The COVID-19 crisis and the post-crisis period have emphasized the vital role of non-formal adult education highlighting the importance of basic skills, particularly language, digital and critical thinking skills (EC, 2020; Popović, Nišavić, 2023) in overcoming the consequences of the crisis and adapting to the new situation. Since adult education, including language teaching/learning, was organized through digital platforms, which ‘is not limited to any specific geographical settings’ (Owusu-Agyeman, 2019, 949), it became accessible to a broad range of adult learners, including those with certain barriers to learning. This ‘shift to the virtual space and a heavy reliance on digital and information and communication technology tools’ (Popović, Nišavić, 2023, 43) has transformed adult education.

Online and hybrid adult education courses are still very popular. Thus, adult education providers,- both course developers and adult education teachers, face a problem of how to create an online course that complies with the various needs of adult learners, their prior education experience, and the learners’ digital and language skills. Hence, it is crucial to understand the preferred learning styles of adult learners, to tailor the most appropriate language teaching/learning materials to engage them in learning.

Learning styles refer to the preferred ways the learners often choose to process information. They also describe an individual’s typical mode of thinking, analyzing, or problem solving.

Extensive research has been conducted in the field of adult learning, including learners’ learning styles. ‘The concept of learning style emerged in the second half of the 20th century’ (Pelegrín, 2020, 320). Although the research on learning styles has been a controversial issue in pedagogy (Rinekso, 2021, 12), it has been a widely researched topic in language teaching/learning. As a result, numerous classifications and instruments of defining learning styles of adult learners have been developed.

Some of the most popular learning style classifications attributed to language teaching/learning for adults are described. Kolb (1999) employing his Experiential Learning Theory (1984) defines four learning styles: diverging (concrete, reflective), assimilating (abstract, reflective), converging (abstract, active), accommodating (concrete, active) (McLeod, 2017; Garcia, 2023). Reid (1995) presents classification of Perceptual Learning Styles – visual, auditory, tactile, kinesthetic, group and individual which is often applied to teaching languages at HEIs (Pagalilauan, 2023). Flemming and Mills (1992) developed the VARK model – Visual, Aural, Read/Write and Kinaesthetic learners (Flemming, Bonwell, 2019).

This contribution employs Kolb’s experiential learning theory (Kolb, Kolb, 2013) and Flemming’s VARK model (Flemming, Bonwell, 2019) for teaching/learning foreign languages (L2, L3, etc.).

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).

3 comprehensive outputs have been created: two blended-learning courses and Lifelong Learning guidelines for adult educators. In ECER 2019 the course construct was presented (Luka, 2019), in ECER 2021 the results of the English language course implementation (O1 Output) were presented (Luka, 2021a, b), in ECER 2022 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). In ECER 2023 the evaluation of the learning management system (LMS) (Output 1 & 2) was presented.

In ECER 2025 the contribution aims to analyze the various learning styles of course participants and their influence on the course design and implementation (Output 3) in six EU countries.

The research question: How do particular learning styles influence the course design and implementation in non-formal adult education?

Comparative research design (Boeren, 2019) was applied to evaluate the results and compare them among the six partner countries and different target groups. 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, content of the modules and 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 results from the 3rd section of the questionnaire. The 3rd part of the questionnaire was derived from the Reduced Learning-Style Inventory (RLSI) designed based on Kolb’s Learning-Style Inventory (Kolb, 1999) and validated by Manolis et al. (2013). 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: 568 adult learners – 54 (9.5%) from Croatia, 99 (17.4%) from Latvia, 122 (21.5%) from Poland, 106 (18.7%) from Romania, 89 (15.7%) from Slovenia, 98 (17.3%) from the Czech Republic. 367 (64.6%) female, 201 (35.4%) male, aged 18-65 and older. 1/3 of the course participants (195 learners out of 568 or 34.3%) were learners with barriers to learning: in total 29 learners (5.1%) had cultural and social barriers to learning, 69 learners (12.1%) had geographic barriers, 52 learners (9.2%) had economic obstacles to learning and 45 learners (7.9%) were with learning difficulties requiring special educational treatment. 373 (65.7%) were regular adult learners. In accordance with Brancati (2018), research ethics was observed guaranteeing participants’ anonymity, voluntary participation and would not cause physical and/or psychological harm to them. Research limitations: - The course was designed in 2019 but implemented during the pandemic period, which influenced the course implementation. 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 blended-learning course, Slovenia was the only country wherein the course was implemented in a traditional blended-learning format. - Due to the Covid-19 restrictions, the sample was not country proportional. - The tool applied was a self-reported questionnaire and might be biased.

The research results show that the participants belong to all learning styles. However, practice dominates: 27.16% of learners prefer doing and experiencing while learning. On the second position are learners who prefer watching and observing (25.50%). 24.65% of learners prefer thinking and deducting and for 22.66% perception and feeling dominates. When analysing the data according to the respondents’ country, significant differences were discovered for 46 variables out of 48 (p=0.000-0.027). Since the sociodemographic characteristics of respondents of each country differed, the data were further analysed by such independent variables as gender, age, education, employment status, field of occupation and special target group in order to create methodological guidelines for teachers and course organisers to manage adult learners’ learning online in the ‘new normal’ and beyond. Females more often than males based learning on perception and feeling (diverging style) (23.63% vs. 20.88%), the difference is significant (p=0.000-0.016). All learners, disregarding their age, prefer doing and experiencing (accommodating style) while learning. Significant differences were discovered in terms of learners’ education level. Learners with higher education more often than other groups preferred thinking and deducting (converging style) while learning. Significant differences were found among the groups of learners with certain barriers to learning, except concerning doing and experimenting (accommodating style) while learning (p=0.0580.-0.859). The results are in line with the research on language learning at a university (Payaprom, Payaprom, 2020) wherein most learners prefer several learning styles as well. The research results support the cognitions of experiential learning that adult education must ensure learners’ reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, active experimentation and concrete experiencing and the language teaching/learning methods and tools have to be selected and designed in accordance with the VARK model. By creating a supportive interactive learning environment, the VARK model may enhance students’ learning motivation and eliminate barriers to learning.

-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. -EC. (2020). Adult Learning and COVID-19: challenges and opportunities. A report from the ET2020 working group on adult learning. Brussels: EC. -Fleming, N.D., Mills, C. (1992). Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11(1), 137-155. -Fleming, N., Baume, D. (2006). Learning Styles Again: VARKing up the right tree! Educational Developments, 7(4), 4-7. -Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. -Kolb, D. (1999). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory, Version 3. Boston: Hay Group. -Kolb, A.Y., Kolb, D.A. (2013). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory 4.0:A comprehensive guide to the theory psychometrics, research on validity and educational applications. Experience Based Learning Systems, Inc. -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 -Manolis, C. et.al. (2013). Assessing experiential learning styles: A methodological reconstruction and validation of the Kolb Learning Style Inventory. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 44-52. -Owusu‑Agyeman, Y. (2019). An analysis of theoretical perspectives that define adult learners for effective and inclusive adult education policies. International Review of Education, 65, 929-953. -Pagalilauan, J.B. (2023). Language Learning Strategies and Learning Styles Among BSED Students of SJCBI. American Journal of Education and Technology, 1(4), 37-45. -Pelegrín, J.D. (2020). Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire: A review of a language learning styles survey. Rhesis: International Journal of Linguistics, Philology and Literature, 11(1), 319-335. -Popović, K., Nišavić, I. (2023). The Role of Adult Learning and Education in (Post-)Covid Times. V.Boffo, R.Egetenmeyer (eds.). Re-thinking Adult Education Research. Beyond the Pandemic, pp.33-52. Firenze: Firenze University Press. -Reid, J.M. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Florence: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. -Rinekso, A.B. (2021). Pros and Cons of Learning Style: an Implication for English Language Teachers. Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy Literature, and Culture, 6(1), 12-23.