Youth learning in Latvia: Experience-based opinion of young people (aged 15-29) and institutional representatives

Author(s):

Svetlana Surikova(submitting)Tamara Pigozne(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance

Format:

Paper

Session Information

11 SES 12 B, Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of Quality of Education

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-11

09:00-10:30

Room:

IX. Előadó [C]

Chair:

Blanca Valenzuela

Contribution

Theoretical framework of the research is based on existing theories and empirical findings in the field of andragogy (Knowles, Holton, Swanson, 2011), features of adult learning (Jarvis, 2012; Criu & Ceobanu, 2013; Finn, 2011; Stoica, 2008); main barriers to adult learning (Falasca, 2011); characteristics of adult learning environment (Klein-Collins, 2006; Finn, 2011; Murray & Mitchell, 2013; Hung, 2013); transformative learning (Mirci & Hensley, 2010; Nohl, 2015); problem-based learning (Hung, 2013), and role of adult educators (Nuissl & Egetenmeyer, 2010; Research voor Beleid, 2010; Blanchard, Hinchey, & Bennett, 2011; Falasca, 2011; Finn, 2011).

It should be specified that for the purpose of this paper the understanding of youth or young people (Murray & Mitchell, 2013; Hoskins, Janmaat, & Villalba, 2012) or young adults (Murray & Mitchell, 2013; Criu & Ceobanu, 2013; Knipprath & De Rick, 2014) refers to the individual’s development stage between adolescence and maturity (adulthood). Therefore youth learning is understood as a part of adult learning it is defined as an early stage of adult learning.

According to Jordan, Carlile and Stack (2008, p.124), “To the young adult, knowledge and learning retains an absolute nature, in that such processes are still easy to achieve (as they are in childhood and adolescence), while the efficiency of learning is high. Also, knowledge is transitional and facilitates the understanding and the implementing of the acquired knowledge. Equally, educational activities are independent in nature, they are means to develop personal perspectives, as well as contextual in nature, as they enable collaborative learning and situational learning” (cited in Criu & Ceobanu, 2013, p. 57).

Recentstudy (Criu & Ceobanu, 2013) has indicated four approaches for analyzing adult education: (1) as a practical training for an individual’s career and professional life; (2) as an activity meant to enhance life quality; (3) as a form of democratic activity; and (4) as a form of social action. According to Falasca (2011), “a fundamental aspect of adult education is engaging adults in becoming lifelong learners” (p. 583). In Latvia, “adult education is seen […] as a diverse process offering personal development and the capacity to cope in the labour market throughout life” and “the main challenge […] is how to increase the participation rate in adult learning”, therefore the “enhancement of the second chance education opportunities, especially for socially at risk groups” is recognised as a priority in adult education policy (EAEA, 2011, p. 4-5).

According to Murray and Mitchell (2013), the adult learning environment can be a ‘double-edged sword’, it can both enhance and limit engagement and re-engagement of young adults especially those who leave school early or who are unemployed or not participating in formal learning settings. An adult learning environment has to encompass freedom, autonomy and flexibility, positive and respectful student-teacher relationships, “in which young people feel that they are ‘treated like an adult’ ” (Murray & Mitchell, 2013, p. 114).

The theory-grounded criteria (Klein-Collins, 2006; Falasca, 2011; Oganisjana, 2012; Murray & Mitchell, 2013, Criu & Ceobanu, 2013, etc.) such as learning motivation(interest) and activity, role of educators, study content, diversity of resources, learning strategies, study atmosphere and environment, assessment of learning outcomes were chosen for analyzing youth learning experience.

The research questions are:

What do the young people (aged 15-29) and institutional representatives think about youth learning within criteria mentioned above?
Are there any differences between opinions of young people (aged 15-29) and institutional representatives?
Are there any differences in terms the number of foreign languages spoken and education level of young people (aged 15-29) regarding youth learning criteria?
Are there any correlations between youth learning criteria?

Method

This research on youth learning is a small part of the study on adult learning conducted in the frame of the project "Implementation of the European agenda for adult learning" (leaded by Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Latvia and funded by EC, 2012-2014, grant decision No 2012-3753/001-001) aimed to promote collaboration and create a network between all stakeholders involved in adult learning in order to enhance adults’ skills, competencies and raise their qualification. The project covers five areas. This paper deals with the analysis of some findings on youth learning within Part 2 “Adult Education Resources to Diminish Youth Unemployment”, the aim of which is to elaborate policy initiative proposals for adult education development in Latvia. Exploratory research applying mixed-method approach (quantitative and qualitative data analysis) was conducted. An online survey was administered by applying a questionnaire containing a 4-point Likert scale ranking questions, category questions and open questions. The survey sample comprises 486 respondents (405 young people aged 15-29 and 81 institutional representatives) from all five geographic regions of Latvia. The profile of the representatives of the institutions is as follows: 5 universities/colleges, 14 general education institutions, 14 evening (shift) schools, 7 vocational education institutions, 10 private educational centres, 14 municipality organisations, 9 cultural institutions, 5 NGOs, 2 enterprises and one foundation. The profile of the youth: • Sex: 326 female, 79 male; • Education: 61 having lower secondary education, 109 – upper secondary education, 50 – vocational education, 185 – higher education; • Employability: 172 employees, 31 entrepreneurs, 44 self-employed, 60 unemployed, 75 students from universities/colleges, 23 students from general education schools, vocational schools, evening (shift) schools; • The number of foreign languages spoken: 60 communicate in one foreign language, 212 – two foreign languages, 133 – three and more foreign languages; • Non-formal learning experience: 111 have non-formal learning experience, 294 do not have this experience. The respondents reflected on previous learning experience focusing on study methods, education quality, skills acquired and their compliance with labour market needs. In the open questions they expressed opinion on ways how to increase education quality and competencies, wrote their success story on getting employment, their extracurricular experience, told why exactly they were successful – which skills, competencies, qualification, etc. had helped them. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS software (frequencies, crosstabs, Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Walis H test, Kendall’s tau-b correlation coefficient, etc.) and qualitative data were analyzed using AQUAD software (frequencies, linkages, implicants).

Expected Outcomes

Results of Mann-Whitney U test [2 Independent Samples…) indicate statistically significant differences in terms of status of respondents regarding the role of educators (p=0.000), study content (p=0.000), study atmosphere (p=0.000), study environment (p=0.000), assessment of learning outcomes (p=0.000), and diversity of resources (p=0.001). In general, young people were more critically minded concerning the all aspects of their learning experience. The institutional representatives when compared to the young people more agreed than disagreed that: • their educators were as colleagues and friends who often learned from the students; • study content was flexible, dynamic, youth-friendly; • study atmosphere was creative, democratic and focused on cooperation in small groups; • study process was organized not only in the classroom and leaded by educator but also outside, for instance, in enterprises, museums, libraries, etc.; • assessment of learning outcomes consisted of educator’s evaluation, self-assessment and mutual evaluation. Using Kruskal-Wallis H test (K Independent Samples…), the statistically significant differences were determined also in terms of education level of young people regarding the study content (χ²(3)=15.874; p=0.001), study atmosphere (χ²(3)=15.631; p=0.001), and assessment of learning outcomes (χ²(3)=12.197; p=0.007): lower rankings are more typical to youth with lower secondary education than to youth with upper secondary education, vocational education or higher education. In terms of number of foreign languages spoken, there were statistically significant differences on diversity of resources (χ²(2)= 6.346; p=0.042): youth communicating in 2-3 or more foreign languages rated higher than those who spoke only one foreign language. Results of Kendall’s tau-b indicate average positive correlation between • study content and role of educators (p=0.000; r=0.54), atmosphere (p=0.000; r=0.57), assessment of learning outcomes (p=0.000; r=0.52); • study environment and atmosphere (p=0.000; r=0.50), diversity of resources (p=0.000; r=0.51), assessment of learning outcomes (p=0.000; r=0.53); • study atmosphere and assessment of learning outcomes (p=0.000; r=0.51). The results will be discussed at the ECER2015 conference.

References

Blanchard, R.D., Hinchey, K.T., Bennett, E.E. (2011). Literature review of residents as teachers from an adult learning perspective. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, April 12, 2011, New Orleans, LA. Criu, R., Ceobanu, C. (2013). E-learning implications for adult learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 14(2). EAEA. (2011). Country report on adult education in Latvia. Retrieved from http://www.eaea.org/doc/pub/Country-Report-on-Adult-Education-in-Latvia.pdf Falasca, M. (2011). Barriers to adult learning: Bridging the gap. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 51(3), 583-590. Finn, D. (2011). Principles of adult learning: An ESL context. Journal of Adult Education Information Series, 40(1), 34-39. Hoskins, B., Janmaat, J.G., Villalba, E. (2012). Learning citizenship through social participation outside and inside school: An international, multilevel study of young people’s learning of citizenship. British Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 419-446. Hung, W. (2013). Problem-based learning: A learning environment for enhancing learning transfer. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 109, 27-38. Jarvis, P. (2012). Adult learning in the social context. London: Routledge. Klein-Collins, R. (2006). Building blocks for building skills: An inventory of adult learning models and innovations. Chicago, IL: Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. Knipprath, H., De Rick, K. (2014). The economic benefits of adult learning to low-qualified young adults: Do participation and qualification decrease the risk of unemployment? Vocations and Learning, 7(1), 101-120. Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2011). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Oxford: Elsevier Inc. Mirci, P.S., Hensley, P.A. (2010). Leading for innovative practice: Melding theories of organizational change, adult learning, and conditions of learning. CAPEA Education Leadership and Administration, 22, 9-30. Murray, S., Mitchell, J. (2013). The ‘double-edged sword’ of the adult learning environment. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 53(1), 111-128. Nohl, A.-M. (2015). Typical phases of transformative learning: A practice-based model. Adult Education Quarterly, 65(1), 35-49. Nuissl, E., & Egetenmeyer, R. (Eds.). (2010). Teachers and trainers in adult and lifelong learning: Asian and European perspectives. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Oganisjana, K. (2012). Uzņēmējspēja un uzņēmība. [Entrepreneurship and enterprise.] Riga: RaKa. Research voor Beleid. (2010). Key competences for adult learning professionals. Contribution to the development of a reference framework of key competences for adult learning professionals. Final report. Stoica, I. (2008). Adult learning theory. Research Starters Education (Online Edition).

Author Information

Svetlana Surikova (submitting)

University of Latvia

Riga

Tamara Pigozne (presenting)

University of Latvia

Faculty of Education, Psychology and Art