns infiltrate the whole of society; in short, that it is not just lifelong but also lifewide. The learning society was proposed in the of 1972 as an utopian aspiration waiting to be realised; the question the Report raised was what of learning society is desirable, politically and socially. In other words, the Faure Report a learning society with a particular ideological core. Since then, postmodern thinking seems to have proclaimed the end of theory, an end which seems to have been reflected also in a discourse that, with the new millennium, has seen the ascendancy of lifelong learning over lifelong education. This discourse suggests a different way of approaching the idea of a learning society; not as a theory to be constructed but as a concrete reality that awaits deconstruction. This chapter suggests that neither approach need be rejected, that both may be needed for different purposes and that the latter points to the need to rehabilitate education.

The two main objectives of lifelong learning policy, theory and practice in Britain – and also to a large extent in Europe and Australasia (Hyland, 1999; Field – Leicester, 2000) – are the development of vocational skills to enhance economic productivity, and the fostering of social inclusion and civic cohesion. Direct links are made between inclusion and economic prosperity in the ‘vision of a society where high skills, high rewards and access to education and training are open to everyone’ (DfES, 2001:6). Although this policy does, to some degree, represent a change from the rampant neo-liberalism of the 1980s and 1990s in Britain, the promotion of economic capital always has pride of place and there is a real danger that the social capital objectives of contemporary vocational education and training (VET) may be neglected in the obsession with economic competitiveness (Hyland, 2002). Since work-based learning (WBL) is now a central element in most current VET policy initiatives in Britain, it is suggested that attention to the systematic management and support of learning on WBL programmes – with due emphasis given to the important social values dimension of vocationalism – can go some way to achieving the crucial social objectives of lifelong learning.

Over the last ten to fifteen years, there has been an increasing ordering of the practices of post-school education and training within a discourse of lifelong learning. This is particularly the case in the OECD countries and in those transnational organisations, such as the OECD and EU. While this discourses itself is not new, the significance of its uptake and by whom has resulted in a challenge to some of the traditional conceptions of adult education. Here there is an attempt to reframe the educational discourse through policy-led approaches, which also appeal to those who have long supported learning that takes place outside of educational institutions. This challenge has had various and varying effects around the globe, dependent in part on the nature of those established traditions and the relative strength of different interest groups and their educational starting points and priorities. This chapter will draw upon aspects of poststructuralism and actor network theory to discuss the ways in which adult education is reordered – both brought forth and regulated - through the discourses of lifelong learning. In the process, it will discuss the ways in which discourses of learning ambiguously both reinforce the power of educational institutions as the authorisers of worthwhile learning through assessment and challenge that authority by positioning learning as part of all social practices. It will argue that there is a need to reinvigorate an educational discourse around curriculum and pedagogy in response to current emphases on learning.

Two contrasting inter-related humanist forms of discourse of lifelong learning are evident in the literature. The first, dominated by politicians and employers, appears to interpret lifelong learning as a to improve competitiveness and productivity regarding what is done in practice within a global economy; the other, led mainly by academics, is represented as the very continually resolve the conflicts and contradictions posed by the first. In this chapter we draw on a ‘way of thinking’ that is deconstructive in its intent that attempts to move beyond the confines of ‘humanist thinking’. Such thinking makes clear the vicious circularity of the argument for the improvement of ourselves as human beings, wherein lifelong learning valorised by leaders in discourses of lifelong learning provides not only a rationalisation for the improvement of human beings but the very means of achieving such possibilities.

On reading Heidegger’s ‘…Question Concerning Technology’ and its closely related text, ‘The ‘Principle of Reason’ we sought to stand outside systematic attempts to represent this vicious circle of improvement. In so doing this chapter explores this vicious circle in its relationship with Being, in which such means-ends driven technology of lifelong learning, rather than continuing to reproduce the illusion of something under our control and at our disposal, only reveals the real to us as human beings in accordance with the principles’ of reason, and of lifelong learning.

As grounds for the ‘framing’, such principles, it is argued, rank and order the ‘on-going activity’ of perfecting and making sufficient the objective self, ‘the learner’ for the global economy, rather than opening the possibility of the identity of human beings belonging together with the movement of difference.

So, it is argued, the improvement of, and education of, ourselves as human beings in and through lifelong learning, which, in becoming normative and binding for practices on grounds of the principle of lifelong learning, renders agents of education as functionaries of ‘the framing’.

The purpose of the proposed chapter is to identify ISSUES raised by or involved in the theory and practice of lifelong learning (hereinafter referred to as LL).

“Learning how” and “Learning that”; Ability to learn in both senses is a characteristic of human beings. In a general sense we learn from the processes of everyday life. We ‘learn’ from news papers, journals relevant to work, and leisure. Typically we ‘learn’ the state of ‘trouble spots’ in the world from a daily newspaper. We ‘learn’ from, local gossip and from the theatre. The ethical issues here are mainly concerned with the accuracy of what is learned. This is most important when one is reading the daily newspaper or using other media. Public trust and a capacity for scepticism are required. Aids to learning and putative instruments of social control have been and to some extent still are embodied in the family of organisations, which include (in English): ‘Adult Education’. ‘Adult Learning’, ‘Continuing Education,’, ‘Further education’, and so on. Central ethical issues include “accuracy and trustworthiness of learning resources”. In this one political influence is a danger. ‘Learning’ should therefore include the development of critical resources and a good deal of scepticism. Outline of UNESCO-based views such as “The Hamburg Declaration” and “The Mumbai Statement”.

The role of learning on political control – democratic citizenship. Ethical issues are central here too. Vocationally-based learning- - on the interests of industry and commerce rather than interest in the learner, except as social capital. Some examples or case studies follow: eg Universities, Colleges of various kinds, Central Government Departments, Trade Unions and Professional organisations. The possible bias and vested interests which might influence and distort learning. Throughout the central ethical issues centre on trust, professional ethics, and the availability of reliable materials and organisations to aid LL. Note especially the bias towards economic efficiency and ‘national interests’ implicit in much (?most) lifelong learning. Critical capacity as a central area for development in and through LL.

Life-long learning is an eminently sensible idea. Given that learning is inherently human, and that we never really stop learning, how can anyone object to the attempts to organize such learning in a coherent manner? Yet, important though the idea of life-long learning is, it can be interpreted in a number of different ways. It is possible, for example, to distinguish between a humanistic, social democratic and an individualistic, neo-liberal self-capitalizing constructions of lifelong learning. In this paper, I want to show how, in recent years, it is the latter construction that has been vigorously promoted by such international organizations as the OECD, the World Bank, APEC and UNESCO, and has become hegemonic. I will do this by analyzing a number of recent reports on life-long learning, which highlight the need for national education systems to develop mobile, flexible and life-long learners and workers who have cosmopolitan sensibilities and who are able to deal effectively with cultural diversity, endemic change and innovation. In this way, I will argue that the idea of life-long learning is linked to a particular neo-liberal conception of the requirements of the global economy, which is characterized as informational, knowledge-based, post-industrial and service-orientated. Such an economy demands not only the development of ‘post-Fordist’ regimes of labour management but also systems of education, which produce new kind of workers who are motivated by concerns of industrial productivity and self-capitalization, and who are able to adapt to constant change, driven mostly by new technologies. I will argue that this conception of work and learning is based on a set of ideological assumptions not only about the nature of economic activity and social change but ultimately about citizenship itself –about what it means to learn, work and live in human communities.

This chapter seeks to contribute to theoretical frameworks and understandings of good practice for a social justice approach to lifelong learning. It specifically focuses on widening participation and higher education as a process of interwoven critical engagement with knowledge, of identity formation, and of agency development, key issues for learning which is lifelong and which enables us to make informed choices about our lives and the societies in which we live. I draw philosophically on the capability approach as developed in particular by Martha Nussbaum, for her emphasis on human flourishing and the ethical importance of each and very person as an end in themselves. But I draw also from Amartya Sen’s philosophical approach to capability as the freedom for diverse people to choose a life they have reason to value. Crucially, educational development should focus on what people are actually able to be and do, personally and in comparison to others. The capability approach therefore focuses on people’s own reflective, informed choice of ways of living that they deem important and valuable, and their self-determination of ends and values in life. This contrasts to human capital approaches which measure the value of higher education in terms of its national economic returns and impact on Gross Domestic Product. Agency is a central idea, closely connected to human well being. The capability approach contributes, in my view, to a conceptualisation and practice of justice in higher education and a robust challenge to dominant human capital approaches to lifelong learning. I seek to answer the question as to how we evaluate how well we are doing in widening participation in higher education as a project of lifelong learning.

I take as my example, England where working class students are currently only 20% of the cohort who enter higher education. How are they enabled to participate and succeed through the informal and informal learning opportunities and processes in higher education, given that social class is still a persistent determinant of preferences, choices and learner biographies educational opportunities, and winners and losers. Core to my concerns in this chapter is that experiences in higher education build over time into inter-subjective patterns and shape what kind of persons we recognise ourselves to be and what we believe ourselves able to do. Higher education, in particular, is a period when students ought to develop the maps, tools and resources, to navigate the journeys which follow. More than this, their preparations can directly shape the course of the subsequent journey. Maps direct travellers towards one set of paths rather than another. The point is made by Anthony Appiah that none of us makes a self in any way that we choose; we make up selves from a tool kit of options made available by our culture and society. We then have to ask of higher education as a cultural and social practice, what tool kit of options it is making available to students to choose and to choose well.

At issue is how we evaluate equality achievements in relation to widening participation. For example, here is an apparently successful educational outcome. Two young women both complete a degree in English literature at the same English university. For one, from a middle class, reasonably affluent background and a good school, a major reason was her decision to experience university before entering her father’s business as a trainee manager. Thus an outstanding degree result was not required, although she coped well with the academic demands having been well prepared by her schooling and the advice of her graduate parents. She chose rather to spend her time socializing and pursuing her leisure interests of cycling and cooking. The second young woman from a working class background and a not very good state school, worked long hours in poorly paid part-time jobs to supplement her student loan, had very little spare money to socialize, lived in cheap accommodation and ate cheap food. Despite significant academic ability, she struggled to fit in and her lack of confidence meant she was reluctant to approach her tutors for help with work, for which her school had not prepared her well. Both students obtain second class passes. Can we then say that the inclusion goal has been met for the working class student, who apparently did as well as her middle class counterpart? Can we say that this example demonstrates equality; and if so, ‘equality of what’?

Working class students enter higher education as carriers of risk biographies; this will influence how they construct their learner identities over time. The degree of risk will certainly not be the same for all students and some will also bring identity capital in the form of supportive and aspirational parents and good experiences of learning and teaching at school. But non-traditional students are less likely to enter higher education equipped with the cultural and linguistic capital which higher education pedagogies assume, and less equipped to decode these pedagogic messages, as Bourdieu and Passeron have argued. We need always to keep in mind that a policy and institutional rhetoric about ‘inclusion’ and ‘learning’ in higher education mostly presupposes that students have the required linguistic and cultural capital to participate and succeed. Universities generally assume that students also the capacity to invest such capital profitably. The culturally marginal place of working class students in higher education might then result in self-evaluations of inadequacy that distort and confine what they believe themselves capable of, so that they come to locate the problem in themselves and the belief that they are not capable of thinking intelligently or that what they have to say is not important. As bell hooks has written, she found pedagogical processes during her college years in the USA valued only middle class norms and demeanour. To avoid estrangement students from working-class backgrounds like herself had to assimilate into the mainstream ways of talking and being. Students internalize the possibility of success or failure which then becomes transformed into individualized aspirations or expectations and come to be seen as an objective structure of chances in life. They are inducted into a higher education which is a hierarchy of power and valuing, contradicting the inclusion and justice claims of lifelong learning policy.

My argument in this chapter therefore turns on the claim that the capabilities approach enables us to address the real opportunities that influence the achievements of working class students, and that the capability of lifelong learning is a key component of a student’s opportunity set and their agency freedom and agency achievement. The chapter explores this in relation to formal and informal learning, and curriculum and pedagogy, and their identity effects for working class students’ learning in higher education. The argument is that the capability approach as a philosophical and practical framework promotes better and fairer outcomes, judged by social justice criteria, while also providing a critique of current higher education and social structures of inequality.

This essay explores lifelong learning in South Africa according to three basic principles in education. Firstly we explore learning as central to both economic and social cohesion. This suggests that lifelong learning cannot simply be driven by a need to secure economic prosperity but has to focus on the ‘capacity of citizens to exercise and enforce democratic rights and participate effectively in decision making’, as the National Plan for Higher Education (Ministry of Education 2001, p. 7) indicates. Secondly we explore learning in relation to challenges around equity and redress. Thirdly we focus on access in higher education. We contend that particular groups such as Africans, women, non-traditional learners, students from working-class and rural backgrounds, the disabled and adults are as yet not equitably represented in the higher education system.

Since the demise of apartheid education in South Africa in 1994, transformation has become synonymous with the democratisation of education institutions. Lifelong learning – whether formal, non-formal or informal – as learning throughout a person’s life is considered by many policy-makers, researcher5s and educationists as that mode of learning which ought to guide education transformation and which can contribute to the ‘educated ness’ of every citizen in the country, ion particular cultivating in citizens the capacity foe enhancing their economic, political and social responsiveness to a society whose democracy is constantly in thew making. This contribution takes a snapshot look at lifelong learning in relation to university education, with specific emphasis on the transformative potential of democratic citizenship education in opening up possibilities to engender more critical, deliberative and responsible citizens.

Firstly, I shall make a case for lifelong learning to be connected to achieving a democratic citizenship agenda. Secondly I shall look at what university education in South Africa ought to be like in relation to a democratic citizenship agenda for lifelong learning. Put differently, I shall explore how criticism, deliberation and responsibility as instances of democratic citizenship education can contribute towards lifelong learning and, hence, a defensible form of university education.