The recent research  is the second stage of the study 2011-2013 initiated  by the Ministry of Education and Science (MOES) of  Latvia on identification of good practices that will facilitate adult learning (aged 18-24) participation in second chance education in evening (shift) schools supported by the State Education Development Agency  of  Latvia (ESF project Support for International Educational Research, Activity 1.2.2.3.2).  This study aims at elaboration of evidence based recommendations for the MOES of Latvia 2013-2020. The study is conducted by the University of Latvia in close collaboration with policy makers, local governments, evening (shift) schools as stakeholders and university researchers.

Research question: Does the early school leavers’ formal, non-formal and informal learning opportunities in formal second chance education impact their knowledge, skills, competencies as learning outcomes?

 Purpose: identify the impact of formal, non-formal and informal learning opportunities on the early school leavers` learning outcomes.

 Theoretical framework of this research applies the following main categories: “learning outcomes approach” and “learning outcomes”. Comprehension of these categories is based on the ideas of education researchers: learning outcomes approach to education can be defined as meaningful (Entwistle, 2005, Nygaard, Højlt, & Hermansen, 2008, Nygaard, Holtham, & Courtney, 2009) and learner-centred approach (Harden et al., 1999), where qualitative outcomes of learning as understanding and obtaining meaning dominate in it (Varnava-Marouchou, 2009). 

Learning outcomes approach reflects a conceptual shift towards making learning more meaningful and effective for students (CEDEFOP, 2011). Harden`s (Harden et al., 1999) model of learning outcomes approach – result-oriented thinking that influences not only the content, but also deals with questions of how it is organised, with educational strategies, assessment procedures, and educational environment and equally important with the teaching methods.

In our research for describing the meaning of learning outcomes we based on Nygaard’s et al. (2009) definition of learning outcomes as ’cognitive outcomes such as knowledge, skills, competencies, personal attributes and abilities, and affective outcomes such as personal goals, values, attitudes, identity, world views, and behaviours’.

Battersby (1999) notes that ‘learning outcomes are best viewed in the context of an approach to thinking about teaching and learning rather than a formula or a change in course outline terminology’.

It means that learning outcomes are vital to provide clarity of who, how, what and when teaches, learns, and assesses and raises the fundamental question of approaches to education and of emphasis to student-centred approach (Nygaard, Højlt, & Hermansen, 2008).

The main added value of learning has been seen as ‘a shift from concentrating largely on learning inputs (subjects, content, contact hours, etc.) towards some level of reliance on the primacy of learning outcomes’ (CEDEFOP, 2009) as well as promotion of lifelong learning (European Parliament, 2008).

Expressed in measurable units learning outcomes serve as a tool or instrument that clarifies the outcomes of the educational programme for the learner. It also helps the teacher and school to identify the overlaps between subjects in curriculum and assessment be objective rather than comparative (Adam, 2004).

Adam, S. (2004). Using learning outcomes: a consideration of the nature, role, application and implications for European education of employing “learning outcomes” at the local, national and international levels. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. ASEM – Education and Research Hub for Liefelong Learning – National LLL Strategies (2012). http://www.dpu.dk/asem/researchnetworks/nationalstrategies/ Battersby, M. (1999). So, What’s a Learning Outcome Anyway. Learning Outcomes and the Learning Paradigm. Department of Philosophy, Capilano College. CEDEFOP. (2009). European guidelines for validating non formal and informal learning. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. CEDEFOP. (2011). Using Learning Outcomes. European Qualifications Framework Series. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU Doornbos, A.J., Simons, R J., Denessen, E. (2008). Relations between characteristics of workplace practices and types of informal work-related learning: A survey study among Dutch Police. Human Resource Development Quarterly, Volume 19, Issue 2, pages 129–151, DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.1231 Entwistle, N. (2005). Learning outcomes and ways of thinking across contrasting disciplines and settings in higher education. The Curriculum Journal, 16(1), 67–82. European Parliament. (2008). Recommendation of the European Paliament and of the Council on the establishement of the European qualifications framework for lifelong learning. Official Journal of the European Union Luxembourg: Publications Office, C(111). Harden, R. M., Crosby, J. R., & Davis, M. H. (1999). AMEE Guide No. 14: Outcome-based education: Part 1-An introduction to outcome-based education. Medical Teacher, 21(1), 7–14. Kennedy, K. (2009). Outcomes based learning, concepts, issues and action. Retrieved from www.ied.edu.hk.ez.statsbiblioteket.dk:2048/obl/files/OBLConcepts%20Issues%20and%20Action_Kennedy.doc Nygaard, C., Højlt, T., & Hermansen, M. (2008). Learning-Based Curriculum Development. Higher Education, 55(1), 33–50. Nygaard, C., Holtham, C., & Courtney, N. (2009). Learning Ourcomes – Politics, Religion or Improvement? In Nygaard et al. (Eds.), Improving Students’ Learning Outcomes. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. Varnava-Marouchou, D. (2009). How can Students’ Conceptions of learning Improve their Learning Outcomes? In n Nygaard et al. (Eds.), Improving Students’ Learning Outcomes. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.