《联合国教科文组织：2023高等教育中终身学习的国际趋势研究报告（英文版）（69页）.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《联合国教科文组织：2023高等教育中终身学习的国际趋势研究报告（英文版）（69页）.pdf（69页珍藏版）》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。

1、International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationResearch reportInternational trends of lifelong learning in higher educationResearch reportPublished in 2023 by the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning and Shanghai Open University UNESCO and Shanghai Open UniversityThe UNESCO Institute

2、 for Lifelong Learning(UIL),located in Hamburg,Germany,is a specialized UNESCO institute and is the only organizational unit in the United Nations family that holds a global mandate for lifelong learning.UIL promotes and supports lifelong learning with a focus on adult learning,continuing education,

3、literacy and non-formal basic education.Shanghai Open University(SOU),approved by the Ministry of Education of the Peoples Republic of China and subject to the administration of the Shanghai Education Commission,is a new type of institution of higher education,providing open and distance education t

4、o adults and technically supported by information and communications technology.SOU is committed to providing all members of society with multi-level,diversified education services to meet their lifelong learning needs,and to serve the building of a socially-just learning society.The designations em

5、ployed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Shanghai Open University,UNESCO or UIL concerning the legal status of any country,territory,city or area,or of its authorities,or concerning the delimitation of it

6、s frontiers or boundaries.The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors;they are not necessarily those of UNESCO,UIL or SOU.ISBN 978-92-820-1252-9This publication is available in Open Access under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO(CC-BYSA 3.0 IGO)licence(http:/creati

7、vecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/).By using the content of this publication,the users accept to be bound by the terms of use of the UNESCO Open Access Repository(http:/www.unesco.org/open-access/termsuse-ccbysa-en).This report is published as part of a wider research project on the contribution

8、of higher education institutions to lifelong learning,which was conducted by the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning and Shanghai Open University from 2020 to 2022.Key components of the project include an extensive literature review,an international survey on higher education institutions(HEIs)en

9、gagement in lifelong learning(LLL),and case studies on institutional approaches to LLL.These activities are complemented by three thematic studies,on(1)the role of universities in building learning cities,(2)universities addressing the needs of older learners,and(3)universities social responsibility

10、 and community engagement.Based on the comprehensive sets of quantitative and qualitative data collected across all world regions,this research constitutes a major step forward in building an international knowledge base on the role of HEIs in establishing LLL opportunities for all.The research proj

11、ect was overseen by UILs Director,Mr David Atchoarena,coordinated by Team Leader Mr Ral Valds-Cotera,and conducted by Ms Edith Hammer,Ms Mo Wang and Ms Nora Lorenz,with support from Mr Nicolas Jonas and Mr Alex Howells.Editing by Mr Paul Stanistreet,Ms Cendrine Sebastiani and Ms Jennifer Kearns-Will

12、erichLayout and design:Ms Christiane Marwecki3Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationTable of contentsForeword 6 Acknowledgments 7Executive summary 81 Introduction101.1 Global trends and the changing mandates of higher education 101.2 Methodology 121.3 Overview

13、of the chapters 142 Policy environments to promote lifelong learning in higher education152.1 National legislation,policies and frameworks 152.2 Strategic institutional approaches to promote lifelong learning 172.3 Summary of main findings 223 Institutional governance and implementation243.1 Organiz

14、ational structure for lifelong learning 253.2 Financing of lifelong learning 283.3 Quality assurance of lifelong learning provision 303.4 Strengths and challenges of lifelong learning implementation 333.5 Summary of main findings 344 Widening access through diversification and flexibility354.1 Reach

15、ing out to non-traditional learners and vulnerable groups 374.2 Diversified learning provision 384.3 Flexible learning pathways 414.4 Technology-enhanced learning 474.5 Social responsibility and local partnerships 504.6 Summary of main findings 545 Concluding remarks56 References 58 Appendix 654Rese

16、arch report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationTables Table 1.HEIs participating in the survey by region 13Table 2.Distribution of different types and modes of HEIs represented in the survey 13Table 3.Existence of LLL strategies in HEIs 18Table 4.Admission pathways availabl

17、e at HEIs 45Table 5.Transition pathways available at HEIs 46FiguresFigure 1.Lifelong learning defined as a mission of HEIs in national legislation 16Figure 2.Link between national legislation and prioritization of LLL in HEIs mission statements 19Figure 3.Link between national legislation and HEIs s

18、trategies 20Figure 4.Operationalization of LLL strategies 21Figure 5.Main internal and external drivers of lifelong learning in HEIs 21Figure 6.Functions of HEIs lifelong learning units 26Figure 7.Link between the existence of an institutional LLL strategy and having a dedicated unit for LLL 27Figur

19、e 8.Funding sources for institutions LLL provision 28Figure 9.Funding sources for individuals to engage in LLL 29Figure 10.Quality assurance procedures for lifelong learning in HEIs 31Figure 11.Link between HEIs LLL strategy and quality assurance mechanisms 32Figure 12.HEIs strengths and challenges

20、to implementing lifelong learning 33Figure 13.Prioritized target groups for LLL activities 375Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationFigure 14.Delivery modes of degree programmes 39Figure 15.Delivery modes of non-degree programmes 40Figure 16.Alternative digital

21、 and non-digital credentials 40Figure 17.Types of policies to support flexible learning pathways 42Figure 18.Objectives of flexible learning pathways in HEIs 42Figure 19.Links between institutional LLL strategies and policies to support FLPs 43Figure 20.Link between having FLP policies and availabil

22、ity of guiding arrangements 45Figure 21.Use of technology-enhanced learning in LLL provision 48Figure 22.Link between institution size and technology-enhanced learning through MOOCs 49Figure 23.LLL provision contributing to sustainable development 51Figure 24.HEIs engagement with their communities 5

23、2Figure 25.HEIs engagement with the private sector 53 BoxesBox 1.Examples of policies promoting LLL as a mandate of higher education 17Box 2.Examples of institutional approaches to LLL 19Box 3.Example of organizational structures for LLL 27Box 4.Examples of funding for LLL provision 30Box 5.Example

24、of quality assurance for lifelong learning provision 32Box 6.Examples of flexible learning provision and pathways in higher education 46Box 7.Examples of promoting LLL through technology-enhanced learning 49Box 8.Examples of HEIs community engagement 53 6Research report:International trends of lifel

25、ong learning in higher educationIn the context of fast-paced technological developments,the climate crisis,persistent social inequalities and demographic shifts,there is a need to rethink learning for people of all ages and to transform education systems.With increasingly unpredictable labour market

26、s,reskilling and upskilling throughout life becomes an essential part of peoples professional pathways.In addition to digitalization,robotics and automation,the shift towards low-carbon economies is expected to reshape labour markets,resulting in a growing demand for skills to support this green tra

27、nsition.These changes will also deepen the inequalities between population groups,disproportionally impacting those who are already at a disadvantage.Higher education institutions(HEIs)have a vital role to play in building the knowledge and skills that are needed to ensure healthy,prosperous and inc

28、lusive societies.Nevertheless,responding to the worlds challenges requires HEIs to evolve into lifelong learning institutions,reflecting a strong commitment to flexibility and responsiveness to meet the needs of diverse cohorts of learners.To address this diversity,HEIs need to undergo a transformat

29、ion.First,by offering more flexible learning provision and assessment for adult learners.Second,by cultivating innovative pedagogies that recognize and make use of learners prior work and life experiences.And,third,by establishing flexible learning pathways,which includes the strengthening of inform

30、ation and guidance services.To ensure the relevance of skills development and employability and respond to pressing local challenges,partnerships with the private sector and community organizations are equally vital.It is important to note that the role of higher education extends far beyond work sk

31、ills.We need to ensure that all people,in particular vulnerable groups,can benefit equally from learning opportunities.Making higher education more inclusive and equitable requires commitment from governments(whose job it is to establish policy environments and funding mechanisms that are conducive

32、to lifelong learning)and HEI leaders(who are responsible for mainstreaming lifelong learning into universities everyday operations).Building strong ties between the higher education sector and schools,technical and vocational education and training institutions,employers and communities is also esse

33、ntial for ensuring lifelong and life-wide learning provision.Against the background of a global education crisis and a growing recognition of the importance of lifelong learning,the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning(UIL)conducted a comprehensive research project that included,among other compon

34、ents,an international survey on the contribution of higher education institutions to lifelong learning,the results of which are presented in this report.These novel data,including responses from 399 higher education institutions worldwide,offer important insights into the ways in which lifelong lear

35、ning is integrated into the structures and practices of higher education.Selected survey findings were presented at several international and regional events throughout 2022,including the UNESCO World Higher Education Conference in Barcelona.The results of the study were received with great interest

36、 from the audience,reflecting the importance of the topic in the higher education sector.Within the current global debate on transforming education,the idea of recognizing a universal entitlement to lifelong learning is gaining traction.The call to establish a right for lifelong learning was made in

37、 the UN Secretary-Generals report,Our Common Agenda(United Nations,2021),and further echoed at the Seventh International Conference on Adult Education(CONFINTEA VII)in June 2022 and in the UN Transforming Education Summit in autumn 2022.Universities and other HEIs are essential stakeholders for life

38、long learning.In its report,Reimagining Our Futures Together,the International Commission on the Futures of Education argued that higher education institutions must be active in every aspect of building a new social contract for education(International Commission on the Futures of Education,2021,p.5

39、)and were destined to become more involved in adult education practices(ibid.,p.156).Within the broader framework of these international developments and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,UIL will continue to promote research and capacity-building in lifelong learning,including in the high

40、er education sector.This report provides salient evidence and thorough reflections on the contributions that higher education institutions can and already do make to lifelong learning.I hope that it provides readers with inspiration and impetus for further research and practical advancements in the

41、field.David AtchoarenaDirector of the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong LearningForeword7Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationThis survey report is the result of the efforts of many individuals and institutions from around the world.Above all,UIL would like to tha

42、nk the staff of the 399 higher education institutions who took the time to complete the online questionnaire,thus informing this report with comprehensive data and insights.The report was developed within the broader framework of UILs research on the contribution of higher education institutions to

43、lifelong learning,which has been made possible as a result of funding from Shanghai Open University(SOU),Peoples Republic of China.We would like to thank Mr Wei Jia,President of SOU,and Ms Wen Yuan,former President of SOU,as well as our colleagues,Ms Zhuhua Weng,Ms Yu Han and Ms Xiaojie Xue,for thei

44、r continuous support and tireless collaboration over the past three years.The International Association of Universities(IAU)assisted the Institute with the development,administration and processing of the survey.It is because of IAUs global network and engagement that the survey could be conducted w

45、ith success.Thanks go especially to Ms Hilligje vant Land,Secretary-General of IAU,who led the process.The project benefitted immensely from her outstanding expertise in the field of higher education.UIL also thanks Ms Lianne Guerra,who provided great support during the development and implementatio

46、n of the survey.In the spring of 2020,the questionnaire was piloted among 18 higher education institutions from all UNESCO regions,namely the Universidad del Salvador(Argentina),the University of Abomey-Calavi(Benin),the University of Turku(Finland),FernUniversitt in Hagen(Germany),the University of

47、 Pcs(Hungary),Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna(Italy),the University of the West Indies(Jamaica),Tokai University(Japan),the University of Duhok(Iraq),East China Normal University(Peoples Republic of China),Qatar University(Qatar),Ajou University(Republic of Korea),the University of Rwanda

48、(Rwanda),the University of South Africa(South Africa),the Open University of Catalonia(Spain),Gulu University and Makerere University(Uganda)and Swansea University(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).The pilot was key to the development of the survey tool and we would like to thank

49、 those respondents for completing the questionnaire and providing comments.The research project also benefitted from collaborations with several partners who helped to widely promote the survey,including the Association of African Universities(AAU),the Continuing Education Network of Latin America a

50、nd Europe(RECLA),the European University Association(UA),the European University Continuing Education Network(eucen),the UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning(IIEPUNESCO),and the UNESCO International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean(UNESCOIESALC).Th

51、roughout its different phases,the project was accompanied by an advisory group that contributed to the development and implementation of the survey,namely:Mr Uwe Elsholz,Mr Etienne Ehouan Ehile,Ms Nadia Gamal el-Din,Ms Margarita Guarello de Toro,Ms Michaela Martin,Mr Balzs Nmeth,Mr Michael Osborne,M

52、r Samus Tuama,Mr Francesc Pedr,Mr Johnny Sung,Ms Stamenka Uvali-Trumbi,Ms Hilligje vant Land,Mr Peter Wells,Mr Lizhong Yu and Ms Thrse Zhang Pulkowski.We would also like to thank Mr Francesc Pedr,Mr Jaime Flix Roser Chinchilla,Ms Alep Blancas,Mr Balzs Nmeth and Ms Thrse Zhang Pulkowski for taking th

53、e time to review and provide much-valued feedback to the draft report.In addition to the survey findings,the chapters of the report are informed by a set of thematic background papers,which were prepared by Mr Sergio Cardenas,Ms Nora Lorenz and Ms Stamenka Uvali-Trumbi.In addition,the initial drafti

54、ng process was supported by Ms Ashley Stepanek Lockhart and UIL interns Ms Kirstin Sonne,Ms Pauline Crepy,Ms Nilakshi Das and Ms Marta Borg-Rodriguez.Acknowledgements8Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationThe research report,International Trends of Lifelong Lea

55、rning in Higher Education,provides a comprehensive overview of the development of lifelong learning(LLL)in the higher education sector worldwide.It examines how higher education institutions(HEIs)have contributed to LLL and shows the levels of advancement in different areas of implementation.The rep

56、ort is based on the results of an international survey conducted in 2020,which was led by the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning(UIL)in cooperation with the International Association of Universities(IAU)and Shanghai Open University(SOU).Valid responses to the survey were submitted by 399 institu

57、tions from 96 countries in all regions of the world.The report considers three main aspects of lifelong learning institutionalization in higher education.These are supportive policy environments to promote LLL in higher education;institutional governance and implementation;and how and to what extent

58、 HEIs are widening access through diversification and flexibility.Key findingsPolicy environments National legislation and frameworks reflect political support,and incentivize institutional implementation and resource allocation for LLL.Roughly two-thirds of the HEIs surveyed reported that their cou

59、ntry has national legislation pertaining to LLL in place,indicating strong national commitments to widening LLL opportunities in higher education.For many of the HEIs surveyed,lifelong learning is a priority,which is reflected in their mission statements.This suggests that institutions take LLL seri

60、ously as a responsibility of HEIs.At the institutional level,strategies and policies are drivers for LLL development,and demonstrate commitment and purpose.A clear majority of HEIs have an LLL strategy in place,with the largest proportion responding that this strategy is at an institutional level.Mo

61、reover,the majority of HEIs indicated a strong intention to put policy into action.There is a positive relationship between supportive national legislation and the existence of institutional strategies for LLL,highlighting the importance of national policy environments and the promotion of LLL withi

62、n HEIs.Institutional governance and implementation Institution-wide approaches to implementing LLL require organizational structures,sufficient resource allocation and stakeholder management.These institutional practices determine how LLL is organized and delivered,and what learning opportunities ar

63、e ultimately available to learners.The establishment of a central coordinating LLL unit can be helpful to streamline implementation.Around half of the HEIs reported having an LLL unit,with varying functions.Against the backdrop of a general decline in public funding for higher education,HEIs reporte

64、d that tuition fees,along with on-demand services,are the most relevant institutional funding sources for LLL activities.Nevertheless,lifelong learners most often rely on personal resources to participate in LLL.While these results are in line with general trends,they are important to note in relati

65、on to the widening of access that should go hand in hand with LLL.Another key aspect of LLL implementation,quality assurance(QA),shows a promising degree of institutionalization,even if QA mechanisms for LLL are not yet comparable to what they are for regular study programmes in HEIs.Roughly half of

66、 the institutions surveyed reported having systematic QA procedures for LLL in place.There is a positive relationship between quality assurance procedures and institutional strategies,underlining the importance of a conducive policy environment.Executive summary9Research report:International trends

67、of lifelong learning in higher educationWidening access through diversification and flexibility Making lifelong learning a core mission of HEIs means opening up to a wider target group and incorporating more innovative and flexible forms of learning provision to meet the diverse educational needs of

68、 non-traditional learners.In terms of access and inclusivity,the two most important groups targeted for LLL activities by HEIs are(1)working people requiring upskilling and reskilling and(2)individuals working in public and private organizations.These results indicate a focus on professional develop

69、ment,with relatively less attention given to vulnerable groups and non-traditional learners.To address the diverse needs of lifelong learners,more flexible learning times,places and modalities,as well as shorter non-degree programmes and alternative credentials to certify learning outcomes,are neede

70、d.While traditional learning formats prevail over their more flexible counterparts in the HEIs surveyed,flexible formats are gaining traction.Online and other forms of technology-enhanced learning in particular are used extensively by the majority of HEIs in the sample,with just over half offering a

71、t least one form of alternative digital and non-digital credentials beyond traditional degrees,diplomas and certificates.Flexible learning pathways(FLPs)enhance access to higher education and encourage transfer options between institutions and programmes Around two-thirds of the participating HEIs i

72、ndicated that they have policies in place to support FLPs.Admission seems to be a major obstacle to expanding LLL in HEIs.Most institutions in the sample are still restrictive,requiring applicants to have a general secondary school certificate in order to access to higher education.Institutions show

73、 a high commitment towards the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,with 270 HEIs stating that their LLL provision aims to contribute to the achievement of the agenda.Out of these HEIs,nearly all also indicated that their LLL provision contributes either strongly or to some extent to achieving in

74、clusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities,which encapsulates Sustainable Development Goal(SDG)4.Essential to widening access and diversifying learning opportunities is engaging with the wider community.The HEIs in the sample do this to a considerable extent,primaril

75、y by hosting public lectures and workshops and by collaborating with other universities and HEIs.There is also high engagement with the private sector,suggesting that reaching out to wider society is a key priority for HEIs.OutlookOverall,the survey results show that,in many HEIs around the world,im

76、portant steps and initiatives have been taken towards implementing lifelong learning within the field of higher education.Nevertheless,more holistic and institution-wide approaches are needed to fully transform HEIs into LLL institutions.10Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in

77、 higher educationThere is growing recognition of the centrality of lifelong learning(LLL)to future skills development and the transition to a more sustainable world.Nevertheless,making lifelong learning a reality for all requires the concerted efforts of a wide range of stakeholders,including nation

78、al and local governments,formal and non-formal education sectors,and enterprises and civil society organizations,among others.As traditional hubs of knowledge production,higher education institutions(HEIs)are well positioned to develop and provide LLL opportunities for people of all ages and backgro

79、unds.HEIs conventional mission to improve skills and generate knowledge qualifies them to take a leading role in promoting learning,beyond their customary study modalities and target group.And while teaching traditional programmes of study defined by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics(2011)as bache

80、lors,masters and doctoral degrees or International Standard Classification of Education(ISCED)levels 6 to 8 and research will continue to form their core mission,HEIs also have a mandate to promote LLL in order to address the many challenges of our time.1 Based on the results of an international sur

81、vey and a literature review,this report examines how HEIs are responding to this mandate and examines the levels of advancement in different areas of lifelong learning implementation.1 Throughout this report,two closely related concepts,lifelong learn-ing and continuing education,are mentioned.While

82、 they are often used interchangeably in the context of higher education,they differ in terms of scope.Lifelong learning is an all-encompassing concept that includes learning activities for people of all ages(children,young people,adults,older people,girls and boys,women and men),in all life-wide con

83、texts(family,school,the community,the workplace,and so on)and through a variety of modalities(formal,non-formal and informal),which,together,meet a wide range of learning needs and demands(UIL,2022a).Within higher education,LLL refers to a range of activities,such as continuing education,the recogni

84、tion of prior learning,interdisciplinary research on lifelong learning,community research and services,and knowledge transfer activities,among others(UIE,1997).In many HEIs,continuing education forms a vital part of lifelong learning engagement.It involves learning opportunities for adult learners t

85、o either prepare them for traditional study,provide a more flexible alternative to traditional study(e.g.evening classes or online learning),or it may be subsequent to traditional study programmes(Teichler,1999;Teichler&Hanft,2009),the latter being the most common option(including,for example,postgr

86、aduate and non-degree courses and workforce training).1.1 Global trends and the changing mandates of higher education Technological advancements,climate change and globalization,among other trends,have driven unprecedented socio-economic transformation around the world.During the last decades,the em

87、ergence of the knowledge society has also reshaped the world of work,which will continue to change at a rapid pace due to digitalization,automation and artificial intelligence.In The Future of Jobs Report 2020,active learning and learning strategies is listed as one of the top-rated skills employers

88、 will look for in the future(World Economic Forum,2020).Prompted by these developments and considering the shortage of skilled workers in particular sectors in countries around the world,a wide range of professions will require new skill sets,which,in turn,will lead to an increasing demand for conti

89、nuous training and skills development.As peoples active labour market involvement continues to increase over the next decades amid demographic changes,reskilling and upskilling will become an inherent part of professional life.HEIs,given their capacity to build knowledge and competences,are vital to

90、 future-oriented skills development.Nevertheless,in order to fulfil their role as lifelong partners for skills development,and to support equitable access to LLL,HEIs must adapt their teaching practices to better respond to the diverse needs of adult learners(Li,2022;World Economic Forum,2020).The c

91、ontribution of higher education institutions to lifelong learning goes beyond economic benefits however:HEIs are also in a position to promote holistic learning overall.More specifically,in addition to providing opportunities to develop skills for the workplace,HEIs can also broadcast to the wider p

92、ublic the concept of learning as a continuum by identifying themselves as places that individuals can come to refresh their skills throughout their lives.Learning to learn is not only relevant for professional skills development but also for pursuing personal interests outside of work.Learning has v

93、alue in itself,as reflected in the notion of learning as a human right,which is not limited to professions but extends to a wide range of interests,skills,competences and creative endeavours that are relevant,for example,to communities,families and interpersonal relationships.1 Introduction11Researc

94、h report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationMoreover,lifelong learning is essential for sustainable development.By fostering the development of transversal skill sets,such as green skills and civic competences,within society,HEIs can also make an important contribution to s

95、ocial change.In light of major collective challenges,including climate change,demographic shifts,global migration and more,they are critical in leading the transformation towards a lifelong learning society.Considering demographic ageing,it becomes increasingly important for HEIs to address the need

96、s of older learners who wish to broaden their knowledge and acquire new skills in fields of interest to them,enabling them to stay active members of society.HEIs can further have a positive impact on the development of their local and regional environments by connecting to relevant public stakeholde

97、rs,other educational institutions and the private sector.Engaging with local communities through service-learning,engaged research,policy advice,advocacy,student-led initiatives and volunteering is another powerful way to create a more vibrant and sustainable society.While HEIs were historically eli

98、tist institutions tasked primarily with educating young cohorts of often privileged students,their scope has massively expanded in the last decades,with a larger share of society participating in higher education.Today,HEIs are expected to respond to the needs of wider society and to use their resou

99、rces and expertise to address common challenges what is being increasingly described as their third mission.This has led to HEIs opening up to larger and more diverse student populations and establishing links with their local communities.To provide individuals with access to education throughout th

100、eir lives alongside work,family and other commitments,flexible course formats and delivery models are needed.This includes shorter,more tailored learning opportunities;for example,through weekend,evening and part-time study,guided online courses,self-directed learning and practical training sessions

101、.Digital learning opportunities grew significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic,with many institutions having to shift learning provision online within just a few weeks.And despite the many challenges that came with this,particularly in the early days of the pandemic,online learning delivery becomes

102、 more proficient every day.The flexibility to alternate between online and face-to-face learning is,not surprisingly,welcomed by a majority of students and staff and should be sustained in the long run.Moreover,online and mobile learning,including formats such as massive open online courses(MOOCs),i

103、ncreases the potential for new target groups to engage in LLL.Also critical to the promotion of LLL in HEIs is the recognition and validation of prior learning.Skills are acquired not only in formal education but also in non-formal settings,including the workplace,at home and in the community,and th

104、rough volunteering and self-study project.Mechanisms therefore need to be established to recognize these skills as people progress in their careers and learning pathways.Bridging arrangements and support services are also essential to enable continuous learning across ones lifespan,because they allo

105、w learners to progress across education levels and professional fields,vertically and horizontally,thereby enabling learners without traditional school-leaving qualifications to access study at the tertiary level.The increasing demand for shorter courses also calls for new forms of recognition.In re

106、cent years,micro-credentials,which supplement traditional degrees,have been promoted as a new and more flexible way of recognizing skills and knowledge(Council of the European Union,2021).Together,these different issues illustrate the profundity of modifications that transforming from an HEI to a li

107、felong learning institution entails.In order to start on this transformation,the higher education sector needs input from all levels of governance,which are responsible for promoting LLL as a mission of HEIs through international and regional frameworks,promoting conducive national policy environmen

108、ts defining LLL as a mission of the higher education sector,and institutional strategies for LLL,including strong leadership and governance structures for LLL implementation.The need for a transformation of the higher education sector to address global trends and challenges is reflected in a range o

109、f global commitments,the intentions of which are to raise awareness and provide guidance.Over the past 15 years,several international and regional frameworks and recommendations,which highlight the importance of HEIs for promoting LLL and outline areas for transformation,have been developed.They als

110、o facilitate the development of conducive policy environments at the national level.For example,the Mumbai Statement on Lifelong Learning,Active Citizenship and the Reform of Higher Education(UIE,1998),developed within the context of the fifth International Conference on Adult Education(CONFINTEA V)

111、,held in 1997 in Hamburg,Germany,lays out holistic directions for HEIs to transform into LLL institutions and states that HEIs have a special responsibility and competency for the production and dissemination of knowledge,also pointing to the decolonization and democratization of different forms of

112、knowledge(ibid.,p.4).Building on this,The Cape Town Statement on the Characteristic Elements of a Lifelong Learning Higher Education Institution(University of the Western Cape and UIE,2001)provided a more operational tool,proposing six characteristic elements for implementing and monitoring LLL in h

113、igher education,namely(1)overarching frameworks,(2)strategic partnerships and linkages,(3)research,(4)teaching and learning processes,(5)administration policies and mechanisms,and (6)student support systems and services(ibid.,p.4).Within Europe,the European University Continuing Education Network(eu

114、cen)has been a strong promoter of lifelong learning in the higher education sector since 12Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationthe early 2000s.Within the context of its BeFlex and BeFlex+projects(Benchmarking Flexibility in the Bologna reforms),it generated k

115、nowledge on the progress that was being made by universities in promoting LLL in light of the Bologna Process,which seeks to bring more coherence to higher education systems across Europe in order to increase learner mobility and facilitate employability.This was followed by a set of recommendations

116、 and a training pack for transforming universities into lifelong learning institutions(eucen,2007;eucen,2009).In 2008,the European University Association(EUA)issued the European Universities Charter on Lifelong Learning(EUA,2008),which enjoined universities to make 10 clear commitments to LLL.Recogn

117、izing that universities would be unable to accomplish these commitments without support,the charter also asks governments and regional partners to fulfil an equal number of commitments.By emphasizing the importance of national frameworks and support mechanisms,the charter advocates for concerted act

118、ions among all relevant actors.Governments are called upon to ensure that a suitable environment is created for universities to develop their contribution to lifelong learning(ibid.,p.8).The call for universities to promote LLL was repeated the following year,during the 2009 UNESCO World Higher Educ

119、ation Conference(WHEC).The outcome document specifies that the knowledge society needs diversity in higher education systems and emphasizes the need for programmes for lifelong learning(UNESCO,2009,p.3).The subsequent WHEC,held in 2022,further promoted LLL in higher education,listing flexible learni

120、ng provision,flexible pathways with opportunities for multiple entry and re-entry,as well as micro-credentials as important ways to tackle the educational needs of adults at different stages of their personal and professional lives(UNESCO,2022a,p.30).In addition to these frameworks focusing on highe

121、r education,the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,and specifically Sustainable Development Goal(SDG)4,called on the world to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all,further specifying in SDG target 4.3 the need to ensu

122、re equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical,vocational and tertiary education,including university(United Nations,2015,p.17).Such overarching global and regional frameworks are only effective when they are translated into national policies and institutional strategies.W

123、hile acknowledging the importance of national policy environments,the focus of this report is nevertheless on the institutional level,exploring internal and external drivers of LLL in the higher education sector,institutional governance and support mechanisms for LLL,as well as specific approaches t

124、o widening access.1.2 MethodologyThis report is primarily informed by the results of an international survey on the contribution of higher education institutions to lifelong learning,conducted in autumn 2020.To provide background information on the various thematic strands included in the survey and

125、 to allow for contextual analysis,the survey data are complemented with academic literature and examples from selected institutions and countries.Survey design and data collectionThe international survey on HEIs contribution to LLL was collaboratively developed with the International Association of

126、Universities(IAU)and Shanghai Open University(SOU)and was supported by the UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning(IIEP)and the UNESCO International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean(IESALC).The design of the survey,in particular with regard to the key

127、 elements and specific items included,was informed by a comprehensive literature review.The questionnaire comprised 44 closed-ended questions,many of which were designed as multiple choice.The draft questionnaire was circulated among the research projects advisory group,which was made up of internat

128、ional experts from universities and regional university associations.After integrating the experts feedback,the survey was piloted among 18 HEIs,covering all UNESCO regions,between April and May 2020.This period was strongly marked by the first wave of the COVID-19 crisis,which was an extremely diff

129、icult situation for HEIs worldwide and,consequently,in which to pilot the study.The full survey was then launched by UIL and IAU in October 2020 in five languages(Arabic,Chinese,English,French and Spanish)using a designated online platform(SurveyMonkey).Over a period of three months,the questionnair

130、e2 was distributed through the IAU World Higher Education Database and further promoted via a range of partner networks.The survey primarily addressed senior leadership in HEIs and aimed for a consolidated institutional answer,instructing respondents to consult with relevant units before submitting

131、the completed questionnaire.To foster a common understanding of expressions and concepts used in the survey,a glossary3 was included.By January 2021,452 out of 2,191 participating institutions submitted responses to the questionnaire,which amounts to a completion rate of 18 per cent.After eliminatin

132、g duplicate and invalid submissions,399 valid responses remained,of which 268(67.17%)were in English,78(19.44%)in Spanish,23(5.76%)in Chinese,16(4.01%)in Arabic,and 14(3.51%)in French.2 The survey questionnaire can be accessed via the following link:bit.ly/UIL_HEI-LLL_questionnaire3 The glossary can

133、 be accessed via the following link:bit.ly/UIL_HEI-LLL_glossaryTABLE 2 Distribution of different types and modes of HEIs represented in the survey4 UIL StatLink:bit.ly/UIL_HEI-LLL_table2TABLE 1 HEIs participating in the survey by regionUIL StatLink:bit.ly/UIL_HEI-LLL_table113Research report:Internat

134、ional trends of lifelong learning in higher education Characteristics of responding institutionsIn total,96 countries from all five UNESCO regions are represented in the final results of the survey.As indicated,sampling techniques were not used when conducting the survey;rather,the questionnaire was

135、 widely distributed via the involved partners networks in an effort to reach as many HEIs as possible.Consequently,the results are not statistically representative of HEIs more broadly(see Table 1)or of different types and modes of institutions(see Table 2).Moreover,the share of responses in the sam

136、ple vary widely according to region,with 39.9 per cent of responses coming from institutions located in Asia and the Pacific and only 10.5 per cent of responses coming from institutions in Africa.Some countries are overrepresented in the sample,including the Peoples Republic of China,Colombia,Ecuado

137、r,India,Japan,Mexico,Pakistan,the Philippines and Spain,which,together,account for 47.6 per cent of survey responses.This was taken into consideration during the data analysis by contrasting the results of the overall survey with those of the overrepresented countries,where needed.Regarding the mode

138、 of operation,the majority of participating HEIs(81.3%)are campus-based,10.2 per cent of participating HEIs are mixed-mode,6.7 per cent are distance HEIs,and a small share of responding institutions are open higher education institutions(2.4%).When it comes to funding,62.9 per cent of HEIs in the sa

139、mple are public institutions(with varying shares of private funds)and 33.4 per cent are private institutions(combining for-profit and not-for-profit HEIs).The largest share of HEIs in the sample(45.9%)are campus-based institutions that are at least 80 per cent publicly funded.AfricaArab StatesAsia a

140、nd the PacificEurope and North America Latin America and the Caribbean Total 42 10.5%24 6%159 39.9%99 24.8%75 18.8%399 100%Number of HEIs participating in the surveyPercentage of all responsesUNESCO regionPublic(20%private funds)Private,not for profitPrivate,for profitOtherTotal 45.9%1.8%4.5%1.5%53.

141、6%6.5%0.8%1.8%0.3%9.3%20.8%2.8%2.8%0.3%26.6%5.3%0.5%0.8%0.3%6.8%2.8%0.8%0.3%0%3.8%81.3%6.7%10.2%2.4%Type of institutionMode of institutionCampus-based with at least 80%of content delivered on campusDistance HEIs(including online and blended education)Mixed-mode with at least 25%of content delivered

142、as distance educationOpen HEIsTotal14Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationThe sample comprises HEIs with a long history as well as recently established institutions.The oldest institution participating in the research is the University of Oxford,where there is

143、 evidence of teaching as early as 1096.By contrast,the youngest institution featured is the Mapa Malayan Colleges Mindanao,which began operating in 2018.Half of the HEIs were established before 1976 and the other half from 1977 onwards.With regard to size,most institutions in the sample(37.3%)record

144、ed having a student population between 5,001 and 20,000,31.3 per cent stated having less than 5,000 students,and 21.6 per cent of responding HEIs reported having between 20,001 and 50,000 students.A relatively small share of participating institutions recorded large student populations,with 7 per ce

145、nt saying they have between 50,001 and 100,000 students and 2.8 per cent having over 100,000.Scope and limitations of the researchOwing to its international scope and comprehensiveness,the survey on the contribution of HEIs to LLL is unique.Although not statistically representative,the results offer

146、 a broad overview of the situation of lifelong learning in higher education institutions worldwide.By providing valuable insights into relevant conditions for LLL,support systems,common challenges,established mechanisms and practical approaches for LLL provision,the results constitute an important d

147、atabase and starting point for further research on this topic.In addition,the findings can potentially be used to support the development of institutional and national strategies to promote LLL in higher education and to contribute to a better understanding of the state of affairs concerning SDG 4 a

148、nd SDG target 4.3 more specifically,the aim of which is to ensure that everyone has access to quality tertiary education.As the data presented in this report are based on the responses given by the HEIs participating in the survey,it is important to acknowledge a certain degree of subjectivity in th

149、e information received.Even though the respondents were asked to consult with relevant departments and units within their institutions to enhance the accuracy of the data they provided in the survey,there is a risk that some questions were answered without this having been done.The respondents,depen

150、ding on the positions they hold,will naturally have varying degrees of comprehension when it comes to the LLL policies,strategies and implementation methods exercised by their institutions.As previously mentioned,a glossary was provided to respondents in an effort to foster a common understanding of

151、 the expressions and concepts that were used in the survey.Nevertheless,4 In the interest of good readability of the report,the data have been rounded up one decimal,where necessary.The total sums of the indi-vidual figures may therefore not always add up to 100 per cent.terms and concepts may still

152、 be interpreted quite differently,particularly for those respondents whose mother tongue differed from the languages in which the survey was available.In short,taking into consideration the global scope of the survey,which covers different national education systems involving different cultures and

153、languages,a certain variance in the understanding of LLL and related topics is unavoidable and needs to be accepted within the international scope of this project.Cross-tabulation techniques were used to seek out levels of association and potential relationships in the survey data.Quantitative data

154、were obtained through closed-ended questions that either sought out binary responses(i.e.yes/no/do not know)or a range of responses through a Likert scale.Although the results provide important indications of baseline information,they do not allow for a comprehensive analysis of underlying dynamics,

155、processes,mechanisms and relationships.These more complex issues,which support a deeper understanding of the HEIs contribution to LLL,are explored in more detail in the accompanying case study research of six institutions from different UNESCO regions(UIL and SOU,forthcoming).1.3 Overview of the cha

156、ptersThe report comprises three sections,which are modelled on the three sections that made up the survey questionnaire.Section 1 provides a summary of policy environments that are conducive to the promotion of LLL in higher education,starting with national legislation,policies and frameworks.This i

157、s followed by an exploration of strategic institutional approaches and internal drivers for LLL.Section 2 focuses on institutional governance and implementation,including organizational structures for LLL in HEIs,mechanisms for funding and quality assurance,and an examination of strengths and weakne

158、sses HEIs face when implementing LLL.Section 3 examines ways to widen access to LLL in HEIs,for example through diversification of learning opportunities and flexibility to meet the needs of a wider range of learners.It looks at the ways in which HEIs enhance access to and participation in LLL,with

159、an emphasis on enabling flexible pathways and mechanisms for the recognition of prior learning,and providing flexible,modular study programmes and technology-enhanced learning.It also considers the responsibility of higher education in light of the SDGs and includes data on community engagement and

160、links with the private sector.Main findings of the survey and an overarching analysis of the results are captured in the conclusion.15Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationThe effective promotion of lifelong learning in the higher education sector is dependent

161、on conducive policy environments at the national level.Given that LLL is integral to helping people adjust to new employment patterns and societal changes,it is prudent for governments and policy-makers to make it more available through existing structures such as HEIs(UNESCO,2015;GUNi,2022a)and to

162、connect higher education to other formal as well as non-formal educational institutions,thereby fostering a coherent vision of LLL that is unbounded by different education levels(GUNi,2022a;Ossiannilsson,2019;mdov et al.,2017).Stand-alone national strategies on LLL in HEIs are uncommon,however;LLL i

163、s more likely to be integrated into higher education legislation and strategies or it may be part of wider education policies at the national level.National legislation and frameworks provide an important basis for resource allocation for LLL implementation and ensure that governments as well as HEI

164、s remain accountable for the proper disbursement and mobilization of funds.Higher education and research policy goals at the national level may also inform performance agreements between HEIs and governments.Such agreements set out the goals to be achieved by HEIs,which may,for example,be related to

165、 the quality of academic offerings,student services,and internationalization and LLL,within a given time period.By offering dedicated budgets and incentives,governments have a strong lever to encourage HEIs to become active in the promotion of LLL and widen access to higher education.Moreover,nation

166、al policies and strategies on higher education can generally contribute to raising awareness and setting the stage for sustainable,systematic and coordinated development processes(Gaebel and Zhang,2018).However,while government policies and their associated funding may incentivize HEIs to act in a c

167、ertain way,it is important to acknowledge that most HEIs are characterized by a high degree of autonomy(Carlsen et al.,2016).There is therefore a risk that national policies,combined with increased bureaucracy and accountability,will have a restrictive effect on institutional and academic freedoms(G

168、aebel and Zhang,2018;UPP Foundation,2018).Moreover,national policies by themselves are ineffective if they do not extend to the institutional level.The development of appropriate institutional strategies and the prioritization of LLL within mission statements is therefore key to moving from policy t

169、o practice(Meacham and Gaff,2006).An HEIs mission statement defines its priorities in terms of its overall operations and provides the guiding principles for the development of educational programmes for specific target groups.Embedding and mainstreaming LLL within institutional strategies and missi

170、on statements allows for a coordinated,whole-institution approach(Milic,2013)and helps to foster an institutional culture that regards LLL beyond adult and continuing education and reaches out and responds to the needs of all types of learners(Smidt and Sursock,2011;Hessler,2016).Institutional strat

171、egies also support the coherent implementation of lifelong learning across different departments,faculties and administrative units,adjoining it to various core operations of HEIs,including teaching,research and third-mission activities.The following sections explore the extent to which national pol

172、icies and institutional strategies have been established to promote LLL in higher education based on the results from the international survey.Section 2.1focuses on overarching policy commitments,as reflected in the national legislation that defines LLL as a mission of HEIs.Section 2.2 examines inst

173、itutional strategies which guide the implementation of LLL in HEIs and considers the links between conducive national policy environments and the existence of institutional instruments for LLL promotion.The final section presents data on the main internal and external institutional drivers for LLL p

174、rovision in HEIs.2.1 National legislation,policies and frameworksThe development of LLL policies at the national level may be motivated by a need to reskill and upskill individuals in response to changing demographics or deindustrialization.It is important to note that national policies and legislat

175、ion not only drive the development of LLL strategies at institutional level but are themselves shaped by the needs and demands of HEIs.National policies need to reflect institutional contexts and challenges,allowing HEIs to develop respective institutional structures and systems that support the eff

176、ective implementation of LLL in all its different forms(Carlsen et al.,2016).Consequently,national policies must find a balance between remaining open enough to allow for a variety of approaches to LLL while being precise enough to provide guidance to HEIs(Abukari,2005;Eurydice,2020);otherwise,polic

177、ies,legislation and strategies can end up being restrictive or ineffective,2 Policy environments to promote lifelong learning in higher education making it difficult for HEIs to respond adequately to the changing and growing needs of learners in their respective local environments(Gaebel and Zhang,2

178、018;UPP Foundation,2018).The potential for establishing favourable policy environments for LLL at the national level is impacted by a series of contextual factors(historical,educational,political,societal)and broader development and socio-economic conditions(Rasmussen,2014;Foster and McLendon,2012;F

179、arrugia,2012).The survey data presented in Figure 1 illustrates the influence national legislation has on HEIs prioritization of lifelong learning.The majority of HEIs responding to the survey 272 out of 399 participating institutions,or 68.2 per cent of those surveyed,located in 77 countries affirm

180、ed the existence of national legislation defining lifelong learning as a mission at the higher education level in their country.While this proportion is relatively high,it is also important to note that 18.3 per cent of participating institutions said there was no relevant law in their countries,and

181、 13.5 per cent did not know whether there was a law or not.515 All data presented in the figures and tables in this report are based on the results of the international survey on the contribution of HEIs to LLL and refers to the total number of respondents(n=399),unless otherwise stated.FIGURE 1 Lif

182、elong learning defined as a mission of HEIs in national legislation5 UIL StatLink:bit.ly/UIL_HEI-LLL_fig1 16Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationDoes national legislation on higher education define LLL as a mission for HEIs?0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%YesNoI don

183、t knowA regional analysis of responses shows that close to half or more of participating institutions from each world region reported having national legislation that defines LLL as part of HEIs mission.The AsiaPacific region had the highest proportion of HEIs reporting this,at 78.6 per cent,whereas

184、 Latin America and the Caribbean had the lowest proportion,at 48 per cent.The regions that were higher than the overall proportion of 68 per cent were Africa(75%)and Europe and North America(68.7%).It is important to note that almost a third of participating institutions in Latin America and the Car

185、ibbean(28%)said they did not know if there was relevant national legislation or not,which is relatively high compared to other regions.An important caveat is that,within some countries,several participating institutions provided contradictory information regarding the existence of an LLL mandate for

186、 HEIs in national legislation.This inconsistency was evident in eight countries Cyprus,the Arab Republic of Egypt,Georgia,Hungary,Ireland,the Sultanate of Oman,the United States of America and the Republic of Uzbekistan and concerns 29 HEIs,or 7 per cent of total respondents.Data analysis suggests t

187、his divergence may be linked to the position held by the person that responded to the survey and a resulting lack of awareness of some respondents.Other relevant factors could be the different policy regimes that are applicable to various types of HEIs,as well as subjective interpretation of what is

188、 considered national legislation.BOX 1 Examples of policies promoting LLL as a mandate of higher educationFollowing Malaysias Blueprint on Enculturation of Lifelong Learning for Malaysia 20112020(Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia,2011),which already outlined continuing education as a field of ac

189、tion for universities,the Malaysia Education Blueprint 20152025(Higher Education)(Ministry of Education Malaysia,2015)was published,promoting a culture of LLL with strong references to higher education.The strategic lines set out in the blueprint include increasing public awareness of the benefits o

190、f LLL through HEIs,and the development and enhancement of innovative LLL programmes such as work-based learning and executive education.The blueprint also stipulates that LLL programmes must meet learners needs and comply with the Malaysian Qualifications Framework,thereby enabling alternative pathw

191、ays towards formal education and qualification.To increase participation,the Ministry of Education has made grants more accessible to learners.In Austria,the Universities Act 2002 defines the mission and duties of public universities,which explicitly includes continuing education(Republic of Austria

192、,2002).In 2021,a comprehensive reform process was started with an aim to harmonize regulations for continuing education studies for all HEIs(i.e.public and private universities,universities of applied sciences,and university colleges of teacher education).The reform also enforces common standards of

193、 quality assurance for all continuing education programmes offered by higher education institutions by integrating them into existing institutional quality assurance systems(ibid.).Indias National Education Policy 2020(Indian Ministry of Human Resource Development,2020)does not explicitly define LLL

194、 as a mandate of higher education;yet,it makes important references to LLL in the higher education sector.First,it defines the purpose of higher education beyond individuals employability,considering it the key to more vibrant,socially engaged,cooperative communities(ibid.,p.33).In line with that,co

195、mmunity engagement and service are listed as crucial responsibilities of HEIs.Open distance learning(ODL)and online programmes are considered a good opportunity for HEIs to provide opportunities for lifelong learning(SDG 4)(ibid.,p.35).The policy also advises that imaginative and flexible curricular

196、 structures would offer multiple entry and exit points,thus,removing currently prevalent rigid boundaries and creating new possibilities for lifelong learning(ibid.,p.37).In addition to academic research and education,Finlands Universities Act 2009 establishes that HEIs,in carrying out their mission

197、 shall promote lifelong learning,interact with the surrounding society and promote the social impact of university research findings and artistic activities(Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture,2009).A parliamentary policy for reforming continuous learning further foresees that higher education

198、 shall provide a platform for learners and continuous learning,enabling learners with different status to study flexibly,selecting courses from all Finnish HEIs,irrespective of organizational boundaries or geographical location(Government of Finland,2022).17Research report:International trends of li

199、felong learning in higher education2.2 Strategic institutional approaches to promote lifelong learningIn addition to national frameworks,institutional strategies are key enablers for implementing LLL in higher education.These tools are important given the barriers to LLL that can exist at the instit

200、utional level,such as bureaucratic hurdles,a lack of support mechanisms for students and staff,inadequate resources,and rigid systems of governance or stakeholders resistant to change(Asian Development Bank,2011;De Viron and Davies,2015;Brimble and Doner,2007).LLL can be embedded in HEIs in a variet

201、y of ways.The commitment to LLL may be expressed in HEIs mission statements,which can provide a key reference point for strategy development and implementation and signal institutional commitments and goals.As such,they are an important lever for the ultimate aims of LLL in HEIs,such as democratizin

202、g learning and widening access to quality education through LLL opportunities,including greater flexibility in learning provision,digital and online learning,and community engagement(Atchoarena,2021).18Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationIn line with mission

203、statements,LLL strategies may be established at the institutional level and mainstreamed within the HEI and its various departments.They may also be formulated by particular departments or faculties and reflect specific strategic priorities.Or,most comprehensively,there may be strategies at differen

204、t levels that are intertwined and aligned with each other(Ranki et al.,2021).A holistic approach to LLL,involving the HEI leadership and all relevant departments,may be particularly useful in widening access to equitable educational and training opportunities,enabling LLL to be managed as a cross-cu

205、tting entity,with an approach based on systematic thinking(ibid.,p.5).Ultimately,favourable mission statements and LLL strategies at the institutional level demonstrate the level of prioritization that an HEI affords to LLL and helps to mainstream LLL opportunities throughout institutional operation

206、s.The survey results in Table 3 reveal the extent to which LLL has been established as a mission of the participating HEIs,as reflected in their strategies and mission statements.Relevance of LLL in institutional strategies and mission statementsSurvey data on the extent to which participating HEIs

207、have established LLL strategies show that 68.2 per cent of HEIs have a strategy in place,with the largest proportion indicating to have a strategy at the institutional level(41.8%).Nearly one-fifth(19.1%)reported having strategies at both the institutional and faculty and/or department levels.Both o

208、f these categories express a whole-institution approach to LLL,which is coordinated at the institutional level.A much lower percentage(7.3%)responded that they have a strategy only at faculty and/or department levels.Almost a quarter of HEIs(27.3%)reported not having a strategy for LLL in place;howe

209、ver,19 per cent of those said that they are in the process of developing one.UIL StatLink:bit.ly/UIL_HEI-LLL_table3 TABLE 3 Existence of LLL strategies in HEIsNumberPercentageTotalYes,at both institutional and faculty/department levelYes,at institutional levelYes,at faculty/department levelNo,but we

210、 are in the process of developing oneNoI dont know 76 19.1%167 41.8%68.2%29 7.3%76 19%33 8.3%18 4.5%27.3%Looking at the regional distribution,Europe and North America,at 73.7 per cent,has the highest proportion of participating HEIs claiming to have an LLL strategy embedded in their institution at s

211、ome level.This is followed by Asia and the Pacific(69.8%),the Arab States(64.7%),and Latin America and the Caribbean(66.7%).Among the HEIs from Africa,50 per cent of institutions said they have a strategy in place and 21.9 per cent stated that they are in the process of developing one.Another indica

212、tor of HEIs commitment to LLL is the extent to which it is referenced in their mission statements.According to the survey,a large percentage of HEIs show a medium to high commitment to lifelong learning in their mission statements.More specifically,44.4 per cent stated that LLL is a high priority an

213、d 38.1 per cent considered it a medium priority.A substantially smaller share of HEIs(12.3%)said that LLL is a low priority and only 5.3 per cent of institutions responded that there is no reference to LLL in their mission statements.As regards regional variations,there are no significant difference

214、s statistically in priority given to LLL in mission statements;however,as Figure 2 indicates,there is a relationship between HEIs reporting relevant national legislation and prioritizing LLL in their mission statements.Among those reporting that LLL is defined as a mandate of HEIs in national legisl

215、ation(68.1%),the majority responded that LLL is referenced either with a high(54.4%)or medium(8.5%)priority in their institutional mission statements.Conversely,the percentage of HEIs prioritizing LLL in their mission statements is far lower when no relevant national legislation exists,with only 20.

216、6 per cent noting a high priority given to LLL and 12.3 per cent reporting no reference to LLL in their mission statements.YesNoI dont knowNo reference to LLL Low priority Medium priority High priority 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%BOX 2 Examples of institutional approaches to LLLAn example for a

217、 whole-institution approach to lifelong learning can be found at North-West University,South Africa.Based on the Council of Higher Educations directive requiring public universities to centralize continuing education(CE)products and services at institutional level,North-West University established t

218、he Unit for Continuing Education(UCE)(Kunene,2019).The universitys engagement in lifelong learning is outlined in the Policy on Continuing Education,which states that NWU must support life-long learning as enabler to disadvantaged individuals to become active role players in the economy and society

219、at large(North-West University,2018,p.1).The policy defines the objectives and responsibilities of the UCE,as well as course management,quality assurance,certification and finances,among others.It further defines the role of the Continuing Education Advisory Committee,composed of the executive deans

220、 of all faculties,which advises the Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Teaching and Learning on the alignment of CE across faculties,campuses and delivery sites.The Shanghai Open University(SOU),Peoples Republic of China,provides another strong example for institutional commitment in implementing LLL.Missio

221、ned with for all learners,all for learners,SOU defines its mandate as serving the public by providing lifelong learning opportunities.SOUs constitution stipulates a broad mission:The university plays an important role in Shanghais development into a learning society.It carries out various educationa

222、l activities such as community education,vocational training,rural education,elderly education and education for people with disabilities.It further serves as a service and guidance centre for lifelong learners and takes the role of a Lifelong Learning Credit Bank Management Centre,responsible for t

223、he recognition and transfer of learning outcomes in higher education.In 2021,SOU released the 14th Five-Year Plan,which envisions that the university will further advance the development of high-quality open learning opportunities and develop into a first-class open university,supporting the lifelon

224、g development of every citizen(Shanghai Open University,2021).19Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationFIGURE 2 Link between national legislation and prioritization of LLL in HEIs mission statementsUIL StatLink:bit.ly/UIL_HEI-LLL_fig2 National legislation defini

225、ng LLL as a mission of HEIs andpriority of LLL in institutional mission statements20Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationA similar pattern of association is demonstrated in Figure 3,which indicates that 77.2 per cent of HEIs reporting that national legislation

226、 defines LLL as a mission of higher education also have institutional strategies for LLL in place at some level(institutional level,faculty/departmental level or both).That figure drops to 54.8 per cent for HEIs reporting no conducive legislation for HEIs engagement in LLL and to 41.1 per cent for H

227、EIs that did not know if such legislation exists or not.Institutional strategies are only effective when translated into practice and understood by the relevant staff and stakeholders;doing so requires a set of actions to operationalize the strategic lines of work into manageable tasks and to promot

228、e them.As part of the survey,the HEIs with a strategy in place were then asked to what extent those strategies were operationalized.In general,the results show a high level of operationalization,with 94.3 per cent of HEIs responding that,within their institution,the LLL policy is communicated effect

229、ively internally(strongly or to some extent);a majority of those HEIs also reported that their LLL policies were clearly identified across the institution(93.9%).External communication of the strategy was not as well-established,at 86.4 per cent.YesNoI dont knowI dont know No No,but we are in the pr

230、ocess of developing one Yes,at faculty/department level Yes,at institutional level Yes,at both institutional and faculty/department levelNational legislation defining LLL as a mission of HEIs and existence of an institutional strategy on LLL 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%FIGURE 3 Link between nat

231、ional legislation and HEIs strategiesUIL StatLink:bit.ly/UIL_HEI-LLL_fig3 Concerning mechanisms and tools,a large percentage of HEIs said they had developed(at least to some extent)guidelines and tools(81%)and monitoring and evaluation frameworks(77.4%).The findings show that these HEIs have gone be

232、yond strategic development and are operationalizing strategies,policies and mission statements in some form or another,with varying degrees of advancement(see Figure 4).Nevertheless,the data show that the more tangible and comprehensive forms of operationalization that is,developing tools and framew

233、orks are less advanced.Regarding the main drivers of HEIs involvement in lifelong learning,Figure 5 shows that community engagement and social responsibility(74.4%)as well as mission statements(73.2%)are the most relevant factors.Moreover,over half of the participating HEIs(54.39%)cited business/ind

234、ustry demand as a main driver,followed by government policy(52.1%).Generating financial revenue through LLL activities was reported to be an important motivation for 35.6 per cent of HEIs,followed by widening access to minorities and underrepresented groups,which was selected by 30.1 per cent of HEI

235、s.The least relevant drivers for LLL involvement,according to the survey,were gaining peer recognition(24.1%)and meeting national quotas of adult learners(11.5%).Not at all Poorly To some extent Strongly21Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationExtent to which in

236、stitutional LLL strategies are operationalized(n=279)FIGURE 4 Operationalization of LLL strategiesUIL StatLink:bit.ly/UIL_HEI-LLL_fig4 What are the main drivers of your institutions involvement in LLL?(Multiple answers are possible)FIGURE 5 Main internal and external drivers of lifelong learning in

237、HEIsUIL StatLink:bit.ly/UIL_HEI-LLL_fig5 Responsibilities for LLL are clearly identified across the institutionLLL policy is communicated effectively internallyLLL policy is communicated effectively externallyA large set of guidelines and tools has been developedThere is a monitoring and evaluation

238、frameworkPeriodic institutional reviews of LLL strategy/policy 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%Community engagement and social responsibility Own mission statementBusiness/industry demandGovernment policyGenerating financial revenueEnhanced access for minorities and under-

239、represented groupsPeer esteem/recognition by other HEIs for LLL missionRecruitment of adult learners to meet national quotasOther 22Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationLooking at the regional distribution of main drivers,the patterns are generally similar,alt

240、hough some differences can be found.For example,while community engagement and social responsibility is the most common driver in four regions(ranging from 73%to 82.7%),this is not the case for Africa,where only 50 per cent of HEIs selected this as a main driver.Interestingly,when it comes to specif

241、ic community engagement activities(see Figure 24),African HEIs show very similar levels of engagement as HEIs in other regions.This means that the definition of main drivers of LLL involvement does not necessarily comply with the level of involvement in a particular field.Similarly,the survey data s

242、how that only 37.5 per cent of African HEIs selected business/industry demand as a main driver,which is significantly lower than in other regions;yet,African HEIs actually have a rather high level of engagement with the private sector(see Figure 25).The most relevant driver for LLL engagement report

243、ed among African HEIs was their own mission statement(selected by 75%of respondents);however,this result does not correlate with the responses regarding how much priority is given to LLL in HEIs mission statements,where only 35.7 per cent of African HEIs noted this as a high priority.Regional differ

244、ences can also be observed with regards to government policy,which is considered a main driver by 61.6 per cent of HEIs in Asia and the Pacific,59.4 per cent in Africa,and 55.9 per cent in the Arab States.These rates are significantly lower for HEIs in Europe and North America(44.4%)and Latin Americ

245、a and the Caribbean(37.3%).These figures correlate with the survey data on conducive national legislation,wherein HEIs in Asia and the Pacific and Africa reported the highest rates of national legislation defining LLL as a mission for HEIs.Figures were lower in Latin America and the Caribbean,where

246、48 per cent of HEIs reported the existence of relevant national legislation.In the Arab States,55.9 per cent reported the existence of relevant national legislation the same percentage of HEIs that indicated government policy was a main driver of LLL involvement.Interestingly,while 68.7 per cent of

247、respondents from Europe and North America said that national legislation defines LLL as a mission of HEIs,only 44.4 per cent consider government policy a relevant driver for LLL involvement.In contrast,72.7 per cent of HEIs in this region responded that their own mission statements are an important

248、driver.Taking into consideration the fact that HEIs in this region showed the highest rate of institutional LLL strategies,a possible interpretation of these results is that government policies are a less relevant driver for HEIs involvement in LLL in Europe and North America because they have alrea

249、dy been widely translated into respective institutional strategies and integrated into mission statements(which,in turn,are more relevant for guiding HEIs LLL involvement).As the survey data indicate,business/industry demand is particularly important for HEIs in Europe and North America(62.6%)as wel

250、l as in Latin American and the Caribbean(58.7%).Generating financial income is a main driver for 48.5 per cent of participating institutions in Europe and North America,followed by 38.2 per cent in the Arab States.However,there appears to be no correlation between HEIs specific funding arrangements

251、and whether they chose generating financial income as a main driver.As for business/industry demand,this driver appears more relevant for private,for-profit HEIs.Just over one-third of participating institutions or less said that widening access to minorities and underrepresented groups,gaining peer

252、 recognition and meeting national quotas of adult learners were main drivers for lifelong learning.The Arab States(35.3%)and Latin America and the Caribbean(34.7%)have the highest proportion of HEIs that selected widening access is a main driver,with relatively lower proportions in Europe and North

253、America and Africa(26.3%and 25%,respectively).2.3 Summary of main findingsThe presented survey findings provide an overview of the policy environments,both at the national and institutional level,which influence and shape the participating institutions lifelong learning activities.As national polici

254、es and institutional strategies provide the basis for HEIs engagement in LLL,these results are fundamental to further understanding the internal structures,mechanisms and operations for LLL implementation,which will be discussed in the next chapter.As the survey results show,more than two-thirds of

255、participating HEIs stated that national legislation in their country defines LLL as a mission for higher education.This suggests that,at the macro-level,these countries are committed to delivering LLL opportunities in higher education settings for a greater variety of learners.The survey data also p

256、rovide evidence that there is a relationship between supportive national legislation and the existence of institutional strategies for LLL,underlining the relevance of conducive national policy environments for promoting LLL within HEIs.This finding is supported by the literature,which suggests that

257、 national higher education legislation is an important determinant for HEIs strategic positioning and operational activities,including the provision of LLL opportunities or the establishment of flexible learning pathways(Martin and Godonoga,2020;Gaebel and Zhang,2018;Robinson,2017).In particular,thi

258、s is relevant with regards to ensuring proper resource allocation.The relationship between national policy and public funding schemes for LLL is also a topic to be considered in the next chapter.23Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationIn terms of HEIs commitmen

259、ts to LLL,the survey asked to what extent LLL is prioritized within mission statements and institutional strategies.A large majority of participating institutions(82.5%)noted that LLL is referred to in their mission statements with either high or medium priority.Mission statements can be an indicati

260、on of the degree to which LLL is embedded and mainstreamed into HEIs institutional frameworks,strategic operations and programmes.Prioritizing LLL in mission statements is also mentioned in international statements and frameworks as a key instrument to embrace a lifelong learning culture within HEIs

261、.Also,when asked about their motivations for LLL engagement,73.2 per cent selected their own mission statement as a main driver.A second question in the survey was dedicated to institutions commitment to LLL,asking about the existence of institutional LLL strategies.Here as well the majority of HEIs

262、(68.2%)responded that they have a strategy in place,either at institutional level,at faculty/department level,or both.This finding shows a clear commitment to translating overarching objectives into concrete policy action.Within the scope of this survey,the comprehensiveness of such strategies was n

263、ot explored,nor was how binding they are for departments and staff.Yet a set of case studies conducted among selected HEIs that participated in the survey indicates that there are varying interpretations of what it means to have a strategy in place.Such strategies were not necessarily understood as

264、a dedicated written document but rather interpreted as having an inherent LLL strategy wherein LLL activities are promoted within different departments with the general support of HEI leadership(UIL and SOU,forthcoming).When it comes to main drivers for the provision of LLL opportunities,it is inter

265、esting to see that the most relevant driver selected by HEIs was community engagement and social responsibility(74.4%),which comes before business/industry demand(54.4%).This is remarkable considering the tension that sometimes arises when HEIs are requested to respond to economic needs while at the

266、 same time fulfilling a social responsibility.The finding suggests that HEIs define themselves not only as institutions for upskilling and reskilling for the labour market but,more importantly,as social actors with a civic mission.It demonstrates HEIs motivation to contribute to positive development

267、 in society and,particularly,in their local communities(Carlsen et al.,2016;Osborne et al.,2015;Orazbayeva,2017).Moreover,it suggests that the third mission is indeed a priority of HEIs and guides their actions.Surprisingly,while there is a high commitment to community engagement and social responsi

268、bility,less than a third of participating HEIs selected enhancing access for minorities and under-represented groups as a main driver for their LLL activities.This means that widening access to higher education and ensuring equitable education opportunities is not necessarily a priority within HEIs

269、third mission.The least important driver for lifelong learning reported by institutions in the sample is recruiting adult learners to meet national quotas.This low proportion could mean that either such quotas are not common in countries where participating HEIs are located and/or that accountabilit

270、y frameworks in this area are weak and hence not as relevant for HEIs operations.Overall,these results show that both national governments as well as higher education institutions around the world have taken relevant steps to integrate and promote a culture of LLL in the higher education sector,with

271、 priorities covering both economic and social demands.Based on the findings about conducive policy environments and drivers for LLL engagement,the next chapter will explore institutional practices,covering governance structures,financing mechanisms,quality assurance systems,and strengths and weaknes

272、ses of LLL implementation.24Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationPolicies and strategies for LLL in higher education are only effective when translated into institutional practices.As previously mentioned,the transformation into an LLL institution requires the

273、 commitment of a wide range of internal stakeholders,first and foremost the HEI leadership,and a holistic approach for implementation.How lifelong learning provision is organized within HEIs depends on the governance structures which have been established.Common models for organizing LLL include hav

274、ing either a central operating unit,a working area in central administration,a unit within a faculty,a scientific centre or an external institute.It has been observed in previous research that categorizing organizational structures for continuing education in HEIs as either central or decentral mode

275、ls is difficult because they often exist in hybrid forms for example,a central unit may have the main responsibility for LLL or continuing education,yet certain initiatives are organized decentrally within different faculties(Hanft and Knust,2007).To enable a concerted approach towards LLL,it makes

276、sense to bundle responsibilities for LLL in a central unit that acts in coordination with the university leadership and at the same time maintains close ties to the faculties.The different functions of such units will be further discussed in Section 3.1 based on the results from the international su

277、rvey.In addition to an effective governance model for LLL,a basic requirement for the transition from policy to practice is funding.Without the necessary funds,a gap between rhetoric and practice will exist,resulting in uneven and slow-paced implementation(Bengtsson,2013;Nesbit et al.,2013).In the l

278、ast decades,public HEIs in particular have seen a decline in funding.On a global scale,HEIs have been facing multiple funding challenges over the last years.Challenges such as shifting enrolment patterns,insufficient government support,and increasing amounts of institutional and student debt in some

279、 countries(James and Gokbel,2018)have further been exacerbated because of the COVID-19 crisis,worsening the financial situation of HEIs worldwide.The IAUs global survey on the impact of the pandemic has shown that this decline in funding has been seen in both public spending,tuition fees and private

280、-sector funding,although,in general,public funding proved to be more stable,implying that the pandemic has had a particularly strong impact on the private higher education sector(Jensen et al.,2022).These financial challenges not only affect HEIs core operations but also have an impact on how HEIs c

281、an respond to their third mission and the need for LLL opportunities.Most commonly,funding for LLL in higher education comes from different sources and is more diverse than funding dedicated to traditional teaching(i.e.ISCED levels 6 to 8).Major funding parties for LLL include national and state gov

282、ernments,employers,philanthropic institutions and individual learners.There are different ways in which funding agencies can allocate their contributions:supply-side financing can be provided to HEIs to implement LLL activities(this includes core funding,programme and project funding,etc.)or funds a

283、re directed to students or employers as demand-side financing(for example,as direct grants,tax exemptions or deductions,training leave,and loans or individual learning accounts)(Palacios,2003;Garca de Fanelli,2019).Funding for lifelong learning hinges on how societies and institutions define the man

284、date of LLL,which may range from a strong socio-cultural orientation to being primarily labour-market responsive.Most likely,as LLL is multidimensional,such mandates will involve both interest-driven learning activities for adults as well as more pragmatic strategies aimed at professional skills dev

285、elopment in response to labour market trends(Field and Canning,2014;Stanistreet,2020;Candy and Crebert,1991).How the general mandate for LLL is defined will affect the specific objectives of LLL,public resource allocation and also the conditions attached to the funds provided.While there has been su

286、bstantial research and data collection on the topic of higher education financing in general(OECD,2021a;Strehl et al.,2007;Pechar and Andres,2011),this is much less the case for the more specific topic of funding LLL within the higher education context.This may be related to the fact that LLL has no

287、t traditionally been considered a core function of HEIs.As a result,there has been lower interest in its funding mechanisms.It may also have to do with the range of activities that come under the LLL umbrella(degree programmes for adult learners,online courses,free lectures,community initiatives,etc

288、.)and the difficulty of systematically taking stock of them and tracing their funding sources.Yet,this lack of data has implications on funding LLL itself,as noted by Tuckett(2017,p.3):Unlike schools and universities,where the data is easily captured through administrative mechanisms,adult learning

289、is less tidy adults learn through formal and non-formal courses and through informal learning,and as a result it is more challenging to see who benefits.Yet,governments need that information to prioritize investment.3 Institutional governance and implementation25Research report:International trends

290、of lifelong learning in higher educationAn issue closely linked to funding LLL in higher education is developing and implementing procedures for quality assurance(QA).Within the context of higher education,quality assurance can be defined as an all-embracing term referring to an ongoing,continuous p

291、rocess of evaluating(assessing,monitoring,guaranteeing,maintaining and improving)the quality of higher education systems,institutions,or programmes(Vlsceanu et al.,2007,p.74).As a regulatory mechanism,QA focuses on both accountability and improvement,assessing quality based on a standardized process

292、 and well-established criteria.Thus,QA generates information on the quality of education provision and can make visible any deficiencies in management,curricula and pedagogies,forms of assessment,student services,etc.,that require improvement.As funding is often tied to measurable outputs(or key per

293、formance indicators),a mechanism to define and monitor these outputs is essential for securing and increasing budgets.However,while quality assurance systems are very advanced for standard study provision,less attention has been paid to QA for LLL provision or to addressing LLL through internal QA a

294、t institutions.The general lack of QA for LLL programmes provided by HEIs reflects the broader state of affairs when it comes to LLL in the higher education sector:LLL has yet to be mainstreamed into HEIs strategic orientations and practices.When it comes to institutional mechanisms and practices fo

295、r QA in the context of LLL provision,HEIs are facing several challenges.Part of the problem is that the field of continuing education and LLL is placed at the intersection between university,professional practice,vocational education and training,and other non-formal learning environments.LLL progra

296、mmes are characterized by features which,in some cases,differ substantially from mainstream higher education provision;for example,they are often less standardized and allow for more flexibility in terms of curricula development,study provision and assessment compared to traditional study programmes

297、.Quality assurance for LLL should be an ongoing process,to be pursued with the same rigor and professionalism as with other higher education programmes,without restricting the flexibility,innovativeness and openness of LLL offerings(Bengoetxea et al.,2011;Chisholm,2012;Schmidt-Jortzig,2011).Despite

298、these challenges and slow progress in the field,HEIs have developed and applied diverse procedures for QA in the context of LLL provision,as presented in Section 3.3.The following sections take a closer look at the role of institutional governance and implementation for the provision of LLL opportun

299、ities in HEIs based on results from the international survey.Section 3.1 examines organizational structures,reflected in dedicated units;Section 3.2 focuses on funding LLL in HEIs,both from the institutional and the learners perspective;Section 3.2 includes information on quality assurance mechanism

300、s.In the final section,data on the reported strengths and challenges of institutional implementation are briefly be presented.3.1 Organizational structure for lifelong learningA dedicated lifelong learning unit can act as an important vehicle to implement institutional LLL strategies(De Viron and Da

301、vies,2015;UIL,2022a;Ta and Titrek,2020).Depending on HEIs specific contexts,LLL units can be part of the internal structure or exist as an external unit.How it is embedded in the organizational structure is usually influenced by the functions of the unit,which,in many cases,are focused on providing

302、continuing education programmes.In addition,LLL units may also be tasked with knowledge-transfer activities,community engagement,conducting research in the field of LLL,as well as providing support and guidance services to lifelong learners(De Viron and Davies,2015;Milic,2013).As Figure 6 shows,just

303、 over half of the responding HEIs reported having a dedicated LLL unit(53.6%),covering a variety of functions.Among the possible options,most HEIs said that their LLL units primary function was offering and selling education programmes and trainings(73.4%),followed by curricula development and commu

304、nity engagement(both 65.6%).Other functions of LLL units,which were selected by at least half of the HEIs with a dedicated unit,were staff development,facilitating flexible learning pathways and enhancing graduate employability.Slightly less common functions were research tasks,consultancies and pro

305、moting knowledge networks.Some participating HEIs(5%)indicated other functions of their LLL units,including strategic and administrative responsibilities such as addressing strategic issues,providing resource efficient systems,regulation and making decisions on courses,and recruiting adult learners.

306、Other functions that were stated refer to skills recognition and learning pathways,for example,evaluating and validating competences of learners and developing partnerships with other education providers to simplify progression.One university also mentioned that its LLL unit is promoting knowledge e

307、xchange,for example through a learning city programme,by participating in European-wide projects,and by engaging in national and international networks,policy talks and conferences.26Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationIn general,the main functions of HEIs LL

308、L units are strongly linked to the field of continuing education(offering education programmes,curricula and staff development),which,in the understanding of HEIs,is often equated with LLL.This focus on continuing education is also in line with the prioritized target groups for HEIs lifelong learnin

309、g activities(see Section 4.1),among which working people requiring upskilling/reskilling,individuals working in public and private organizations,women,and HEI staff were identified as the most relevant groups.FIGURE 6 Functions of HEIs lifelong learning unitsWhat is the function of your institutions

310、 LLL unit?(multiple answers possible)(n=218)0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%UIL StatLink:bit.ly/UIL_HEI-LLL_fig6 As Figure 7 suggests,there is a relationship between HEIs having strategies for LLL in place and having a dedicated LLL unit.HEIs that have an LLL strategy at either institutional level or at b

311、oth institutional and faculty/department level are much more likely to also have a dedicated unit for LLL(68.9%and 71.1%,respectively).In comparison,the likelihood of having a dedicated LLL unit drops significantly for those HEIs which did not have,or were unsure of having,an LLL strategy(24.2%and 2

312、2.2%).BOX 3 Example of organizational structures for LLLAt the American University of Beirut(AUB),Lebanon,several units contribute to implementing LLL and outreach activities:The Continuing Education Center(CEC),founded almost 50 years ago,extends AUBs resources into the community by providing high-

313、quality educational opportunities for individuals of all educational and professional levels.In addition to courses offered at AUB,the CEC also provides tailored in-house workshops to corporate institutions in Lebanon,the Middle East and North Africa region,and beyond(American University in Beirut,2

314、019).To cater to the needs of older learners,the University for Seniors provides adults(aged 50 and above)with educational and cultural opportunities,including study groups,lectures,cultural travel programmes,and intergenerational activities with AUB students.Other units contributing to AUBs third m

315、ission are the Executive Education Center,the Advancing Research Enabling Communities Center and the Center for Civic Engagement and Community Service Center,among others.27Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationDoes your institution have an institutional LLL st

316、rategy and dedicated LLL unit?FIGURE 7 Link between the existence of an institutional LLL strategy and having a dedicated unit for LLLUIL StatLink:bit.ly/UIL_HEI-LLL_fig7 I dont know No YesYes,at both institutional and faculty/department level Yes,at institutional level Yes,at faculty/department lev

317、el No,but we are in the process of developing one No I dont know 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%28Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher education3.2 Financing of lifelong learningAs noted in the introduction to this chapter,the issue of funding lifelong learning in hi

318、gher education is important at both the institutional and individual learner levels.HEIs need resources to develop and offer LLL programmes;this can be done through dedicated funds within the regular budget,tuition fees and third-party funding,among other options.In addition to covering costs,LLL of

319、ferings especially when it comes to continuing education programmes and customized offerings for companies can also be a relevant source of revenue for HEIs.Regarding individual learners,there are various ways to fund LLL activities.While examples of free LLL opportunities exist(more commonly for fl

320、exible,non-degree offers,such as public lectures,workshops and,in some cases,MOOCs),often learners need to secure funds themselves to cover the cost of LLL programmes.But there are also governmental or other support programmes in place that can support learners in their higher education trajectories

321、.Examples of individual learner support include scholarship,targeted or low-interest loans or fee waivers.The support may originate from public and private sources,which may target all learners equally or focus on particular groups,such as vulnerable and underrepresented groups.In addition to such p

322、ublic schemes and individuals using their own resources to cover fees for LLL,employers play an important role in funding upskilling and reskilling programmes.As Figure 8 shows,the most common institutional funding sources for LLL provision in HEIs are tuition fees for LLL courses(62.7%)and self-fun

323、ding(earmarked budget in regular budget)(58.7%).These are followed by on-demand services(including corporate trainings,consultancies,other income-generating LLL activities)at 44.4 per cent,dedicated public funding for LLL(provided by the government,regional and local authorities,etc.)at 35.3 per cen

324、t,and donations(defined as funds received from,for example,the private sector,foundations,communities and philanthropic organizations)at 19.3 per cent.Institutions selected on average just over two different funding sources(multiple answers were possible),indicating that HEIs in the sample need to r

325、ely on multiple financial instruments to fund their LLL activities.A small number of HEIs reported having other funding sources for LLL,including partnerships with the private sector,a special trust fund and performance-based funding,among others.When considering the different funding types of HEIs,

326、no relevant differences can be seen in terms of funding sources for LLL,with the exception of dedicated public funding for LLL being more relevant for public HEIs compared to private institutions,which is not surprising.There are two funding sources that appear to be most relevant to all types of HE

327、Is,both publicly and privately funded,and all modes of HEIs,including campus-based,distance,open and mixed-mode;these are tuition fees and self-funding.UIL StatLink:bit.ly/UIL_HEI-LLL_fig8 What are the funding sources for LLL at your institution?FIGURE 8 Funding sources for institutions LLL provisio

328、nTuition fees for LLL courses Self-funded (earmarked in regular budget)On-demand servicesDedicated public funding for LLL DonationsOther 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%29Research report:International trends of lifelong learning in higher educationSurvey data on individuals funding sources for lifelong le

329、arning(see Figure 9)indicate that personal resources are by far the most common(73.4%).This is followed by public funding schemes offered by national,regional and local governments(47.9%);scholarships,bursaries and philanthropic donations(43.6%);and private funding from industry and employers(38.9%)

330、.A less common funding source for individuals LLL engagement are fee waivers(24.1%).A small number of institutions also responded that other sources are available,including,for example,discounts given to regular students and alumni for any LLL programmes provided by the HEI,fee exemptions for vulner

331、able groups such as persons with disabilities,training offered for free to HEI staff,and special trust funds for LLL.Looking at the relationship between national legislation defining LLL as a mission of HEIs and available funding sources for individuals,the survey data indicate that conducive nation

332、al policy environments also come with a larger public budget for supporting individual learners on their LLL trajectory.Of the surveyed HEIs that have such national legislation in place,52.9 per cent selected public funding schemes by national,regional or local governments as a funding source for LL

333、L.In comparison,among those HEIs where national legislation does not define LLL as a mission of higher education,only 37 per cent selected this option.The research shows that there is also a link between the way HEIs are funded and the funding resources for individuals participating in LLL activities.Public funding schemes are a more relevant source for financing LLL in public HEIs(selected by 57.