The perils of confusing lifelong learning with lifelong education

File Size Format
63587_1.pdf 142Kb Adobe PDF View
Title The perils of confusing lifelong learning with lifelong education
Author Billett, Stephen Richard
Journal Name International Journal of Lifelong Education
Editor Peter Jarvis
Year Published 2010
Place of publication United Kingdom
Publisher Routledge
Abstract Lifelong learning is a socio-personal process and a personal fact. As such, it is conceptually distinct from an educational provision that constitutes an institutional fact. In building on this distinction, this article seeks to elaborate a central flaw in the precepts for, conceptualisation of and enactment of the report ‘Learning through life’, thereby proposing it as being ill informed, partial and of limited use. Moreover, it is potentially perilous to the project of lifelong learning as it could well lead to the misrepresentation, marginalisation and undermining of a broadly premised provision of support for adults’ learning. The emphasis on educational provisions rather than individuals’ learning and ignoring of the diversity of settings in which individuals’ learn, stands as major flaws, seemingly arising from the authors’ perspectives and stakeholder interests. Largely neglected throughout is the scholarship on adult learning and development across the life course. Instead, miscellaneous and often unhelpful sources inform the report. The overall recommendations reflect a view of human development that was abandoned decades ago as being unhelpful, and whose rejection is more now pertinent than ever. Moreover, it largely rehearses a tired educational discourse and unquestioningly privileges the value of taught courses, ignoring the importance and ubiquity of learning experiences outside of courses that are the most common source of learning across individual's lives. Within its discussion and the shaping of its recommendations, lifelong learning is presented as an institutional fact rather than a personal process. That is, erroneously, learning is claimed to be a product of what social institutions enact rather than being something done by people. In doing so, a misinformed and inaccurate account of lifelong learning emerges and a narrow conception of how that learning might best be promoted and supported is advanced. Yet, the great peril within this document is in promoting a form of learning support that lends itself more to management of educational provisions than concerns about individuals’ learning. The peril here is that other circumstances and settings in which learning occurs stand to be ignored or further marginalised. In all, not only is this report an opportunity lost, it represents a significant threat to an important and viable field of human and societal development across the life course: lifelong learning.
Peer Reviewed Yes
Published Yes
Alternative URI
Copyright Statement Copyright 2010 Routledge. This is an electronic version of an article published in International Journal of Lifelong Education, Volume 29, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 401-413. International Journal of Lifelong Education is available online at: with the open URL of your article.
Volume 29
Issue Number 4
Page from 401
Page to 413
ISSN 0260-1370
Date Accessioned 2010-06-30
Language en_US
Research Centre Griffith Institute for Educational Research
Faculty Arts, Education and Law
Subject Education
Publication Type Journal Articles (Refereed Article)
Publication Type Code c1

Show simple item record

Griffith University copyright notice