Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the world experienced a technological boom in education, especially in formal education. The popularity of e-learning, online learning, blended-learnig (BL) has increased with applying them to non-formal adult education (Wiliamson et al., 2020). Various BL courses and tools have been created for adult non-formal learning, for example, applying BL for adult learners’ literacy classrooms (Rosen, 2019), specific professional development (Macumber, 2021), organizational learning (Sutherland, Porter, 2019), mindfulness and well-being courses (McGarvie, 2020), adults’ social inclusion and social capital (Cocquyt et al., 2019), developing language skills (Erickson, 2019), adult engagement in learning communities (Abedini, Abedi, Zowgi, 2021) and others.

The current research was conducted in the Erasmus+ project “Cultural knowledge and language competences as means to develop 21st century skills” involving six EU countries: Croatia, Latvia, Slovenia, Romania, Poland, Czechia (Project No.2018-1-HR-01-KA204-047430; 2018-2021).

The project aims to develop adult learners’ 21st century skills and foster learners’ knowledge of the rich European cultural heritage and its values by applying innovative learning approaches and materials consequently improving people’s education level and bringing them closer to cultural heritage, history and the common values of Europe, enhancing their overall development and employability.

3 comprehensive outputs have been created: two BL courses and LLL guidelines for adult educators. In ECER2019 the course construct was presented (Luka, 2019), in ECER2021 the results of the English language course implementation (O1 Output) were presented (Luka, 2021a, b), in ECER2022 implementation of the “Culture-based multilingual blended-learning course for adult learners” in 10 languages (EN, HR, LV, Sl, PL, CZ, HU, RO, DE, FR) in the 6 countries was introduced (Output 2) (Luka, 2023). The contribution of ECER2023 deals with the evaluation of the learning management system (LMS) (Output 1 & 2), since learning environment is a crucial part of BL. The course employs generic model by Wang (2008) comprising three components: pedagogy (makes learning meaningful, authentic and relevant to learners), social interaction (ensures interaction with peers, teachers, experts), technology (interaction with content and with people is implemented through the interaction with the interface). This model enables securing learner engagement (Shi et al., 2021).

Technology-supported learning environments in education have been in the focus of researchers for more than twenty years (Müller & Wulf, 2021).Recent research on LMS implies that LMS must be user-friendly (Hofmeister & Pilz, 2020), interactive (Gao et al., 2020) and innovative (Patra et al., 2021). It has to offer synchronous and asynchronous interaction opportunities (Ruscanda et al., 2021), consider learners’ learning styles (Carrillo, Flores, 2020) and provide a feedback to learners (Ionescu, 2020). Hence, it is crucial to create such a LMS that would support the use of various teaching/learning methods (pedagogical content), involve learners in interaction (social component), and secure the learning process technologically (technological component).

The topicality of this research is underlined by the target groups of learners – alongside with regular adult learners, adults with certain barriers to learning (cultural, social, econonomic, geographic, and having learning difficulties) and the course implementation during the pandemic period predominantly in an online-only BL format. Thus, the BL course and the LMS required the incorporation of specific features. Hence, the evaluation of the LMS after the course acquisition is very important.

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the suitability of the LMS for the implementation of a BL adult learning course for various target groups in the six partner countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, when novel ways of teaching/learning had to be found.

The research question: How do the learners evaluate the LMS and is it suitable for implementation of a BL adult learning course for adults with barriers to learning?

The research period: March 2020 – January 2021. Comparative research design (Boeren, 2019) was appied to evaluate the results overall and compare them among the six partner countries. The course participants chose modules according to their interests. Each module required 20-30 hours of work. After the course, participants filled in a paper-based questionnaire comprising 3 parts: 1) socio-demographic data (11 questions), 2) evaluation of the LMS (6 questions), content of the modules (9 questions) and 9 questions evaluating their skills’ development (all 5-point Likert scale), 3) evaluation of learning styles of learners (12 ranking questions – from 1 to 4). This contribution analyses the evaluation of the LMS. The tool measured the usefulness and visuality of the LMS, how interesting it was, the ease of understanding how to operate it, if learners will suggest the LMS to other learners and if they had used a similar LMS before. Data were analysed by IBM SPSS Statistics 23 software employing descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, means and modes), Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test (α=0.924), inferential statistics tests (to elicit significant differences among the six countries and among different groups of learners). Research sample: 638 adult learners – 83 (13%) from Croatia, 111 (17.4%) from Latvia, 122 (19.1%) from Poland, 111 (17.4%) from Romania, 104 (16.3%) from Slovenia, 107 (16.8%) from Czechia. 410 (64.3%) female, 228 (35.7%) male, aged 18-65 and older. 1/3 of the course participants (209 learners out of 638 or 32.8%) were learners with barriers to learning: in total 67 learners (10.5%) had cultural and social barriers to learning, 73 learners (11.4%) had geographic barriers, 41 learners (6.4%) had economic obstacles to learning and 28 learners (4.4%) were with learning difficulties requiring special educational treatment. 429 (67.2%) were regular adult learners. In accordance to Brancati (2018), research ethics was observed guaranteeing participants’ anonymity, voluntary participation and causing not physical nor psychological harm to them. Research limitations: The LMS and the course were designed in 2019 but held during the pandemic period. The strict restrictions introduced into the countries because of the pandemic, influenced the course implementation and the results. In Latvia, Czechia and Croatia the face-to-face stage was implemented partly in the classroom, partly using video conferencing apps, in Poland and Romania the course was implemented as complete online-only BL course, Slovenia was the only country wherein the course was implemented in a traditional BL format.

Learners found the LMS useful (Mean=4.1113, Mode=4.00), visually appealing (Mean=3.7868, Mode=4.00), interesting (Mean=4.0235, mode=4.00). Although they had not used a similar LMS before (Mean=2.5956, Mode=2.00), it didn’t take them too long to understand how to use the LMS. Consequently, they were ready to suggest the LMS to other learners (Mean=3.5956, Mode=4.00). Thus, overall findings indicate the fulfilment of the requirements of a user-friendly LMS. Significant differences were discovered among the countries concerning all questions (p=0.000). Romanian learners found the LMS significantly more useful (Mean Rank=372.59) and visually appealing (Mean Rank=360.15) than Polish learners (Mean Rank=283.28 and 245.26). Czech learners found it significantly more interesting (Mean Rank=398.84) than Polish (Mean Rank=238.84) and Croatian (Mean Rank=251.64) learners. Slovenian learners found it easier to understand the LMS use. Romanian and Czech learners were more ready to suggest the LMS to other learners. Differences among the countries may be explained by their specific target groups of learners. Learners with barriers to learning (Mean=4.0622) found the LMS significantly more interesting than regular learners (Mean=4.0047). At the same time fewer of them had used a similar LMS before (Mean Rank=2.2584) compared with regular learners (Mean Rank=2.7599) and it was more difficult for them (Mean Rank=3.0766) than for regular learners (Mean Rank=2.5221). Learners with cultural, social, economic obstacles found the LMS significantly more useful and visually appealing than other groups of learners. Learners with economic barriers found the LMS significantly more interesting than others. Seniors with learning difficulties gave the lowest evaluation in all the criteria. Learners with geographic obstacles understood the LMS use much faster than other groups of learners. Learners with cultural, social, geographic obstacles were more willing to recommend the LMS to other learners. To conclude, this LMS is suitable to all groups of learners but some groups need more pedagogical and technological assistance.

*Abedini, A., et.al. (2021). Adult learning in online communities of practice: A systematic review. BJET, 52(4),pp.1663-1694. *Boeren, E. (2019). International and Comparative Research Design. L.Hamilton, J.Ravenscroft (Eds.) Building Research Design in Education (131-150). London:Bloomsbury Academic. *Brancati, D. (2018). Social Scientific Research. LA:SAGE. *Carrillo, C., Flores, M.A. (2020). COVID-19 and teacher education: a literature review of online teaching and learning practices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4),pp.466–487. *Cocquyt, C., et.al. (2019). Examining the role of learning support in blended learning for adults’ social inclusion and social capital. Computers and Education, 142,pp.1-19. *Erickson, B. (2019). Blended Learning among Adult English as a Second Language Programs. Culminating Projects in Education Administration and Leadership. *Gao, B.W., et.al. (2020). The effect of blended learning platform and engagement on students’ satisfaction – the case from the tourism management teaching. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 27, 100272. *Ionescu, C.A., et.al. (2020). Sustainability Analysis of the E-Learning Education System during Pandemic Period COVID-19 in Romania. Sustainability, 12, 9030. *Luka, I. (2019). Creating a Culture-Based Language Learning Course for Developing Adult Learners’ 21st Century Skills. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 10(2), pp.151-169. https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs20192.151.169 *Luka, I. (2021a). Developing Adult Learners’ Language Competence in Culture-Based Blended-Learning Course. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 13, 2, pp.71-92, DOI:10.2478/ausp-2021-0014 *Luka, I. (2021b). European cultural heritage and skills development course for adult learners’ self-development. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 12(2), pp.505-526, https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs2021.2.505.526 *Luka, I. (2023). Implementation of a blended learning course for adult learners during the COVID-19 pandemic. Quality Assurance in Education, 31(1), pp.91-106. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-03-2022-0061 *Macumber, C. (2021). Effective Implementation of Blended Learning. Iowa:Northwestern Cpllege. *McGarvie, S. (2020). Attentive amelioration: developing and evaluating an applied mindfulness programme for psychologists. *Rosen, D.J. (2019). Blended Learning Program Development. Adult Literacy Educaation, 1(2),pp.84-86. *Rucsanda, M.D., et.al. (2021). Students' Attitudes Toward Online Music Education During the COVID 19 Lockdown. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 753785. *Shi, Y., et.al. (2021). Investigating relationships among blended synchronous learning environments, students’ motivation, and cognitive engagement: A mixed methods study, Computers & Education, 168, 104193. *Sutherland, R., Colin, P. (2019). Reporting from the Test Kitchen: Blended Leaarning at New Leaders. NY: Nw Leaders. *Wang, Q. (2008). A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching and learning. Innovation in Education and Teaching International, 45(4),pp.411-419. *Williamson, B., et.al. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(2),pp.107-114.