Читать книгу Learning in Adulthood - Sharan B. Merriam - Страница 40

In recent years nearly all people, and especially those of us in education, have heard the terms lifelong learning and learning society. But what do we mean by these terms and what do they mean for the field of adult education and adult learners in particular? Are they a convenient slogan to promote our field? Will their use result in more adults having access to learning opportunities? There are, of course, no simple answers to these questions. What we can do in this section is explore these concepts and in particular the issues they raise with regard to practice.

Before lifelong learning there was lifelong education, promoted chiefly by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in the 1960s and 1970s. The now-famous UNESCO report, Learning to Be (Faure et al., 1972), was seen as a blueprint for reforming the entire educational system. Both idealistic in its goals and humanistic in its concern with individual growth through learning, lifelong education, it was hoped, “would result in the creation of a learning society where access to and learning in education would be taken for granted—an inalienable human right like clean water or a roof over one's head” (Boshier, 2005, p. 373).

However, as societies became more conscious of the need to develop a skilled workforce to be competitive in the marketplace, the humanistic focus of lifelong education gave way to more of an economic framing of lifelong learning. By the early 1990s the term learning had supplanted education. This shift was also marked by a significant publication, this time from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1996, titled Learning for All. It is significant that the OECD represents the economic interests of mostly affluent countries, for this report established “the political-economic ideology of lifelong learning (Illeris, 2004a, p. 29)." Secondary to the economic focus, this report also acknowledged the importance of lifelong learning for personal development and social unity: “We are all convinced of the crucial importance of learning throughout life for enriching personal lives, fostering economic growth and maintaining social cohesion” (OECD, 1996, p. 21).

The OECD conceptualization of lifelong learning has been augmented by reports from the European Union and the World Bank. The 2000 report of the Commission of the European Communities acknowledges that learning need not be so highly institutionalized, highlighting the importance of nonformal and informal learning contexts. The report maintains the economic aim of lifelong learning but also says an “equally important aim” is promoting active citizenship. The World Bank's report on lifelong learning, while including Third World and transitional economies, states the aim of lifelong learning to be the creation of a workforce “able to compete in the global economy” (World Bank, 2003, p. xviii). Milana (2012) makes the case that the OECD, UNESCO, and the European Union were all instrumental in shifting terminology from adult education to the more encompassing concept of lifelong learning.

It seems that over the years the meaning of “lifelong learning” can be understood in terms of one of two models—the humanistic and the economic (Regmi, 2017). The humanistic model promoted by UNESCO positions lifelong learning as a “fundamental human right and aims at providing learning opportunities for everyone, irrespective of race, gender, age and socioeconomic level” (p. 679). The economic model, espoused by OECD, World Bank, and the European Union, “aims at increasing competency among individuals and nations for enhancing economic growth… .Individuals are asked to be responsible for continuous learning and updating their skills to remain…competitive in the…global job market” (p. 679).

Although in the United States use of the concept of lifelong learning has lagged behind other countries, we have our own report urging the nation to make adoption of a system of lifelong learning a national priority (Commission for a Nation of Lifelong Learners, 1997). Reflecting the “economic” model outlined by Regmi (2017), the five recommendations of this report are to “acknowledge the link between lifelong learning and global economic success, establish equity of access, incorporate new technologies in lifelong learning, rethink and reorganize educational delivery, and make resource commitments commensurate with lifelong learning's importance” (Maehl, 2000, p. 7). However, unlike many other countries, there is no public policy or unifying lifelong learning agenda or funding source in the United States. This is partly because of the decentralization of our educational system and the myriad institutions, agencies, and programs that offer learning opportunities. The result is that the concept is shaped by whatever entities use the label. Postsecondary education, for example, seems to be in the forefront in shaping lifelong learning as access to higher education for adults of any age and stage in life. The U.S. Department of Labor, in contrast, sees lifelong learning as access to training to develop skills needed in the workforce.

The proliferation of interpretations of lifelong learning has led to some vigorous debate and discussion about its merits and limitations. The most vociferous critique of lifelong learning is that it is a tool for restricting its application to “labor market expectations that enable governments and corporations to exploit the idea of human capital” (Dale, Glowacki-Dudka, & Hyslop-Margison, 2005, p. 113). Or, because lifelong learning is so pervasive throughout society, knowledge becomes a commodity that is produced, packaged, and sold to the consumer. Crass commercialization begins to define lifelong learning. Yet, the notion of lifelong learning has also opened up our thinking of learning as broader than what goes on in school. Nonformal, informal, and self-directed learning are much more visible as legitimate sites for learning. Regmi (2017) would like to see a more comprehensive model of lifelong learning that includes transformative learning, citizenship learning, and an “intersubjective” component. By “intersubjective” he means that in modern society saturated by media and technology, there's been a “subsequent loss of a direct interaction among people” (p. 690) which needs to be addressed.

The most vexing issue, one raised earlier with regard to online learning, is the question of access. As Boshier (2005, p. 376) points out, “[L]ifelong learning is used as a rationale for inflicting (often oppressive and authoritarian) forms of mandatory continuing education on citizens already marginalized and experiencing social difficulties.” Illeris (2004a) notes that although all the international reports “are quite explicit about the necessity of giving priority to those who are poorest in economic, social, and educational terms,” he wonders if in reality this is happening “in a way that is relevant seen from the life situation and perspectives of these participants” (p. 34). Finally, Holford and Jarvis (2000) raise the fundamental question of who benefits in the learning society, pointing out that the rhetoric and the reality do not match. For example, lifelong learning with regard to the workplace “will emphasize types of learning and knowledge that make sense in concrete contexts and will be widely available. Unfortunately—whatever the potential benefits to all of privileging practical knowledge—access to learning opportunities at work remains highly unequal” (p. 655).

Despite the issues involved in a promoting the notion of lifelong learning, the concept does seem to have some usefulness in conveying the wide variety of learning activities and sites (including formal, nonformal, and informal) where it can occur. UNESCO's Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL), for example, has identified three themes central to promoting lifelong learning: “(1) advocacy for lifelong learning through global policy dialogue; (2) advancing research and practice in the recognition, validation and accreditation of non-formal and informal learning; and (3) building capacity in UNESCO Member States for lifelong learning policy-making” (UIL, 2011, p. 11). Lifelong learning also reflects what some see as the “postmodern” condition, full of change and opportunity. As Edwards and Usher (2000) write, “[C]hange and uncertainty require lifelong learning and ‘lifelong learning’ is itself a signifier of the uncertainty and change of the contemporary” (p. 99).

This notion of change and uncertainty also underlies the concept of the learning society. Just as the learning organization is designed to respond to environmental and economic developments, the learning society acts in response to social change: “The more prevalent or profound the changes that occur in a society, the greater the likelihood that it will be regarded as a learning society” (Jarvis, 2004, p. 15). China is a prime example. Undergoing enormous change, the Sixteenth Congress of the Chinese Communist Party in 2002 declared China's intention to promote lifelong learning and create a learning society. To bring about this learning society, the government has set up and is supporting 61 experimental learning communities throughout the nation. In China, lifelong learning is operated through different social sectors in the community, which includes not only efforts from educational institutions but also non-educational sectors such as community agencies, health care, and business arenas (Chang, 2015). Using the present administrative infrastructure, which links provinces, municipalities, districts, streets, and neighborhoods, these communities are engaging people of all ages in nonformal and informal learning activities designed to bring learning to the fore as a priority in their lives and in their communities. Local governments in the experiment areas have integrated the work of building the learning community into their administrative responsibilities; learning streets and learning families in these local learning communities attest to the scope of these efforts (Bo Chang, personal communication, March 15, 2018). In fact, by 2012, 80% of the streets in Beijing had established community education or learning centers (Yuan, 2012).

The magnitude of China's efforts to create a learning society makes the concept difficult to grasp. It is perhaps easier to think in terms of learning “regions” or learning communities, cities, towns, or villages. Learning regions, according to Walters (2005), refer to a geographic area of any size that has made a commitment to linking “lifelong learning with economic development to compete globally” (p. 360). Scott (2017) explains that the concept of learning cities “transcends education and learning from formative schools and expands across diverse sectors of communities including business, environment, arts, recreation, technology, public health, and community service” (p. 559). Watson and Wu (2015) emphasize the fluidity of the concept, pointing out that in the United States, “learning cities evolved from the learning society and lifelong education and learning movements and advances multiple forms of communities of learning” (p. 20).

Also, according to Kearns (2015), three generations of the learning city can be detected. The first generation was in the West (United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Australia), but this early development “has not been sustained” (p. 153). The second generation occurred in East Asia (especially China, Korea, and Taiwan) in response to socioeconomic transformations. As Han and Makino (2013) note in their analysis of learning cities in Japan, China, and Korea, learning cities was an efficient mechanism for governing bodies “to mobilise citizens' learning that enhanced personal development, economic prosperity and social inclusion” (p. 144). The third generation is marked by innovative initiatives spurred by UNES-CO international conferences on learning cities in Beijing in 2013, Hamburg in 2015, and Mexico City in 2016. The important characteristics of learning regions such as a city, state, or province is that all forms of learning—informal, nonformal, and formal—are promoted for all ages. As Boshier (2005) explains:

In a learning city (town or village) there are attempts to foster all forms of learning for citizens old and young in many contexts… . Learning cities are committed to learning as a core aspect of development. As well as catching dogs and servicing sewers, the city fosters learning. They seek to sustain economic activity by building social capital… . A learning city (town or village) is: a form of community development in which local people from every community sector act together to enhance the social, economic, cultural and environmental conditions of their community. (pp. 376–377)

Boshier also includes learning festivals as part of the learning society. Such learning festivals are part learning, part cultural expression, and part entertainment. What is key to learning regions, cities, or festivals is not technology, which “helps but is not essential. What matters most are local places and spaces” (Boshier, 2005, p. 376).

The learning society then can be considered as an expression of lifelong learning, one that is place-bound. What it means to be a learning society (or learning city, community, or region) will differ according to the particular society. What does the learning society look like, for example, in “middle-income countries like Brazil, India and South Africa” or “in contexts of widespread poverty and social polarization” (Walters, 2005, p. 360)? Certainly, this concept of the learning society, along with the concept of lifelong learning, will undergo change as societies grapple with implementing learning for all across all segments of society.