par Sztalberg, Cécile 
;Maes, Renaud David ;Sylin, Michel
Référence European Universities Continuing Education Network - EUCEN Conference(37: 26-28/04/2009: Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique), Transforming the University into a Life Long Learning University, Université catholique de Leuven
Publication Publié, 2009-03-26
;Maes, Renaud David ;Sylin, Michel Référence European Universities Continuing Education Network - EUCEN Conference(37: 26-28/04/2009: Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique), Transforming the University into a Life Long Learning University, Université catholique de Leuven
Publication Publié, 2009-03-26
Publication dans des actes
| Résumé : | Lifelong learning university is nowadays a widespread paradigm: the concept of LLL universities has given birth to a reality in the academic institutions. Institutional actors responsible to implement lifelong learning inside universities may however encounter difficulties in this implementation. We may talk about LLL universities when the institutions have defined their policy about its organisation: centralised or not, externalised or not, with bottom-up/top-down approach. Those organizations may be understood in the light of three classical models of universities (humboltian, massified and market university). • In the humboldtian model (developed in the first half of the XIXth century), universities develop simultaneously learning and fundamental non-targeted research. The academic freedom is guaranteed. Access to this university is restricted to the high-level society. • In the massified model (developed in the sixties), universities answer to economic and social demands. More students can access to higher education, the popular education is developed even in the universities. • In the second half of seventies, one of the consequences of the social crisis and unemployment was the reduction of public budget and the hiring of universities graduated. “Market” universities began then to develop an adequationist policy more targeted to the expectations of the private sector. These models have been stated according three criteria: centralised or not, externalised or not, and with bottom-up or a top down approach - and with all the variations between these options. The lifelong learning structures in the “market” university and, to some extent, the continuous education structures in massified universities are typically decentralized. We may withhold that a strong institutional support lead to a more centralised process: this approach is more coherent with the humboldtian model. On the contrary, a low support will induce a more decentralized approach, which will be more adapted to specific targets. An internal structure of lifelong learning will be able to develop an institutional policy until the production of lifelong courses. The funding by the university and the benefits mutualisation will contribute to assure the sustainability of the lifelong learning activities. Both humboldtian and massified models implies the development of internal structures. On the contrary, an externalized structure will be more flexible to answer companies’ specific expectations. Bottom-up approach displays some advantages in terms of internal support; top-down approach is more efficient to set up the activity, to define its frame, its policy and its scope and to support it by the means of resources and recognition. A mixed approach, characterized by the set-up of centralized structures to share experiences and decision, can be an efficient tool to fight against the “lack of legitimacy” experienced by LLL structures in some universities. The classical “stresses” between the three models find specific variants in the case of LLL. Two paradoxes can be highlighted: • the companies-targeted lifelong learning activities can become a way to insure the funding of other more fundamental activities that correspond to academic priorities and thus to sustain the academic freedom, • the development of original research is the best asset of universities in the “LLL market”, even though the students sometimes expect more directly operational knowledge. Those paradoxes highlight the need for general public policies about LLL – including, inter alia, its subsidization. A coherent legal and financial framework developed by public authorities would certainly improve the efficiency of the LLL policies of each institution, even though its development is complicated by the difficulty to conciliate the three models. Maybe it is now the role of the academic actors to impulse a fundamental debate about this issue: what is the best model for the LLL university of our dreams? |
