Current and future employability patterns and skills are changing. Technological advancement, digitalisation and globalisation have created challenges and opportunities for the economies and society. Worldwide 44% of employees have already felt the impact of changing work environments. The question of new skills and competences needed to survive and prosper in the current context is becoming more and more significant.

Recent researches conducted worldwide on future skills (Artess, et.al, 2017; Cedefop, 2017, 2018; Grundke, et.al, 2017; OECD, 2018; 2019a; 2019b; Warhurst, et.al, 2017; World Economic Forum, 2018) find analytical thinking, complex problem-solving and ideation, creativity, originality, initiative, critical thinking, communication, collaboration, cultural awareness, active learning, ability to communicate in several languages crucial for future life. The skills highlighted above may be defined as 21^st century skills (Luka, 2019).

To meet the changing needs and develop appropriate skills and capabilities, ‘new learning approaches are required nationally and internationally across all fields of study’ (Wrigley, Straker, 2017, 374).

The current research studies the development of adult learners’ 21^st century skills and competences in a culture-based blended-learning language course.

The aim of the research: evaluate the target course created and the development of adult learners’ 21^st century skills and competences during the course implementation in 6 EU countries and suggest the improvements required.

To attain the goal of the course, appropriate teaching/learning methodology has to be selected and applied. It is essential to take into consideration adult learning specifics when selecting teaching/learning methodologies and tools and the course content.

Theoretical Framework is formed by adult learning and language teaching/learning theories. In this research the term ‘adult’ is used to denote learners after compulsory learning, both formal and informal, including students acquiring post-secondary and tertiary education.

Adults are characterized by maturity, self-confidence, autonomy, solid decision-making, and are generally more practical, multi-tasking, purposeful, self-directed, experienced, and less open-minded and receptive to change than children. All these traits affect their motivation, as well as their ability to learn (Pappas, 2013; Kraus, 2016; Luka et.al, 2020).

Learning is also influenced by the socio-cultural context (Pätzold, 2011), including cultural differences and values (Hofstede, 1986) and generational differences (Rothwell, 2008; Williams, 2018).

Hence, a course for adult learners shall be based on classic adult learning principles established by adult education pillars – Knowles (1984), Kolb (1984), Rogers (1996), Illeris (2004) taking into account the given socio-cultural context, learners’ backgrounds, needs, motivation, learning styles and strategies.

These principles are also used in language teaching/learning as language is best acquired in social interaction (Vygotsky, 1986; Widdowson, 1978; Biggs, Tang, 2011) through experimentation based on previous learning experience, observing and reflecting (Kolb, 1984). Socio-constructivism theory is applicable therein.

A blended-learning course (Heinze, Procter, 2004; Bueno-Alastuey, et.al, 2014) applying CLIL methodology (Coyle, et.al, 2010; Stevie, 2018) has been created and introduced in adult learning. The course content deals with the rich intangible European cultural heritage – customs, games, oral forms of creativity, knowledge and skills, associated instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces; language and oral traditions, performing arts, social customs and traditional crafts (UNESCO, 2018). It is presented in a form of a story/script, applying innovative methodologies and tools – webquests (Laborda, 2009, Bahč, 2016; Aydin, 2015), case studies (Stone, Ineson, 2015), vialogues, podcasts, design thinking tools (Liedtka, Ogilvie, 2018, Ray, 2012, Baeck, Gremett, 2012), interactive games, etc. Through learning cultural heritage, learners increase their cultural knowledge, develop relevant 21st century skills (collaboration, communication, initiative, creativity, analytical reasoning, problem solving, etc.) and improve English language competence.

In ECER 2019 the course construct was presented (Luka, 2019). This contribution deals with the findings gained from adult learners and course teachers after the course implementation.

This research was conducted in the Erasmus+ project “Cultural knowledge and language competences as a means to develop 21st century skills” involving 6 EU countries: Croatia, Latvia, Slovenia, Romania, Poland, Czech Republic (Project No.2018-1-HR-01-KA204-047430; 2018-2020). The aim of the project: develop adult learners’ relevant 21st century skills (problem solving, communication, collaboration, creativity, innovation, digital skills, etc.), language and intercultural competences, foster learners’ knowledge of the rich European cultural heritage and its values by applying innovative learning approaches and materials consequently increasing learners’ education level and bringing them closer to cultural heritage, history and the common European values, enhancing their overall development and employability. Interpretivism paradigm, pragmatism philosophy was used as they are “associated with a pluralistic ontological position and an epistemology which believes that building knowledge involves ‘interactions’ or ‘transactions’ with the environment” (Dewey, 1929), emphasising the importance of the research context, and the effectiveness of intervention in problem solving (O’Hanlon, 2019). Concurrent mixed-methods research design was chosen as it is “typically used when the quantitative and qualitative approaches provide complementary information that will enable a more complete, or a more accurate, account of the phenomenon of interest” (O’Hanlon, 2019,117). Research involves 2 purposeful samples: 227 adult learners and 10 English teachers from 6 partner countries. Learners’ profile: 40 from Croatia, 32 – Czechia, 33 – Latvia, 31 – Poland, 35 – Romania, 56 – Slovenia. English level: B2(47%), C1(25%), B1(22%). Teachers’ profile: 5 have PhD degree, 4 Master’s degree, 1 BA. Teaching experience: 7-32 years. Research methods: 1) data collection – learners’ survey (closed and open questions), learners’ unstructured observation done by teachers during course, structured interviews with teachers after course, 2) mixed-methods data analysis strategies – data transformation and data comparison (O’Hanlon, 2019). For qualitative data analysis constant comparative method – basic analytic method of interpretivism (Thomas, 2009), for quantitative data – descriptive and inferential statistics by SPSS to find similarities and significant differences between learners and teachers’ results. Research process: After studying the interactive culture-based blended-learning language course, learners filled-in face-to-face feedback questionnaire (40 Likert-scale, 3 open essay-type questions) evaluating the course and their skills’ development. During the course teachers took notes on each learners’ progress (success, problems, overall comments, final evaluation) and filled-in the evaluation form (27 Likert-scale, 1 open question). Research period: February-April 2019. Research question: Can the target course be used to successfully develop learners’ 21st century skills and what improvements are required therein?

The course comprised 18 modules. Each learner studied one module (~20-30-hour input) independently and in class sessions. Teachers monitored the process and ensured support. 242 learners started the course, 227 completed it. The reasons for dropping out: illness, changed university, conflicting work schedules, too difficult. Both groups highly evaluated the interactive learning platform, modes 4.00 (max=5.00), M=3.92-4.06 for learners’ and 4.11-4.44 for teachers’ answers. The average mean for learners 3.92, for teachers 4.26. Overall, learners liked the module they studied (M=3.29-4.21), the most frequently selected answer option ‘agree’ (Mo=4.00). Teachers also gave a positive evaluation (M=3.44-4.50; Mo=4.00; 5.00). In 64% of cases, the teachers evaluated the tools created and methodologies applied higher than the learners (p=0.000). TOP 3 for the learners: learnt new information on the topic (M=4.21), liked interactive games (M=4.06), overall liked the module (M=3.93). The first and the third items indicate that the goal of increasing learners’ cultural knowledge on the rich European intangible cultural heritage has been attained. The results showed moderate to good learners’ skills development (M=3.37-3.96 by learners’ self-evaluation and M=3.33-4.55 by teachers). Teachers evaluated significantly higher all skills compared to learners (p=0.000), except listening skills and creativity. Both learners and teachers admitted a greater development in learners’ collaboration and information searching and processing skills than language skills. The least developed skills are creativity, listening and writing skills. The qualitative results supplement the quantitative ones. To conclude, such a course is a viable solution in the current Covid-19 epidemic situation when face-to-face learning has to be eliminated. The course may be used to develop learners’ 21st century skills, but improvements concerning creativity, developing listening and writing skills shall be made by adding creative writing tasks based on web-based listening resources, videos and involving learners’ own experiences.

*Aydin, S. (2016). WebQuests as language-learning tools. CALL, 29(4),765-778. *Bahč, M.Ž. (2016). Webquests in foreign language learning. Informatologia, 49(3-4),203-211. *Coyle, D., et.al. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. CUP. *Dewey, J. (1929). The Quest for Certainty. *Heinze, A., Procter, C. (2004). Reflections on the Use of Blended Learning. Education in a Changing Environment. University of Salford. *Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(3),301-320. *Illeris, K. (2004). Adult education and adult learning. Malabar, FL:Krieger. *Knowles, M.S. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. *Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall. *Kraus, A. (2016). Perspectives on Performativity: Pedagogical Knowledge in Teacher Education. Münster:Waxmann. *Laborda, J. G. (2009). Using webquests for oral communication in English as a foreign language for Tourism Studies. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1),258-270. *Liedtka, J.M., Ogilvie, T. (2018). 10 Design Thinking Tools: Turn Creativity and Data into Growth. Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Strategy. *Luka, I. (2019). Creating a Culture-Based Language Learning Course for Developing Adult Learners’ 21st Century Skills. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 2, 151-169, https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs20192.151.169 *Luka, I. et al. (2020). Quality Assurance in Adult Education in Latvia. In Flavian, H. (Ed.). From Pedagogy to Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, Emerald Publishing, 155-174. *O’Hanlon, F. (2019). Mixed-Methods Research: Achieving a Robust Design. Hamilton, L., Ravenscroft, J. (eds.) Building Research Design in Education, 107-131, London:Bloomsbury Academy. *Pappas, C. (2013). 8 Important Characteristics of Adult Learners. *Pätzold, H. (2011). Learning and Teaching in Adult Education. Barbara Budrich Publishers. *Ray, B. (2012). Design Thinking: Lessons for the Classroom. *Rogers, A. (1996). Teaching Adults. Buckingham:Open University Press. *Rothwell, W.J. (2008). Adult Learning Basics. Alexandria:ASTD Press. *Stevie, D. (2018). CLIL: What It Is, and Why Language Teachers Will Find It Delightful. *Stone, G., Ineson, E. (2015). International Case Studies for Hospitality, Tourism and Event Management Students and Trainees, Iasi:Tehnopress. *Thomas, G. (2009). How to do Your Research Project. SAGE. *UNESCO. (2018). What is Intangible Cultural Heritage? UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage. *Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge:Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. *Warhurst, C., et.al. (2017). The Oxford handbook of skills and training. Oxford:OUP. *Widdowson, H.G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford:OUP. *World Economic Forum. (2018). The future of jobs report. 2018. *Wrigley, C., Straker, K. (2017). Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(4),374-385.