Development of Global Lifelong Learning Index for a Future Education Juseuk Kim, Lynn Ilon Seoul National University Seoul, Korea
Contents I. Introduction II. Review of Theoretical Background III. Development of global lifelong learning index IV. Country comparison of Global Lifelong Learning Index V. Discussion and Conclusion
Ⅰ. Introduction 2
Ⅰ. Introduction Background & needs a. The knowledge society changes the hegemony of learning in our life, and the importance of lifelong learning has increased. b. Despite this societal need for lifelong learning, there have been not enough studies in terms of the lifelong learning measurement process. c. Some efforts have been made to evaluate lifelong learning, but those indices only indicated the conditions of specific countries or of a certain group of countries. It s very necessary to develop international indices as part of building a social consensus on lifelong learning and facilitating long-term investments in national level. 3
Ⅰ. Introduction Research Questions 1. How can a Global Lifelong Learning Index (GLLI) be constructed? - What is the conceptual model of the index? - What is the measurement model of the index? 2. What is the validity of the GLLI? 3. What ranking and country information results from the development of the GLLI? 4
Ⅰ. Introduction Research Purpose The purpose of this study is to provide all countries with an index that can be used as a reference when countries evaluate policies related to lifelong learning and make decisions that aim to improve the competitiveness of lifelong education. 5
Ⅱ. Review of Theoretical Background 6
1. Conceptual framework 1) UNESCO s Four Pillar UNESCO definition of the four pillars of learning Learning to know Learning to do Learning to live together Learning to be By combining a sufficiently broad general knowledge with the opportunity to deal in depth with a small number of subjects. This also means learning to learn, so as to benefit from the opportunities provided throughout life. In order to acquire not only an occupational skill but also, more broadly, the c ompetence to deal with many situations and work in teams. It also means learn ing to do in the context of young people s various social and work experiences which may be informal, as a result of the local or national context, or formal, in volving courses, alternating study and work. By developing an understanding of other people and an appreciation of interd ependence carrying out joint projects and learning to manage conflicts in a spirit of respect for the values of pluralism, mutual understating and peace So as better to develop one s personality and be able to act with even greater autonomy, judgment and personal responsibility. In that connection, education must not disregard any aspect of a person s potential: memory, reasoning, aest hetic sense, physical capacities and communication skills. 7 (DELORS et al., 1996: 37)
1. Conceptual framework 2) The lifelong Learning Indexes The ELLI (European Lifelong Index) describes the level of Lifelong Learning status of each European country. And it adopted the four pillars concept from UNESCO which developed by Jacques Delors. The ELLI is showing the diverse learning circumstance among schools, societies and homes, and covering whole of the life cycle. ELLI Index consists of 4 Pillar, 17 indicators, and 36 measures. Learning to now Learning within the formal education system (pre-school, school, university...) Learning to Do Learning to Live Together Learning to Be Vocational, job related-learning Learning for social cohesion Learning as personal growth European Lifelong Learning Indicators divide the level of European country's Lifelong Learning comprehensively using the four pillar of UNESCO. But, since the indicators are mainly focusing on developed European countries, it cannot measure the Lifelong Learning in developing countries. For example, several data like 'attendance at concerts', 'visiting museums / galleries' are often not available in developing countries. 8
1. Conceptual framework 2) The lifelong Learning Indexes CCL (Canadian Council on Learning) developed CLI (Canada Lifelong Index) adopting four pillar concept from UNESCO s Life Long Learning approach. Using CLI, CCL could get information about lifelong learning situation of each community in Canada. And Canada government could monitor how learning condition impact on economic and social well-being in Canada. Canada Life Long Index consists of 4 Pillars, 17 indicators, 25 measures. Learning to Know Learning to Do Learning to Live Together Learning to Be Literacy, numeracy, general knowledge, and critical thinking Technical, hands-on skills that are closely tied to occupational success Civic engagement, respect and concern for others and social and inter-person al skills Development of the mind, body and spirit through personal discovery, creativi ty and achieving a healthy balance in life The CLI is comparing Canadian regional conditions in terms of Life Long Learning. And the comparison of regional Life Long Learning level was possible. But, since CLI is focusing on Canadian lifelong learning issues, it is difficult to make comparisons among countries. 9
2. Review of literature 1) Background of lifelong learning Knowledge-based society The age of 100 years Since the transition from industrial society to a knowledge-based society, the source of national competitiveness is also changing. In the past, traditional means of production such as capital and labor had been emphasized while recently, the significance of knowledge and information, experience and wisdom have been emphasized. Knowledge and the accumulation of technology are ongoing actions that should be made throughout individual's entire life rather than by one-time actions. In addition, the age in which people live 100 years shows the features of our society to come. 10
2. Review of literature 2) Concept of Lifelong Learning Definition of Lifelong Learning Lengrand defined it as the integration of education (in a vertical dimension) from birth to death and the education throughout society (in a horizontal dimension). He emphasized the integration and comprehensiveness of education. (Kim et al, 2009) Dave (1976) defined it as the process of achieving individual, social and professional development to improve the quality of life as an individual and group. Delors (2013) emphasized that lifelong learning is essential in developing the ability to control one s self-esteem and life. 11
2. Review of literature 2) Concept of Lifelong Learning Jarvis(2004) focused on the effect of technological development on people s learning methods and noted that the approach to knowledge, knowledge acquisition and knowledge assessment has also changed. In this regard, lifelong education expands social changes and has many ethical and political implications. Williamson, B. (1998) discussed the various movements to understand learning in contemporary society. From the perspectives of lifelong learning, the emphasized the importance of meeting indi-vidual learning needs according to social changes in their life. Duke & Hinzen (2011) emphasized that lifelong learning is a core element for economic development and social progress. 12
2. Review of literature 2) Concept of Lifelong Learning Role of Lifelong Learning (Trencsényi, 2011; Torres, 2011) Development of Lifelong Learning (Poonwassie & Poonwassie, 2001; Ouane, 2011; Carneiro, 2011) Lifelong Learning of developing countries (Hawes, 1974; Preece, 2009; Bossone & Cirasino, 2006) 13
3. Diverse approach of lifelong learning 1) EU and individual countries Country Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Italy Netherlands Spain Sweden England Comparison of lifelong education in major countries (EU) National definitions of lifelong education (2000) EURYDICE Report Lifelong education is used as the expansion of continuing education which refers to the expansion of education, providing training, pro motion of accessibility to programs, increase of the permeability of the system. There are expressions related to continuing education training, but there is no formal definition. Lifelong education means that everyone learns in all stages of life, which should have responsibility to learn new skills and improve thei r skills. The concept covers the full range of technologies, regardless of general education, vocational training or individual learning. Lifelong education covers whole life and all types of education. The concept of lifelong education is expansion of continuing vocational training philosophy. There are no legal provisions. Yet, lifelong education is understood as a comprehensive concept of education and vocational training po licies, drawn from life planning in which citizens can feel responsibilities. The term, lifelong education was used first in 1996, which contained an intent of expanding informal and,non-form learning to all age g roups. Lifelong education is goal-oriented learning activities, which means continuing informal and non-form learning that aims at knowledge, skills, and abilities There is no official definition. It is understood as the framework of system reform. Beyond the traditional concept, it is legally defined a s a concept on a new dimension that can cover the whole life. Lifelong education is used as a multidimensional concept of learning, understood as the meaning of continuing education covering info rmal and non-form learning rather than reeducation. There is no formal definition, but it is related to contribution to learning society development through which everyone can learn throu ghout life and increase his or her skills regardless of their environment. (Seo, Myeong-seok et al., 2002)
3. Diverse approach of lifelong learning 2) History of lifelong learning UNESCO Introduction to Lifelong Education : Lengrand (1970) Learning To Be : Foret (1972) Learning; the Treasure Within. : Delors (1996) 3) History of lifelong learning OECD Recurrent Education: a Strategy for Lifelong Learning (1973) Lifelong Learning for All (1996) Roasting the Quality of Learning for All (2004) 15
4. Conceptual measurement review of Lifelong learning index Data available 1) European Lifelong Index PILLARS Learning to Know Measure Percentage of children aged 4 to compulsory school age attending formal education institutions Student performance in reading (PISA) Student performance in math (PISA) Student performance in science (PISA) Share of 30 to 34 years old with tertiary education for developing Countries O Adult participation rates in formal education and training O Total public expenditure on education as % of gross national income O Graduate quota in upper secondary education pre-vocational and vocational programs Participation in job-related non-formal education and training Participation of employees in CVT courses ELLI data availability for developing countries Learning to Do Numbers of hours of CVT courses Enterprises providing CVT courses Relative costs of CVT courses Enterprises providing any other form of training (non-cvt) Expenditure in training as part of labor market policies Learning new things at work Doing monotonous tasks at work Doing complex tasks at work Employees using internet for work Involvement in work for voluntary or charitable organizations Membership in any political party Learning to Live Together Working in a political party or action group Opinion that the country s cultural life is either enriched or undermined by immigrants Opinion that gay and lesbians should be free to live their own lives as they wish 16 Trust in other people
4. Conceptual measurement review of Lifelong learning index 2) Canada Lifelong PILLARS Measures Mean problem solving scores for youth (15 yrs) (CM) Mean reading scores for youth (15 yrs) (CM) Data availabl e for developing countries Index Mean math scores for youth (15 yrs) (CM) Mean science scores for youth (15 yrs) (NDS) Learning t o Know Propotion of youth (20-24) who have not completed high school and are not attending school (CM) O Proportion of youth (20-24) who are participating in post-secondary (CM) O Proportion of adults (25-64) who have completed a university program (CM) O Average travel time to university or college (NDS) Average travel time to elementary or secondary school (NDS) Learning t o Do Proportion of employers who offer any type of classroom or workplace training for their employees Proportion of adults (25-64) who participated in job-related training (CM) CLI data availability for developing countries Learning t o Live Together Average travel time to vocational schools, business and secretarial schools (NDS) Proportion of households spending on social clubs and other organizations (CM) Proportion of Canadians engaged in unpaid work as part of a group or organization (CM) Proportion of Canadians who socialize with people from other cultures on a regular basis Average travel time to libraries (NDS) Average travel time to business, civic and social association (NDS) Average travel time to religious organizations (NDS) Proportion of households spending on internet services (CM) O Proportion of households spending on reading material and other printed matter (CM) Learning t o Be Proportion of households spending on admissions to museums and other activities (CM) Proportion of households spending on live performing arts (CM) Proportion of households spending on recreation and sports facilities (CM) Proportion of households with access to wireless, cable, and/or DSL (CM) Average travel time 17 to museums and art galleries (NDS) O
4. Conceptual measurement review of Lifelong learning index 3) Other related index analysis OECD better life index Human Development Index(UNDP) World Competitiveness Yearbook (IMD) Global Competitiveness Report (WEF) OECD Education at a Glance Global NHRD Competitiveness Report Global Talent Index etc.. 18
Ⅲ. Development of lifelong learning index 19
1. Lifelong Learning Index 1) Development process of lifelong learning index First, this study conceptualized lifelong learning through analysis on a variety of academic literature related to lifelong learning mainly on UNESCO and OECD. Second, the relevant key measures were selected. The principles for the selection of the index are purposiveness, relevance, statistical reliability, international comparability, clarity and data availability. (from UNESCO, OECD, World Bank etc..) Third, the validity of the selected measures were reviewed. Each expert's feedback about whether each sub-index selected appropriately was collected to modify and supplemented its content. Fourth, after the completion of the data collection, calculation process of index - for standardization, this study used Min-Max standardization method. - for the imputation of missing values, this study used multiple imputation. Finally, each selected country was analyzed in terms of Global Lifelong Learning Score. 20
1. Lifelong Learning Index 1) Development process of lifelong learning index Procedure to develop and validate the GLLI 21
1. Lifelong Learning Index 2) Calculation of measures - for Raw data 22
1. Lifelong Learning Index 2) Calculation of measures - for Raw data 23
1. Lifelong Learning Index 2) Calculation of measures - for Standardization, this study used Min-Max standardization method. =6*('1. know'!c4-min('1. know'!c$4:c$86))/(ma('1. 24 know'!c$4:c$86)-min('1. know'!c$4:c$86))+1
1. Lifelong Learning Index 2) Calculation of measures - for the imputation of missing values, this study used multiple imputation. <SPSS > Menu Analysis missing value analysis Multi assignment (about 5 times) average 25
2. The validity of lifelong learning index 1) Face validity: the expert consultation process Position Institution Major Nationality 1. Professor Seoul National University Lifelong Education / Developing countries 2. Professor Macalester College International Education India 3. Professor Georgia State University International Education U.S. 4. Professor Georgia State University International Education U.S. 5. Professor SUNY Empire State College Economic Development U.S. 6. Professor Global Knowledge Institute 7. Assistant Professor University of Zambia Lifelong Education / Developing countries Education / Developing countries 8. Assistant Professor Bar-Ilan University International Education Israel 9. Director (before) Korea Development Strategy Institute Developing countries Korea 10. Director (before) UNESCO Mizy center International relationship Korea 11. Diplomat Ministry of Foreign Affair International relationship Korea 12. Lecturer JungAng University International relationship U.S. 13. Researcher Korea Education Development Institute Education administration Korea 14. Researcher Georgia State University International Education U.S. 15. Researcher / Ph.D Candidate 16. Researcher / Ph.D Candidate 17. Researcher (before) / Ph.D Candidate 18. Researcher / Ph.D Candidate Korea Human Resource Research Institute / Seoul National University Education Research Institute / Seoul National University Korea Education Development Institute / Seoul National University Hankuk University of Foreign Study Lifelong Education Lifelong Education Lifelong Education / International Education Developing countries U.S. Zambia Zambia Korea Korea Korea Ethiopia
2. The validity of lifelong learning index 1) Face validity: the expert consultation process 27
2. The validity of lifelong learning index 1) Face validity: the expert consultation process 28
2. The validity of lifelong learning index 2) Calculation of GLLI Score 29
2. The validity of lifelong learning index 2) Calculation of GLLI Score 30
2. The validity of lifelong learning index 3) Comparison of indicators between GLLI and ELLI (concurrent validity) Comparison between GLLI and ELLI ranking Country GLLI Ranking(2014) ELLI Ranking (2010) Denmark 1 1 Finland 2 4 Netherlands 3 3 Sweden 4 2 Germany 5 10 United Kingdom 6 7 Belgium 7 6 Austria 8 8 Estonia 9 14 Louxembourg 10 5 France 11 9 Spain 12 12 Slovenia 13 11 Czech Republic 14 13 Poland 15 18 Greece 16 20 Portugal 17 16 Slovak Republic 18 17 Italy 19 15 Hungary 20 19 Bulgaria 21 21 Romania 22 22 31 Correlation between GLLI and ELLI ranking r = 0.8502
3. Composition of GLLI Pillars Category Indicators 1.1.1 Out-of-school rate for children of primary school age Learning to know Learning to do Learning to live to gether Learning to be 1.1 Quantity 1.2 Quality 2.1 Quantity 2.2 Quality 3.1 Inclusion in social networks 3.2 Participation in active citizenship 3.3 Globalization and social security 3.4 Tolerance, trust and openness 4.1 Participation in learning through social activity 4.2 Education attainment in life 4.3 Self-directed learning 1.1.2 Gross enrolment ratio, secondary 1.1.3 Gross enrolment ratio, tertiary 1.1.4 Literacy rate, adult total (% of people ages 15 and above) 1.2.1 Pupil-teacher ratio. Primary 1.2.2 Pupil-teacher ratio. Secondary 1.2.3 Number of world Top 500 University 1.2.4 public expenditure on education 2.1.1 Firms offering formal training(% of firms) 2.1.2 employment rate 2.1.3 Labor force with secondary education (% of total) 2.1.4 Labor force with tertiary education (% of total) 2.2.1 Employee training 2.2.2 Long-term unemployment (% of total unemployment) 2.2.3 Attract talent 2.2.4 Pay and productivity 3.1.1 Gini Index 3.1.2 Political Stability and Absence of Violence 3.2.1 Participation of the population 3.2.2 Voter turnout level 3.3.1 Political globalization 3.3.2 Total Persons Convicted 3.4.1 Extent of discrimination 3.4.2 Civil liberties 4.1.1 Attendance frequency per capita 4.1.2 ICT Development Index 4.2.1 Educational attainment at least completed primary 4.2.2 Percentage of population with tertiary education 4.3.1 Number of estimated Internet users as a percentage of total population 32 4.3.2 School life expectancy
Ⅳ. Country comparison of Global Lifelong Learning Index 33
1. Country comparison of lifelong learning Comparison and analysis of lifelong learning index 1. Ranking of lifelong learning score 2. Analysis by group of countries Lifelong learning index country profiles 1. Countries (1) 2. Countries (2) 3.... 34
26 Lithuania 4.79 5.24 4.13 5.41 4.39 1. Country comparison of lifelong learning 1) 2014 GLLI Ranking and Score (Total) Ranking Country GLLI composite score Learning to Know 35 Learning to Be Learning to Live Together 1 Norway 5.70 5.74 4.90 6.52 5.65 2 Australia 5.66 6.24 4.18 6.15 6.09 3 Iceland 5.64 5.73 4.58 6.22 6.06 4 Denmark 5.59 6.13 4.39 6.18 5.64 5 Switzerland 5.51 5.15 5.23 6.13 5.55 6 Finland 5.50 5.64 4.82 5.77 5.76 7 United States 5.49 5.80 4.62 5.81 5.73 8 Netherlands 5.44 5.59 4.47 6.19 5.53 9 Sweden 5.43 5.36 4.60 6.30 5.47 10 Canada 5.40 5.40 4.69 6.04 5.47 11 New Zealand 5.35 5.56 4.22 5.89 5.74 12 Germany 5.30 5.36 4.51 6.11 5.21 13 United Kingdom 5.27 5.27 4.35 5.90 5.55 14 Ireland 5.22 5.34 4.62 5.36 5.57 15 Belgium 5.22 5.35 4.13 6.32 5.07 16 Austria 5.12 5.24 4.28 6.06 4.90 17 Israel 4.98 5.22 4.24 5.01 5.44 18 Singapore 4.97 4.18 4.76 5.33 5.62 19 Japan 4.97 4.90 4.72 5.53 4.73 20 Estonia 4.96 5.27 4.44 5.16 4.99 21 Louxembourg 4.92 4.52 4.54 5.08 5.53 22 Korea. Rep 4.90 5.17 4.35 4.95 5.15 23 France 4.86 5.12 3.66 5.53 5.12 24 Spain 4.84 5.50 3.25 5.44 5.17 25 Slovenia 4.81 5.21 3.52 5.78 4.72 Learning to Do
66 South Africa 3.90 4.22 3.13 4.66 3.59 1. Country comparison of lifelong learning 1) 2014 GLLI Ranking and Score (Total) Ranking Country GLLI composite score Learning to Know 36 Learning to Be Learning to Live Together 41 Uruguay 4.48 4.89 3.40 5.58 4.05 42 United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) 4.47 4.58 4.83 3.73 4.74 43 Venezuela 4.41 4.93 3.34 5.40 3.98 44 Brazil 4.41 4.62 4.04 5.01 3.97 45 Chile 4.37 4.45 4.19 4.70 4.13 46 Croatia 4.36 5.01 2.88 5.19 4.35 47 Ukraine 4.30 5.18 3.08 5.23 3.70 48 Kuwait 4.28 4.69 3.60 4.37 4.47 49 Ecuador 4.26 4.41 4.13 4.87 3.62 50 Thailand 4.23 4.81 4.63 4.43 3.06 51 Bulgaria 4.20 4.69 2.95 5.01 4.16 52 Saudi Arabia 4.20 4.86 3.84 3.65 4.46 53 Panama 4.18 4.09 4.00 4.81 3.83 54 Jordan 4.16 4.40 3.29 4.85 4.11 55 Oman 4.15 4.14 4.04 4.39 4.05 56 Mexico 4.11 4.16 3.89 4.48 3.90 57 Azerbaijan 4.10 4.19 3.62 4.38 4.19 58 Peru 4.07 4.09 4.03 4.52 3.62 59 China 4.05 4.34 4.86 3.77 3.23 60 Turkey 4.04 4.29 3.41 4.53 3.95 61 Vietnam 3.96 4.40 3.78 4.55 3.12 62 Kyrgyz Republic 3.96 4.64 2.99 4.79 3.41 63 Romania 3.96 4.25 3.04 4.54 3.99 64 Colombia 3.95 3.81 4.03 4.19 3.76 65 Philippines 3.91 3.13 3.93 5.03 3.57 Learning to Do
1. Country comparison of lifelong learning 2) GLLI Ranking and Score (Pillar) Learning to Know Ranking Country Score Ranking Country Score 1 Australia 6.24 42 Kuwait 4.69 2 Denmark 6.13 43 Kyrgyz Republic 4.64 3 United States 5.80 44 Brazil 4.62 4 Norway 5.74 45 Slovak Republic 4.61 5 Iceland 5.73 46 United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) 4.58 6 Finland 5.64 47 Malaysia 4.53 7 Netherlands 5.59 48 Louxembourg 4.52 8 New Zealand 5.56 49 Qatar 4.49 9 Spain 5.50 50 Chile 4.45 10 Greece 5.49 51 Ecuador 4.41 11 Canada 5.40 52 Jordan 4.40 12 Germany 5.36 53 Vietnam 4.40 13 Sweden 5.36 54 Bahrain 4.40 14 Belgium 5.35 55 Iran 4.35 15 Ireland 5.34 56 China 4.34 16 Portugal 5.30 57 Turkey 4.29 17 United Kingdom 5.27 58 Romania 4.25 18 Estonia 5.27 59 South Africa 4.22 19 Lithuania 5.24 60 Azerbaijan 4.19 20 Austria 5.24 61 Singapore 4.18 21 Israel 5.22 62 Mexico 4.16 22 Slovenia 5.21 63 Oman 4.14 23 Poland 5.19 64 Indonesia 4.10 24 Ukraine 5.18 65 Panama 4.09 25 Korea. Rep 5.17 66 Peru 4.09 26 Argentina 5.16 67 Paraguay 4.03 27 Switzerland 5.15 68 Algeria 3.99 28 Italy 5.15 69 Egypt 3.84 29 France 5.12 70 Colombia 3.81 37
1. Country comparison of lifelong learning 3) GLLI Ranking and Score (Pillar) - Learning to Do Ranking Country Score Ranking Country Score 1 Switzerland 5.23 42 Czech Republic 3.97 2 Qatar 5.00 43 Philippines 3.93 3 Norway 4.90 44 Mexico 3.89 4 China 4.86 45 Saudi Arabia 3.84 5 United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) 4.83 46 Guatemala 3.82 6 Finland 4.82 47 Vietnam 3.78 7 Singapore 4.76 48 Dominican Republic 3.66 8 Japan 4.72 49 France 3.66 9 Canada 4.69 50 Paraguay 3.66 10 Malaysia 4.64 51 Azerbaijan 3.62 11 Thailand 4.63 52 Kuwait 3.60 12 United States 4.62 53 Poland 3.56 13 Ireland 4.62 54 Bangladesh 3.53 14 Sweden 4.60 55 Slovenia 3.52 15 Kazakhstan 4.59 56 Argentina 3.47 16 Iceland 4.58 57 Indonesia 3.46 17 Bahrain 4.57 58 Sri Lanka 3.44 18 Louxembourg 4.54 59 Slovak Republic 3.41 19 Hong Kong SAR, China 4.52 60 Turkey 3.41 20 Germany 4.51 61 Uruguay 3.40 21 Netherlands 4.47 62 Venezuela 3.34 22 Estonia 4.44 63 India 3.31 23 Denmark 4.39 38 64 Jordan 3.29
1. Country comparison of lifelong learning 4) GLLI Ranking and Score (Pillar) - Learning to Live together Ranking Country Score Ranking Country Score 1 Norway 6.52 42 Korea. Rep 4.95 2 Belgium 6.32 43 Qatar 4.89 3 Sweden 6.30 44 Ecuador 4.87 4 Iceland 6.22 45 Jordan 4.85 5 Netherlands 6.19 46 India 4.85 6 Denmark 6.18 47 Malaysia 4.83 7 Australia 6.15 48 Kenya 4.82 8 Switzerland 6.13 49 Panama 4.81 9 Germany 6.11 50 Kazakhstan 4.79 10 Austria 6.06 51 Kyrgyz Republic 4.79 11 Canada 6.04 52 Sri Lanka 4.70 12 United Kingdom 5.90 53 Chile 4.70 13 New Zealand 5.89 54 South Africa 4.66 14 United States 5.81 55 Morocco 4.64 15 Slovenia 5.78 56 Cambodia 4.60 16 Finland 5.77 57 Russia fed 4.57 17 Slovak Republic 5.67 58 Hong Kong SAR, China 4.55 18 Portugal 5.66 59 Vietnam 4.55 19 Poland 5.62 60 Romania 4.54 20 Uruguay 5.58 61 Turkey 4.53 21 Italy 5.55 62 Peru 4.52 22 Argentina 5.54 63 Guatemala 4.49 23 Japan 5.53 64 Mexico 4.48 24 Hungary 5.53 65 Paraguay 4.47 25 France 5.53 66 Thailand 4.43 26 Spain 5.44 67 Oman 4.39 39
1. Country comparison of lifelong learning 4) GLLI Ranking and Score (Pillar) - Learning to Be Ranking Country Score Ranking Country Score 1 Australia 6.09 42 Lithuania 4.39 2 Iceland 6.06 43 Croatia 4.35 3 Finland 5.76 44 Azerbaijan 4.19 4 New Zealand 5.74 45 Bulgaria 4.16 5 United States 5.73 46 Egypt 4.14 6 Norway 5.65 47 Chile 4.13 7 Denmark 5.64 48 Jordan 4.11 8 Singapore 5.62 49 Oman 4.05 9 Ireland 5.57 50 Uruguay 4.05 10 United Kingdom 5.55 51 Kazakhstan 4.05 11 Switzerland 5.55 52 Romania 3.99 12 Louxembourg 5.53 53 Venezuela 3.98 13 Netherlands 5.53 54 Brazil 3.97 14 Sweden 5.47 55 Turkey 3.95 15 Canada 5.47 56 Mexico 3.90 16 Israel 5.44 57 Panama 3.83 17 Bahrain 5.25 58 Colombia 3.76 18 Hong Kong SAR, China 5.21 59 Ukraine 3.70 19 Germany 5.21 60 Peru 3.62 20 Spain 5.17 61 Ecuador 3.62 21 Korea. Rep 5.15 62 South Africa 3.59 22 France 5.12 63 Philippines 3.57 23 Belgium 5.07 64 Iran 3.49 24 Czech Republic 5.03 65 Kyrgyz Republic 3.41 25 Greece 5.01 66 Dominican Republic 3.32 26 Estonia 4.99 67 Algeria 3.25 40
2. Country group comparison of lifelong learning 1) Comparison of pillars based on the GLLI score Learning to know 7 6 5 4 3 2 Learning to be 1 0 Learning to do Learning to livetogether strong countries intermediary countries weak countries 41
2. Country group comparison of lifelong learning 2) Comparison of pillars based on the economic level of the country group Learning to know 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 Learning to be 1.00 - Learning to do Learning to livetogether large economies medium economies small economies 42
2. Country group comparison of lifelong learning 3) Comparison between GLLI score and GDP per capita 43
2. Country group comparison of lifelong learning 4) Comparison of pillars based on the OECD membership Learning to know 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 Learning to be 1.00 0.00 Learning to do Learning to livetogether OECD average Non OECD average 44
3. Analysis by country profile 1) Comparison of pillars based on the GLLI score (Norway) 45
3. Analysis by country profile 2) Comparison of pillars based on the GLLI score (Korea. Rep) 46
3. Analysis by country profile 2) Comparison of pillars based on the GLLI score (Brazil) 47
3. Analysis by country profile 3) Comparison of pillars based on the GLLI score (China) 48
3. Analysis by country profile 4) Comparison of pillars based on the GLLI score (India) 49
Ⅳ. Discussion and Conclusion 50
1. How can a Global Lifelong Learning Index (GLLI) be constructed? - What is the conceptual model of the index? - What is the measurement model of the index? 2. What is the validity of the GLLI? 3. What ranking and country information results from the development of the GLLI? 51
Discussion First, the GLLI score and GDP per Capita is showing high correlated relationship in the country matrix. The correlation rate (R^=0.5508) shows positive relationship between GLLI score and GDP per Capita (PPP). - Countries (Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong ) which included in the intermediate GLLI score group and large economy group can be analysis in terms of oil money countries (Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia), and in terms of the unification impact with main-land of the China (Hong Kong). - Countries (Czech Republic, Slovenia, Lithuania, and Estonia) which included in the strong GLLI score group and medium economy group can be analysis in terms of Lifelong Learning Program (LLP) of EU. So, further research would be need to analysis. (it need further research) 52
Discussion Second, the difference between the strong GLLI score group and the intermediate GLLI score group shows the narrow gap in terms of learning to know pillar. But there was wide gap in other pillars. In other words, the intermediate GLLI score group have to focus on the other learning pillar like vocational education and others (learning to do learning to live together, and learning to be). But the weak GLLI score group was showing the wide gap in terms of all learning pillars. So, this study can propose that the weak GLLI score group have to focus on schooling (learning to know) following the intermediate GLLI score group. 53 (it need further research)
Thank you very much! 54