Lifelong Learning as a Global Framework: Navigating Future Determinants and Contextual Realities in Southeast Asia

 

By Suwithida Charungkaittikul (HOF 2025)

As the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame (IACEHOF) celebrates its milestone 30th anniversary, it offers a profound moment to pause and reflect on the transformative power of our field. Being inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2025 was not just a deeply humbling personal honor; it served as a powerful validation of the collective efforts to elevate adult education and lifelong learning across Thailand and the broader Southeast Asian region.

In contemporary educational discourse, Lifelong Learning (LLL) has successfully transitioned from a specialized educational sub-sector into a definitive global framework for sustainable development. It is widely recognized as the foundational architecture for navigating an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) world. However, an enduring tension remains at the heart of comparative education: How does a sweeping, macro-level global framework translate into localized micro-practice in highly unequal regions such as Southeast Asia?

To answer this, we must look beyond standardized global timelines and instead critically examine the future determinants—the structural, technological, and socio-demographic conditions—that will inevitably reshape our societies. Concurrently, we must confront the profound diversity in how lifelong learning is understood, valued, and implemented across different nations.

1. Future Determinants: The Catalyst for Structural Transformation

The evolution of adult and continuing education will not be shaped by educational policy alone, but by the convergence of powerful external macro-trends. To make lifelong learning a resilient global framework, policies must proactively adapt to three inevitable future determinants:

• The Demands of the Twin Transitions (Digital & Green): The rapid acceleration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and automation has fundamentally altered the baseline of required human competencies. Concurrently, the global transition toward sustainability and climate resilience demands an aggressive green skilling agenda. Lifelong learning must therefore evolve beyond its historical role as a basic literacy or remedial "second-chance" path. It must become a dynamic platform for continuous upskilling, technological fluency, and global citizenship.
• Demographic Asymmetry: Southeast Asia is experiencing a deep demographic split. While nations like Thailand and Singapore have already transitioned into aged and hyper-aged societies, other regional neighbors still possess a youth dividend but lack the institutional capacity to maximize it. Future frameworks must be fluid enough to support both active aging/gerontological learning and agile workforce entry. This necessitates a shift toward an andragogically oriented, longevity-literate educational paradigm capable of bonding these diverse age cohorts together (Charungkaittikul & Henschke, 2024).
• The Risk of the Poly-Crisis and Widening Inequalities: Future economic shifts, public health crises, and environmental disruptions will disproportionately impact marginalized populations. If lifelong learning ecosystems are only accessible to those with existing digital and financial privilege, the global framework will inadvertently widen the socioeconomic divide rather than bridge it.

This critical vulnerability is explicitly underscored by the 2026 Global Education Monitoring (GEM) Report, which warns that as the international community enters the final countdown toward the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, widening systemic gaps in access and equity threaten to leave the most vulnerable populations entirely behind (UNESCO, 2026). Without a deliberate, targeted focus on structural equity, global targets like SDG 4 risk becoming empty metrics rather than lived realities.

2. From Definition to Practice: The Challenge of Contextual Asymmetry

A core challenge in deploying lifelong learning as a global framework is the recognition that definitions, national policies, and implementation processes vary fundamentally from country to country. There is no "one-size-fits-all" model.

As established in regional cross-country research conducted in collaboration with the Institute for International Cooperation (DVV International) of the German Adult Education Association (Deutscher Volkshochschul-Verband e.V.) - the strategic approaches and structural readiness of Southeast Asian nations reveal a profound contextual asymmetry (Charungkaittikul, 2019). When we analyze the ten ASEAN nations through the lens of UNESCO’s lifelong learning ecosystem dimensions, this operational divergence becomes starkly apparent:

• Singapore treats lifelong learning as a highly institutionalized economic and civic infrastructure through its centralized SkillsFuture framework.
• Malaysia and the Philippines have advanced macro-policy frameworks and legislative acts, yet they frequently encounter complex challenges in decentralized execution and cross-sectoral governance.
• Thailand possesses a strong grassroots footprint through Community Learning Centres (CLCs) and a progressive National Education Plan but faces structural fragmentation in seamlessly connecting non-formal learning to formal credit banking systems. As rigorously analyzed in “An Overview of Concepts and Guidelines for Promoting Lifelong Learning in Thai Society” (Charungkaittikul, 2021), the core struggle within the Thai ecosystem is a historical policy gap that has created a lack of structural synergy. The foundational challenge lies in structurally reforming current non-formal spaces to elevate local wisdom across its agricultural, cultural, and socio-economic dimensions. (Charungkaittikul, 2021)
• Indonesia and Vietnam leverage massive digital momentum and localized "learning societies," yet they grapple with severe geographic equity gaps between hyper-developed urban centers and rural areas.
• Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Timor-Leste are structurally compelled to use non-formal education primarily as a remedial safety net for basic literacy and primary skills, rather than as a proactive lifelong ecosystem.

The 2026 GEM Report highlights this exact global challenge, noting that a profound policy-practice gap persists across low- and middle-income nations due to severe budgetary constraints, administrative overloads, and a lack of contextualized professional pathways (UNESCO, 2026). Borrowing global templates without deep local translation inevitably leads to policy stagnation. Because historical baselines, institutional maturity, and cultural contexts are fundamentally unequal, copying rigid frameworks without localization offers little sustainable progress.

3. The Imperative of Accurate Communication and Principled Implementation

Given these structural variations, international and regional stakeholders must pivot their strategies. Instead of enforcing rigid, standardized metrics that encourage compliance rather than genuine growth, we must prioritize the accurate, inspiring communication of core lifelong learning principles.

Misconceptions still abound: many administrative systems still mistakenly equate "lifelong learning" merely with formal schooling, certificates, or institutional attendance, trapping societies in a restrictive "Society of Schooling." To evolve into a true "Lifelong Learning Society," we must protect and advocate for three uncompromised principles rooted in the core philosophy and concepts of non-formal education (Charungkaittikul, 2021). Crucially, these principles align with the strategic guidelines formulated for transforming localized educational landscapes (Charungkaittikul, 2021):

• Inclusivity and Equity as a Human Right: Lifelong learning is a universal human right, not a market-driven luxury. The 2026 GEM Report emphasizes that true progress toward SDG 4 cannot be achieved without dismantling the structural barriers that restrict access for marginalized, rural, and non-formal learners (UNESCO, 2026).
• Permeability and Flexibility of Pathways: Formal, non-formal, and informal learning pathways must be structurally integrated through robust Credit Banking and Micro-credentials that validate real-world competencies regardless of where or how they were acquired. True implementation requires that non-formal learning pathways are structurally incorporated into the broader, formal schooling architecture rather than left isolated on the margins.
• Learner-Centered Andragogical Agility: Shifting away from rote memorization, educational delivery must focus on fostering critical thinking, adaptability, and self-regulated learning. Applying definitive andragogical concepts allows communities to transition from passive consumers of knowledge to agile, self-directed builders of a sustainable learning society (Charungkaittikul & Henschke, 2017).

Only when the core philosophy is accurately communicated and understood can local policymakers translate the global framework into authentic, effective, and context-specific action.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the success of lifelong learning as a global framework cannot be measured by the aesthetic appeal of policy documents, the number of certificates issued, or the speed of technological adoption. The final, definitive metric must be the quality of life of the people and the transformation of society.

Our collective goal must be to build an inclusive lifelong learning ecosystem in which learning functions as an organic, everyday part of life—empowering individuals with dignity, resilience, and agency while fostering a more equitable, peaceful, and sustainable world. As we look to the future, let us ensure that while we build the innovative outer skeleton of our educational systems, we never lose sight of the human heart at the center of our mission.

Lifelong learning is the ultimate global framework for human flourishing. As IACEHOF enters its fourth decade, my hope is that we continue to amplify regional voices from every corner of the globe. By honoring our history and boldly embracing the digital and ecological transitions ahead, we ensure that adult education and lifelong learning remain a vibrant, empowering force for generations to come.

About Author

Assoc. Prof. Suwithida Charungkaittikul, Ph.D. is a faculty member in the Department of Lifelong Education, Faculty of Education at Chulalongkorn University, Thailand. She serves as the President of the PIMA Network and is a member of the Board of Directors for the IACE Hall of Fame. Her work focuses on non-formal education philosophy, learning ecosystems, international policies in lifelong learning, and learning city/ society/ region development.

References

Charungkaittikul, S. (2021). Concepts and Guidelines for Enhancing Lifelong Learning in Thailand. Chulalongkorn Publishing Center Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.

Charungkaittikul, S. (2019). Strategies for developing a lifelong learning society. In U. Gartenschlaeger (Ed.), Rethinking adult learning and education – Asian perspectives (pp. 47–54). DVV International.

Charungkaittikul, S., & Henschke, J. A. (2024). Lifelong learning: An andragogical approach to education for the aging population. International Journal of Technology-Enhanced Education, 3(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJTEE.349130

Charungkaittikul, S., & Henschke, J. A. (2017). Applying andragogical concepts in creating a sustainable lifelong learning society. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 8(4), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijavet.2017100104

UNESCO. (2026). Global education monitoring report 2026: Access and equity, countdown to 2030. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000397618

 

 

We invite Hall of Fame members and the global adult education community to share reflections, stories, and insights as part of this anniversary series.

IACEHOF 30th Anniversary Celebration 

The Hall of Fame is more than a recognition—it is a living record of the people and ideas that have shaped adult and continuing education globally

  

My Journey with the UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities: Building Communities Through Lifelong Learning

 

  

By Arne Carlsen (HOF 2017)

When I became Director of the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL) in 2011, I was convinced that lifelong learning should extend far beyond schools and universities. Learning takes place in homes, workplaces, libraries, museums, community centers, and public spaces. If learning is truly lifelong, our cities must become environments where everyone has the opportunity to learn throughout every stage of life.

This belief shaped my work with the UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities (GNLC), an initiative that places lifelong learning at the heart of sustainable urban development. The network encourages cities to see learning as a shared responsibility involving local governments, educational institutions, businesses, civil society, and citizens themselves.

One of the greatest privileges of my career was witnessing cities around the world embrace this vision. Despite their different cultures, languages, and circumstances, they shared a common understanding: communities flourish when learning opportunities are accessible to everyone, regardless of age or background.

The GNLC became far more than a network of municipalities. It evolved into a global community where cities exchange ideas, share successful practices, and learn from one another. A city addressing literacy challenges can benefit from another city's innovative community programs, while others draw inspiration from initiatives promoting digital inclusion, intergenerational learning, and active citizenship.

At UIL, we sought to provide both strategic direction and practical support. Together with colleagues and international partners, we developed guiding frameworks, organized international conferences, and encouraged peer learning among member cities. Rather than promoting a single model, we encouraged each city to build on its own strengths while working toward a shared goal: creating a culture of lifelong learning.

Throughout my travels, I met mayors, educators, and community leaders whose commitment was both inspiring and practical. Libraries became vibrant learning hubs, museums expanded their educational role, employers invested in workforce development, and volunteers strengthened literacy initiatives. These experiences confirmed that lifelong learning is not an abstract policy concept but a powerful means of improving people's lives and strengthening communities.

The Learning City movement also reinforced my belief that lifelong learning is essential for achieving sustainable development. Education supports not only individual growth but also better health, social inclusion, gender equality, employment, environmental responsibility, and democratic participation. Cities that invest in learning invest in their future resilience and prosperity.

One lesson stands out above all others: successful learning cities are built through partnerships. No single institution can create a learning society. Progress depends on collaboration among municipal authorities, educational institutions, cultural organizations, businesses, and community groups. When these partners work together, learning becomes woven into the fabric of everyday life.

Equally important is inclusion. A learning city must reach those who have traditionally had fewer educational opportunities, including older adults, migrants, refugees, people with disabilities, and those who left formal education early. Lifelong learning fulfills its promise only when it expands opportunities for everyone.

Looking back, I am proud that the UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities has grown into a worldwide movement connecting more than 400 cities committed to lifelong learning. More importantly, it has fostered lasting partnerships and inspired local innovation across every region of the world.

Today, rapid technological advances, artificial intelligence, climate change, geopolitical and security challenges, demographic shifts, and growing inequalities make lifelong learning more important than ever. These challenges require citizens who continue learning throughout their lives and cities that actively support this lifelong process.

My hope is that the Learning City movement will continue to inspire future leaders to place learning, inclusion, and human dignity at the center of urban development. By doing so, cities will become not only more competitive and sustainable but also more inclusive, resilient, and humane. Lifelong learning remains one of the most valuable investments we can make in the future of our communities.

Join the Conversation

Every learning city has its own story, and every educator, policymaker, and community leader brings a unique perspective on what lifelong learning can achieve. What examples have you seen in your own community? What opportunities or challenges do you believe will shape the future of learning cities?

We invite you to share your experiences, ideas, and reflections in the comments below. By learning from one another, we continue the spirit of collaboration that has been at the heart of the UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities from the very beginning.

References

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2021). OECD Skills Outlook 2021: Learning for Life. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/0ae365b4-en

UNESCO. (2015). Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). (2013). Key Features of Learning Cities. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.

UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). (2015). Guiding Documents for the UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.

UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). (2017). Unlocking the Potential of Urban Communities: Case Studies of Twelve Learning Cities. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.

UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). (2019). UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities: Membership Brochure. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.

UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). (2024). UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities. https://www.uil.unesco.org/en/learning-cities

United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations.

From Andragogy to Artificial Intelligence: Tracing the Evolution of Adult Education Through Scholarly Journals Published by AAACE

 

 

By Lilian H. Hill (HOF 2018)

 

In adult and continuing education, scholarly journals provide a unique lens through which to examine how ideas develop over time, revealing not only what educators and researchers have studied, but also whose voices have been amplified, whose perspectives have been overlooked, and how the field has responded to changing social realities. A review of publications in adult and continuing education journals demonstrates that the field has undergone significant intellectual transformation over the past several decades.

 

Looking Beyond Familiar Names

Introductory adult education texts in the U.S. foreground a relatively small group of influential scholars, including Eduard Lindeman, Malcolm Knowles, David Kolb, Jack Mezirow, Sharan Merriam, and Stephen Brookfield. While these individuals made foundational contributions to the field, relying on a handful of familiar citations creates an impression that adult education scholarship is static. Instead, adult education is a rich and evolving field shaped by hundreds of scholars, practitioners, and community leaders across the globe.

 

An illustration of this diversity is the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame, which over the past thirty years has recognized nearly 500 leaders from over 40 countries for their contributions to adult and continuing education. The Hall of Fame includes researchers, practitioners, policy leaders, and innovators whose work spans community development, literacy, workforce education, transformative learning, lifelong learning, higher education, and social justice. The work of the Hall of Fame is ongoing with a new inductees honored each year.

 

Hall of Fame members have contributed directly to the scholarly literature. Foundational scholars include Malcolm Knowles (1996), Phyllis Cunningham (1996), Jack Mezirow (2003), Sharan Merriam (2003), Thomas Sork (2008), Stephen Brookfield (2009), John Dirkx (2013), and Patricia Cranton (2014). They published influential work, helping shape major areas of inquiry including andragogy, transformative learning, critical reflection, adult development, and lifelong learning. The date in brackets that follows scholars’ names represents the year they were inducted. Induction tends to occur when scholars are well-established, and sometimes years later. For example, Eduard Lindeman was inducted posthumously in 2002, yet his well-known publication, The Meaning of Adult Education, was released in 1926.

 

Journals as Windows into the Field

Journals demonstrate how knowledge production changes over time. Academic journals reveal the questions that scholars considered important, theoretical frameworks that gained prominence, and social issues that influenced research. They reflect shifting priorities, emerging debates, and growing recognition of previously marginalized voices. By examining publication trends, it becomes possible to trace the evolution of adult education as both a scholarly discipline and a social practice. This blog post focuses on publications of the American Association of Adult and Continuing Education (AAACE): Adult Education Quarterly, Adult Learning, and Journal of Transformative Education.

 

 

Mid-Twentieth Century: Education for Democracy and Community Development

During the 1950s - 1970s, adult education scholars focused heavily on program development, community education, civic participation, and democratic engagement. Adult education was viewed as a practical endeavor that could strengthen communities and support social progress. Research emphasized effective teaching strategies for adult learners. Theories such as andragogy, experiential learning, and humanistic education gained prominence, reflecting a strong interest in understanding how adults learn and how educators could facilitate that learning more effectively. Broader social movements, including civil rights activism, labor organizing, and community development efforts, influenced the field. Adult education was closely connected to social purpose, citizenship, and collective improvement.

 

The 1980s and 1990s: Critical Reflection and Theory Development

The 1980s and 1990s marked a significant shift in adult education scholarship. Rather than focusing primarily on instructional methods, scholars began exploring deeper questions about power, inequality, and social structures. This era saw the emergence and expansion of transformative learning theory alongside growing influence from critical theory, feminist scholarship, and critical pedagogy. Researchers began asking important questions about who participates in adult education, who benefits whose knowledge is considered legitimate, and how learning experiences shape identity and power? The field moved beyond questions of how adults learn to examine why education matters and whom it serves. Adult education became increasingly concerned with issues of justice, equity, and social transformation.

 

The Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame inducted its first 78 scholars in 1996. The Hall had been in development for several years, and the induction recognized adult educators who were active in previous decades. Scholars who contributed to the literature who were inducted that year included Phyllis Cunningham, Cyril Houle, Alan Knox, and K. Patricia Cross. Authors inducted in the remainder of the decade include Peter Jarvis (1997), Myles Horton (1998), Donna Queeny (1998), and Dorothy Enderis (1998).

 

The Early 2000s: Globalization and Lifelong Learning

As globalization accelerated, adult education became increasingly international and interdisciplinary. Researchers explored cross-cultural perspectives and examined how global economic, political, and social changes influenced learning. Governments, international organizations, and educational institutions increasingly promoted lifelong learning as essential for workforce development, economic competitiveness, and adaptation to rapid social change.

 

At the same time, scholars debated competing visions of education. Was adult education primarily an economic tool designed to increase productivity and employability? Or was it a means of promoting social justice, civic engagement, and personal growth? This tension between economic and social purposes remains a defining feature of contemporary adult education discourse. Hall of Fame members who contributed to that debate included Ronald Cervero (2003), Stephen Brookfield (2009), Patricia Cranton (2014), John Dirkx (2018), and Laura Bierema (2022).

 

The 2010s: Equity, Identity, and Technology

During the 2010s, adult education scholarship increasingly focused on issues of equity, inclusion, identity, and culture. Researchers examined how race, gender, social class, disability, and other dimensions of identity influence educational experiences and outcomes. The field responded to major global challenges, including migration, economic instability, and public health crises. Greater attention was given to amplifying marginalized voices and understanding how systemic inequalities shape access to learning opportunities. Technology emerged as another major area of inquiry. Scholars investigated online learning, digital access, and the ways technology influences participation, engagement, and educational outcomes. Research increasingly blended theoretical analysis with practical applications, reflecting the growing need to address real-world challenges facing educators and learners. Hall of Fame Members active during this time included Stephen Brookfield (2009), Juanita Johnson-Bailey (2009), Elizabeth Tisdell (2014), John Dirkx (2018), Simone Conceição (2018), Paulette Isaac-Savage (2019), and Edward Taylor (2024).

 

The 2020s and Beyond: Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Challenges

The current decade is generating new questions for adult education scholars. Digital, media, and artificial intelligence literacy, and the ethical implications of emerging technologies have become prominent topics of discussion. Adult educators are learning to teach adults about addressing misinformation and disinformation, digital inequity, workforce disruption, and the changing nature of knowledge production. At the same time, foundational literacy skills remain important concerns. Ongoing focus on social justice, global interconnectedness, and lifelong learning continue to shape research and practice. Hall of Fame authors publishing in this decade include Chad Hoggan (2025), Lisa Baumgartner (2024), Lisa Merriweather (2024), and Laura Bierema (2022). There are more adult educators still to be recognized in this decade. Future scholarship will likely explore how artificial intelligence, data-driven systems, and evolving digital environments influence learning, teaching, and participation in society.

 

Lessons from the Evolution of Adult Education

Adult education has evolved from a largely practice-oriented field to one that is theoretically sophisticated, critically reflective, globally connected, and increasingly interdisciplinary. Throughout its history, the field has maintained an ongoing dialogue with society. Changes in scholarship have often mirrored broader social, political, economic, and technological developments. New ideas have emerged in response to changing contexts, while longstanding debates about purpose, access, equity, and power continue to resurface in new forms. The challenge for contemporary scholars is to engage with the broader and continually expanding body of literature that reflects the diversity, complexity, and global nature of adult learning and education.

 

Understanding this intellectual evolution helps educators and researchers situate their own work within a larger scholarly tradition. It highlights the diversity of voices that have contributed to the field and encourages engagement with both foundational theories and contemporary scholarship. Most importantly, the history of adult education reminds us that the field is not defined by a handful of influential thinkers. Rather, it is a living, evolving conversation shaped by generations of scholars, practitioners, and learners working to understand and improve the role of education in adult life.