DRAFT 10/09/2008

Why did you do it? A comparison of the motivations of adult learners in Bulgaria, Flanders,
Norway and Scotland

Elisabet Weedon, Ellen Boeren, Marianne Daehlen, Odd Bjørn Ure and Pepka Boyadjieva

Introduction

This paper reports on a survey of adult returners in four European countries, the countries were selected
to enable a comparison of countries that fall into different categories in a tentative typology of lifelong
learning developed for the project (Holford, et al, 2008a, in press). It is part of a Sixth Framework funded
European project entitled: Towards a Lifelong Learning Society in Europe: The Contribution of the
Education System (www.lll2010.tlu.ee). The project consists of five subprojects and the survey
constitutes subproject 3. The main aim of this subproject was to gather and examine data on the
experiences, perspectives and motivation of adult learners. The survey included a wide range of
questions on aspects such as demographics, learning provision, funding, satisfaction with learning,
attitudes to learning and motivation. Each country aimed to sample 1000 adults returning to education,
stratified by ISCED level of the course. These data were intended to explore hypotheses in relation to
unequal participation in formal education with a particular focus on low-skilled and/or low-literate adults.
This paper focuses specifically on learners’ motivations for study and examines this in relation the ISCED
level of the course that the learners were undertaking and to demographic characteristics. The findings are
tentative as analyses of all data are not yet complete. Before describing the methodology and examining
the data a brief overview is provided of relevant policy at EU and national level and some of the academic
literature.

Policy context

The term lifelong learning, according to Field, stretches back to the beginning of the 20 th century, but
international events in the 1930s to 1950s marginalised the importance of adult learners. The concept
remerged strongly in the 1970s and was fostered by organisations such as UNESCO and, in more human
capital terms, OECD (Field, 2006). The EU adopted the concept of lifelong education in the 1990s and it
formed the basis for Lisbon strategy. Initially this strategy emphasised human capital at the expense of
social and personal development. However, the final version of the strategy acknowledged all three
aspect of lifelong education though there is disagreement over the extent to which human capital is still
dominant within EU policy (Holford, 2008b). The lifelong learning agenda and its perceived importance in
economic and social terms has influenced countries across Europe and has led to country specific
strategies and policies being developed. A brief overview of strategies and policies for each of the four
countries are included below.

Bulgaria
The process of Bulgaria’s accession to and full membership in the early 2007 in the European Union are
of key importance for the formation of this country’s lifelong learning policy. In recent years, the Bulgarian
government has produced legislation in the area of human resource development which has implications
for lifelong learning. The economic perspective dominates Bulgaria’s LLL policies as the main focus is on
vocational education and training.

In 2006, the Government, trade unions and employers’ organisations signed the Pact for Economic and
Social Development until 2009, which envisages an “increase of the investment in human capital with the
aim of involving by 2009 not less than 7-8% of the economically active population in lifelong learning”. It is
aspirational however, as most of the key measures envisaged in this document for the development of
lifelong learning are planned for 2010. This means that Bulgaria is currently at an early stage of the
working out of the necessary institutional and normative prerequisites for expanding mass lifelong learning
practices. This is why it is not accidental that, seen in a comparative perspective, the participation of
Bulgarians in different forms of lifelong learning is well below the EU average. In 2007, 1.3% of the
Bulgarian population aged 25-64 were in education and training (over the four weeks prior to the survey),
whereas for the EU-25 it was 10.3% (Eurostat). Even more embarrassing is the fact that in a recently
published by the Commission of the EC document the Bulgarian performance progress in the area of
lifelong learning is estimated as “falling further behind” (Progress towards the Lisbon Objectives 2008: 13-
14).

Flanders

1
DRAFT 10/09/2008
The two main goals of participation in lifelong learning are to increase employability and personal
development, though the strongest emphasis is on employability. These aims are enshrined in the
following document: Learning all one’s life, on the right road (Flemish Government), 2000); Vilvoorde
Treaty (Flemish Government, 2001); and Flemish Strategic Plan for Literacy (Flemish Government, 2005).
Lifelong learning is seen by the government as a way of competing on the global market, as a means to
deal with high unemployment rates and to increase employment rates. In spite of the high unemployment
rate there are skills shortages in certain sectors because of a lack of these skills in the workforce. There is
tension between government policy which focuses more on human capital and the goals pursued by
socio-cultural organisations who view lifelong learning as way of promoting personal development and
active citizenship. Social inclusion does form part of policy with specific policy measures addressing the
needs of migrants.

Norway
The rhetoric of Norwegian governments of different political origins show an influence of the EU adoption
of LLL concepts in the late 1990s. An ambitious LLL reform (St.meld. nr.42 1997-98), launched just before
the EU memorandum on LLL and terminating in 2006, introduced new statutory rights, i.e. for second
chance learners to complete their compulsory education for free. The 1999 reform also subsidised a series
of training projects, centred on workplace learning and advocated by the social partners that emphasised
recognition of non-formal and informal learning in the context of LLL. This perspective was shared by
various NGOs representing ‘the civil society’. In this way, learning at the workplace and in local
communities by doing voluntary work was added to the LLL agenda, thus prolonging a historic tradition of
non-institutional thinking around schools and learning. The government is currently following two paths: it
introduces new statutory rights i.e. to underpin efforts in the field of validation of non-formal and informal
learning. And secondly, the government maintains a ‘systemic perspective’ on LLL by underlining that all
education levels should be linked to ensure smooth transitions from one educational level to the other (cf.
EC 2005; Kd 2007). This ‘cradle to grave’ perspective which includes kindergartens, is evidenced in a
recent White Paper ‘Early intervention in lifelong learning’ (St.meld.nr.16 2006-07). The term LLL is less
used in Norway than e.g. in the UK. Its Norwegian use is often confined to policy makers in ministries,
social partner organisations and NGOs. Outside these circles, ‘adult education’ and ‘further/continuing
education’ is closer to the everyday vocabulary (cf. Ure 2007).

Scotland
The Scottish Government (previously the Scottish Executive) views lifelong learning as key to the
development of the Scottish economy. Life Through Learning Through Life, its lifelong learning strategy
sets out the government intentions (Scottish Executive, 2003) and it was evaluated in the Lifelong
Learning Statistics in 2005 (Scottish Executive, 2005). In 2007 the new administration published the
lifelong learning skills, Skills for Scotland (Scottish Government, 2007). This later document has a strong
emphasis on developing skills and vocational education in order to develop a highly skilled workforce that
will allow Scotland to compete in the global market. Whilst the new administration has only been in office
for one year there is a sense of a shifting emphasis towards skills development and on developing high
level skills in order to shift the Scottish economy from low skill to high skill.

There is a strong human capital element in the policies of all four countries but they differ in that Bulgaria
has an almost exclusive emphasis on human capital whilst Norway has a strong element of social and
personal development. The social element is also present in Flanders but more strongly directed towards
specific groups such as migrants, in Scotland the social is stressed in relation to social regeneration and
building of human capital is seen as a means to social inclusion.

The literature

Lifelong learning described by some as a ‘broad, imprecise and “elastic” term’ (Johnston, 2000, cited in
Rogers, 2006:125) is nonetheless in widespread use. It has been accused of being ‘human resource
development in drag’ (Boshier, 1998). However, Field (2006) argues that the term is useful for a number
of reasons; one of these is that it reflects changes in society that are evident in the ways that people
nowadays acquire new skills and capacities. However, he cautions that it can become a mechanism for
exclusion and social control. Field also notes that the discourse emphasises individual agency and that
learners are expected to take control of their own learning. There is thus an inherent tension in the
concept between human capital, social capital and personal development, and structure and agency.

2
DRAFT 10/09/2008
The emphasis by policymakers on lifelong learning as an unmitigated ‘good thing’ is questioned by a
number of academics. Field has noted its dangers and Coffield warns against the use of education as a
means for dealing with all social ills (Coffield, 1999). Swedish researchers question the way that
governments are using lifelong learning as a means of dealing with increased international competition
brought about by globalisation. They argue that in positioning the good citizen as the lifelong learner,
those adults who do not or cannot participate in adult education become considered as having a deficit
(Fejes, 2006). A slightly different concern is raised by Ahl who questions the emphasis on motivation and
its role in adult education. She argues that there is a misplaced assumption that motivation is the key to
getting adults to engage in learning. This, she feels leads to research that aims to remove barriers and
positions those that do not engage with learning as ‘unmotivated’ and the key focus becomes one of
changing the unmotivated into motivated learners. Her argument is that we need to examine who identifies
why lack of motivation is a problem and why they see it as a problem (Ahl, 2006).

As continuing education and lifelong learning has increasingly become a tool for policymakers to achieve
economic growth and social justice the emphasis on participation in all kinds of learning has grown.
Participation rates in adult education have therefore been and, still are, a key issue (Courtney et al., 1998;
Gorard & Rees, 2002; Antikainen, Harinen & Torres, 2006). In the past decades, two main research
movements have emerged in participation research (Jung & Cervero, 2002):
- The traditional studies, mainly from the US: on the one hand studies about the relationship
between psychological attributes (such as motivation, attitudes, perceptions, intentions) and
participation, and on the other hand studies into barriers to participation, also with a focus on
individual’s and adjacent environmental attributes.
- The sociological perspective on adult education: they indicate how demographic, technological,
economic and cultural factors have an impact on aspects of adult education. In this view, which
criticizes the traditional, rather individualistic studies, people can not be seen as independent from
their social context in making decisions to participate in learning opportunities.

The traditional studies have been criticised for neglecting the social context and, in particular social
structures – the sociological ones, by contrast are considered as neglecting the individual.

Motivation in adult learners

Motivation is a hypothetical construct which has been used to provide causal explanations of behaviour.
Boshier (1991) stressed the need to improve our understanding of what motivated adult learners to
engage with learning. He suggested it was a means to better understanding of why students dropped out
and that it could contribute to enhancing the quality of the learning experiences. Motivation can be seen
as extrinsic or intrinsic; in the latter case it is the learning experience itself that motivates, whilst in the
former there is external pressure to engage with learning (Ryan & Deci, 2002).

In educational psychology, the social cognitive approach towards human agency (Bandura, 1989)
emphasises the dynamic nature of engagement between learner and environment. Action, personal
factors (cognitive, affective and other, e.g. motivation) and environmental events all operate as interacting
determinants of human behaviour, in our case, participation and persistence in formal adult education.
The social cognitive approach stresses that motivation is not innate or residing solely within the individual.
Motivation develops and changes in a complex reciprocal interaction between environmental factors, the
adult’s behaviour and his or her other personal characteristics (Bandura, 1989; Webber, 2004; Desmedt,
2004).

It could be argued that this approach forms a kind of bridge between the sociological studies that
emphasise structure and the psychological models that stress individual factors in relation to motivation.
However, what this approach does not explore in depth are the wider social structures that may help or
hinder learning, such social class, gender and ethnicity. In addition, this research could be seen as falling
into the bracket of that which assumes that increasing everybody’s motivation to engage with learning is a
‘good thing’.

Sociological perspectives

3
DRAFT 10/09/2008
In the sociology of education, the ‘life course perspective’, based on structuration theory (Shilling, 1992),
tries to overcome the dualism between the individual and the social context, or between ‘agency’ and
‘structure’. Structural conditions include culture and the material environment which pre-exist the
individual and act to shape and constrain individual action. Structure, according to Ecclestone (2006),
does not refer to the specific environment – the structural environment such as the specific institutional
practices – are therefore not the same as societal structures. Gallacher et al (2002) refer to these as
institutional factors and note their impact on an individual’s ability to engage with learning. The more
immediate social situation of individuals (such as family and work dynamics) and the way in which these
social factors play out at the level of the individual’s experiences and perspectives also impact on an
individual’s ability to engage effectively with learning (Davey & Jamieson, 2003). Individual agency refers
to the way that individuals engage with and act upon their environment. Biesta and Tedder criticise
definitions of agency, such as that by Emirbayer and Mische, for focusing too much on the individual’s
engagement with the context at the expense of considering the social context within which agency occurs.
Drawing on Arendt, they argue that an individual cannot act, be an agent, in isolation and that therefore
different social contexts will elicit different responses from the same individual (Biesta & Tedder, 2006).
This could be seen as the context determining the action; however, they argue that an individual acting
within a particular social context has an impact on that context and in that sense agency includes a
transactional element.

Clearly then, there are a number of different strands of research into lifelong learning and what motivates
participation in learning, in addition, there are those who see it as beneficial for all whilst others questions
that view. This paper examines the motivations and experiences of adult returners in four European
countries. It draws on large survey but the focus is on a motivation and experiences which are examined
in relation to different ISCED levels of study and demographic characteristics. It addresses the following
questions:
• Are there differences in motivation between students at different ISCED levels?
• What, if any, gender and/or age differences are there?
• What, if any, differences are there between the four countries?

Methodology

The survey consisted of two questionnaires: one to be completed by participants and a shorter one for the
institutions where the learners were studying. The aim was to include a minimum of 1000 adult returners
in a sample stratified according to the ISCED level of the course studied with 250 at each of levels 1-2; 3,
4 and 5. The definition of ‘formal education’ adopted was adapted from the Eurostat Adult Education
Survey; the definition of an ‘adult learner’ was agreed by the project team as a person who has left full-
time initial education and has re-entered the formal education system after a gap of at least two years. It
is worth noting that the two year gap has been used by other researchers to define adult learners (Munn &
MacDonald, 1988).

The questionnaires were written in English and translated into the relevant language by the project team
for that country. Each country team was responsible for identifying a sample, administering the survey
and analysing their own country results with clear guidance on sampling, administration and coding from
the lead partners in this subproject to ensure reasonable comparability of data.

Findings

This section provides an overview of the key characteristics of the sample and the distribution of learners
at different ISCED levels. The analysis then focuses on a comparison of experiences and motives for
learning according to ISCED level and country.

Table 1: The sample: key characteristics

4
 DRAFT 10/09/2008
Bulgaria Flanders Norway Scotland
Gender Male 53% 33% 38% 27%
Female 47% 67% 62% 73%
Missing - - 1%
Nationality Home 96% 93% 91,4 89%
Other 4% 7% 8,6 5%
Missing 0.4% 0.7% - 6%
Age Up to 20 9% 1% - 4%
21-30 57% 22 % - 33%
31-40 24% 22 % - 30%
41 and older 9% 55% - 27%
Missing 0.3% 0% - 5%
Employment status Employed 37% 66% 45% 43%
Other 60% 33% 53% 58%
Missing/prefer not to disclose 3% 1% 2% 5%
Marital status Unmarried (never married) 57% 33% 47% 36%
Married/living with 40% 66% 53% 56%
partner/divorced/widowed/remarried

5
DRAFT 10/09/2008
Missing/prefer not to disclose 3% 1% 0.6% 7%

6
DRAFT 10/09/2008

In three out of the four countries the majority of learners are female – the greatest contrast is between
Bulgaria and Scotland as more than half of the learners in Bulgaria were male and in Scotland just over a
quarter were male. In Bulgaria, Flanders and Scotland 90% or more of the learners were nationals of the
country where they studied. Bulgaria had the lowest percentage of learners who were also in employment;
in Norway and Scotland just over 40% are in employment. This contrasts Flanders where two thirds were
in employment. The majority of learners in Bulgaria are not married and have not been married; in
Belgium and Scotland this was the case for around one third of the sample with Norway falling in between
with just under half in this category. Overall there were more missing cases in Scotland indicating a
reluctance in the learners to divulge personal data. Norway did not gather data on age or nationality as
this was not acceptable due to data protection legislation in this country.

Table 2: Number of participants at each ISCED level

7
DRAFT 10/09/2008
Numbers Bulgaria Flanders Norway Scotland
Nos % Nos % Nos % Nos %
ISCED 1 and 2 253 24.6 263 21.4 116 14.8 71 7
ISCED 3 268 25.3 283 23.1 337 42.9 294 28.8
ISCED 4 251 23.7 422 34.4 80 10.2 301 29.5
ISCED 5 and 6 258 24.4 257 20.9 243 31 355 34.8

8
DRAFT 10/09/2008
Missing 31 2.9 2 .2 9 1.1 - -

9
DRAFT 10/09/2008

Courses were assigned to ISCED levels by each country team. Scotland used the National Education
Attainment Classification (NEAC) guidelines provided by the UK Department for Education and Skills
(DfES) as this formed the basis for categorising courses in the National Adult Education Survey. Flanders
Bulgaria and Norway used the OECD classification as a guide to assign levels to the courses included
(OECD, 2004). In all countries the ISCED level of the course was determined by the qualification that the
learner would achieve on successful completion of the course.

Figure 1: Previous highest qualification in our sample by ISCED level

70

60

50
Percentage

40

30

20

10

0
No formal ed 1 to 2 3 4 5 to 6

Bulgaria Flanders Norway Scotland

Table 3: Qualifications in the working age population by percentage

10
DRAFT 10/09/2008
Scotland1 At least ISCED 3, no distinction
Standard Higher Age Bulgaria
Age Grade General ISCED 3a Age Flanders² Norway2
ISCED 3c
18 – 21 89% 64% 25 – 34 85% 84% 15 – 64 79%
22 – 29 90% 72% 55 – 64 47% 73%
30 – 39 88% 69%
40 – 49 84% 67%
50 + 75% 65% 25 – 64 67% 77% 25 – 64 72%

11
DRAFT 10/09/2008
All working 85% 67%
age 18+

12
DRAFT 10/09/2008
1. Source: Scottish Government, 2008 (annual pop survey);
2. Source Flemish Statistical Page : aps.vlaanderen.be, Section education and lifelong learning

The survey also asked for the learners previous highest level of qualification. This data shows that a
number of learners on ISCED level 1 – 2 courses already had higher qualifications. To make comparisons
between the countries we collected additional data on the overall level of qualifications in the working age
population using ISCED level 3 as a measure for comparison. This shows that Norway has the highest
percentage of their working age population educated to this level, followed by Bulgaria. Scotland and
Flanders have the same percentage which is lower than the other two countries. Examining the previous
qualifications within the samples, shows that the Bulgarian sample included the greatest number of those
with no previous qualifications and this is followed by the Scottish sample. The Norwegian and Flemish
samples included only around 1% of those with no previous formal qualifications.

Motivations for learning

The respondents were asked whether the main reason for learning was personal or job related. In
Flanders 76% stated personal reasons; in comparison 56% of Scottish students cited job related reasons.
In Bulgaria and Norway just over half said that they were studying for personal reasons. Examining this in
greater detail showed considerable differences across ISCED levels, chi-square tests indicated that these
differences were statistically significant within each of the countries. In all four countries, those on ISCED
levels 1 and 2 were least likely to cite job related reasons and those levels 5 – 6 are most likely to be
stating that this is the main motivation. Whilst this is the case, learners at all levels in Flanders were
considerably more likely to be studying for personal gains; in contrast Norway has the overall highest
percentages across the levels stating that job reasons are of importance.

Figure 2: Motivations for learning by ISCED level and country

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
1 to 2 3 4 5 1 to 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 to 2 3 4 5
ISCED level ISCED level ISCED level ISCED level
Bulgaria Flanders Norway Scotland

Job related Personal

Factors motivating learners to engage in learning

Participants’ motivations for undertaking the course were probed in greater detail. Eighteen statements
based on the Education Participation Scale (Boshier, 1991) were used and classified according to whether
they were externally enforced or autonomous motivations and further divided into four types: social
control, human capital, social capital and personal fulfilment. Examples of statements and their
classifications are:
• ‘To learn more about a subject that interests me’ (personal fulfilment).
• ‘Because my employer required me to’ (social control).
• ‘To do my job better’ (human capital).
• ‘To contribute more to my community’ (social capital).

13
DRAFT 10/09/2008
To analyse and compare the data four indices were produced based on selected statements: social
control, human capital, social capital and personal fulfilment. These will be used here to compare learners
at the different ISCED levels, by age and gender; however, it should be noted that these indices have not
been tested empirically, they are used to explore the data and to suggest possible differences and
similarities. In all but one of the indices the Norwegian scale included fewer items and is therefore
reported on separately.

Social control index

This index included three statements and focused on external enforcement such as requirement to do a
course by an employer or government agency. The strongest contrast was between Bulgaria and
Flanders as the Bulgarian learners reported considerably higher levels of social control, with those at level
1 to 2 indicating the highest level. Norwegian learners reported higher levels of control than the Scottish
learners; however, the pattern for level 1 – 2 learners in these two countries were fairly similar. The
difference was that Norwegian learners at level 4 also experienced relatively high levels of social control;
whilst in Scotland learners at this level reported the lowest levels of social control. This can possibly be
explained by the type of course. In the UK, only Access to higher education course are included at level 4
and these are second chance courses for adults who lack entry qualifications to higher education. They
do not provide a vocational element but successful completion guarantees a place on a degree level
course. The fact that level 1 – 2 learners in Scotland experience the greatest level of control could be due
to labour market policy which uses engaging with learning as condition for certain types of benefits. The
very high levels of control at level 1 – 2 in Bulgaria is most likely explained by the fact that the majority of
learners at this level were prisoners and studying can help reduce your sentence substantially. The
overall levels of high social control evidenced in the Bulgarian sample can also be explained by the fact
that Bulgarians value the instrumental aspect of education over intrinsic ones (Boyadjieva et al 1994). In
Flanders the reason for low levels of control could be explained by the high proportion of learners already
in employment. In the Bulgarian sample there were gender and age differences in relation to this index:
men scored significantly higher than women; older people scored significantly higher than younger people.
There were no such differences in the Scottish, Flemish or Norwegian samples.

Figure 3: Social control index by ISCED level and country

100%

80%

60%
Percentage

40%

20%

0%
1 to 2 3 4 5 to 6 1 to 2 3 4 5 to 6 1 to 2 3 4 5 to 6 1 to 2 3 4 5 to 6
Bulgaria Flanders Norway Scotland
ISCED levels

0 1 2 3

Human capital index

14
DRAFT 10/09/2008
This index included six statements relating to human capital motives for engaging with learning; the higher
the score the more the learner is influenced by a human capital motive for learning such as getting a job.
Learners in Bulgaria are most strongly influenced by human capital motives for learning with those at the
highest levels scoring the highest, in Flanders this is also the case but generally the scores are lower. In
Scotland there is little difference between levels 3 and 5 – 6 but there is a slightly higher percentage of
level 1 – 2 learners at the top end of the scale. The Norwegian sample were only asked one question in
relation to human capital and those at the lowest level were most in agreement with the human capital
statement. In Scotland there were gender differences with women scoring significantly lower than men on
this index; there were no such differences in either the Flemish or the Bulgarian sample. There were age
differences in these latter two sample: Bulgarian respondents over 40 scored significantly higher than the
younger age groups; in contrast Flemish older learner scored significantly lower than the younger age
groups. There were no apparent differences in gender or age in the Norwegian data.

Figure 4: Human capital index by ISCED level for Bulgaria, Flanders and Scotland
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
1 to 2 3 4 5 to 6 1 to 2 3 4 5 to 6 1 to 2 3 4 5 to 6

ISCED level ISCED level ISCED level

Bulgaria Flanders Scotland

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

These two indices explore motivations in relation to human capital aspects of lifelong learning and it can
be seen that:
• Bulgarian learners at all levels experience high levels of social control and men and older learners
in this country scored significantly higher than women or younger learners; Flanders learners have
low levels of social control
• In Scotland, Norway and Bulgaria level 1 – 2 experience the highest level of social control
• Flemish learners experience the lowest level of control and score the lowest on the human capital
index
• Human capital motives are most important for those at the highest level; in Scotland men score
significantly higher than women on this index; in Bulgaria older people score significantly higher
than younger learners and the reverse is the case for Flanders

These differences are likely to be linked to welfare and labour market conditions and policies as well as
other legislation demonstrating the role that lifelong learning is now playing the wider economy. Learners
in Flanders seem least likely to experience external control which may be due to the fact that the Flemish
learners had high or intermediate educational attainment and are mostly employed or retired which makes
the need to obtain an additional qualification less important. Many of these Flemish adults had enrolled
mainly for non job related reasons. Deeper analyses indicate that that low skilled Flemish adults
experience more social control as do adults receiving support from their employer. In the latter case,
enrolling on the course was often compulsory. This analysis suggests that human capital motivations are
in evidence amongst learners in all countries but that there is variation between the countries. The two
indices examining social and personal motivations for learning will now be examined.

15
DRAFT 10/09/2008
Personal fulfilment index
This index consisted of five items and all learners had high scores on this index. Scottish and Bulgarian
learners were generally slightly higher with level 1 – 2 learners in both these countries having the highest
scores. These two groups also scored highest on social control index suggesting that pressure to engage
with learning does not necessarily lead to a negative learning experience and that initial extrinsic
motivation may lead to intrinsic motivation. Flemish learners also scored at the middle to high range on
this index and learners in Norway indicated high levels of personal fulfilment based on one question. In
the Flemish sample there was a gender difference with women scoring higher on this index than men, in
Bulgaria men scored significantly higher than women. At first glance the Bulgarian results suggest an
inconsistency between the personal fulfilment and social control indices scores. However, it might be that
Bulgarian women have different social representation of personal fulfilment than Bulgarian men. For
example, to have a professional career might be consider by men as a personal fulfilment but might not be
experienced as such by women. If this is a case it would be an indication of cultural differences. In the
Scottish and the Flemish sample there were no age differences but in Bulgaria the youngest and the
oldest age groups scored highest.
Figure 5: Personal fulfilment index by ISCED level – Bulgaria, Flanders and Scotland

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
1 to 2 3 4 5 to 6 1 to 2 3 4 5 to 6 1 to 2 3 4 5 to 6
ISCED level ISCED level ISCED level
Bulgaria Flanders Scotland

0 1 2 3 4 5

Social capital index

16
DRAFT 10/09/2008
The social capital index focused on statements relating to participation in groups or the wider community
and consisted of four items. Learners at the lowest levels in all four countries had the highest score, with
all Bulgarian learners having the highest scores followed by Scottish ones. This relationship between
social capital and level of course was also in evidence in Norway and in Flanders though the difference
here is mainly between levels 1 – 2 and the remaining levels. This could be taken as an indication of high
levels of social capital; however, an alternative explanation for the Scottish sample may be more valid.
The statements asked for reasons for participating in learning in relation to social aspects. The learners at
level 1 – 2 indicated that they had more opportunities of engage in group activities than those at other
levels and were more likely to engage with learning in order to develop new friendships. The reason for
the high score may therefore be out a desire to develop new networks and increase their social capital
rather than evidence of already high levels of social capital. This explanation is reinforced by the fact that
a smaller percentage of these learners stated that they were supported by family and/or friends than
learners at the other levels and that they were significantly less likely to engage in other social activities
than learners at other levels, especially those at level 5 – 6. This is also potentially an explanation for the
Bulgarian level 1 – 2 learners – as the majority are prisoners they also seem to experience less support
from family and friends and their ability to engage with social activities is obviously curtailed! The
reduction in the prison sentence is likely to be a strong motivator; however, a second motivator for
engaging with learning may be the opportunities for engaging socially with others through their courses.
The higher scores for level 1 – 2 Flemish learner is likely to have a different explanation as many of these
learners were already well qualified and were studying courses of their own choice for personal
development and the engagement with learning was less in order to develop social capital. In Scotland
and Flanders there were significant gender differences with women scoring higher than men; in Bulgaria
there were no such difference. In Flanders older learners scored significantly higher than younger ones;
there were no such differences in the Bulgarian or Scottish samples.

Figure 6: Social capital index by ISCED level – Bulgaria, Flanders and Scotland

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
1 to 2 3 4 5 to 6 1 to 2 3 4 5 to 6 1 to 2 3 4 5 to 6
ISCED level ISCED level ISCED level
Bulgaria Flanders Scotland

0 1 2 3 4

17
DRAFT 10/09/2008
To summarise, it was the learners at level 1 – 2 who scored highest on these two indices. However, the
explanations for the learners in the three countries differ. It seems most likely that Scottish and Bulgarian
level 1 – 2 learners are aiming to develop social capital; whilst already high levels of social capital are
acting as motivator for engaging with learning in Flemish learners. There are interesting and contrasting
gender differences in relation to personal fulfilment in the Flemish and Bulgarian samples; there were also
some age differences in relation to these indices.

Summary and conclusion

This paper set out to address the following three questions in relation to motivation for learning:
1. Are there differences in motivation between students at different ISCED levels?
2. What, if any, gender or age differences are there?
3. What, if any, differences are there between the four countries?
Examining the first question learners at level 1 – 2 stand out as different from the other levels in several
ways:
• In all four countries they are most likely to cite personal rather than job related reasons for
learning as the main motivation; in Norway this is the case for learners up to and including level 4
• They are most likely to experience high levels of social control in relation to their learning; whilst
this was not the case for all learners at this level in Flanders, it was the case for those with lowest
previous qualifications
• Learners at this level in three of the countries, not Norway, scored highest on the personal
fulfilment index and also on the social capital index where level 1 – 2 learners in Norway also had
the highest score

The scores by ISCED level on the human capital differ from the other three. Here it was level 5 – 6
learners who tended to score higher than those at the other levels; though in Scotland a small number of
learners level 1 – 2 score very high. This supports the finding that those at higher level courses were
generally more motivated to study for job related reasons than personal reasons.

It has already been suggested that high levels of social control for the lower level of learner is likely to be
due to welfare/labour market policies in the different countries and, in Bulgaria, the impact of penal
legislation. The high levels of personal fulfilment at the lower levels may be due to the opportunities that
learning is seen to offer this group of learners. Other research (Tett et al 2006) has shown the learners
who have little formal education but who are offered the opportunity to learn as adults are often more
grateful for the opportunity than those who have had greater opportunities. It may also be that learners at
this level work in smaller group and have a greater influence over the curriculum than those at higher
levels, this could account for generally higher levels of satisfaction. The impact of human capital motives
on the higher level of learners is likely to be due to their relative closeness to the labour market. In
Scotland it may be due to an awareness of the ‘graduate premium’, the fact that in the longer term
graduates earn significantly more than non-graduates.

The second question focused on age and gender differences. These were apparent in relation to gender:
• Women scored significantly lower than men on the social control index in Bulgaria
• Women scored significantly lower than men on the human capital index in Scotland
• Women scored significantly higher on the personal fulfilment index in Flanders; in Bulgaria the
reverse was the case
• Women scored significantly higher on the social capital index than men in Scotland and Flanders

In terms of age, the following was the case:

• Older people scored significantly higher on the social control index in Bulgaria
• Older people scored significantly higher on the human capital index in Bulgaria; the reverse was
the case for Flanders
• The oldest and the youngest age group in Bulgaria scored significantly higher than the other age
groups on the personal fulfilment index
• Older learners in Flanders scored significantly higher than younger learners on the social capital
index

18
DRAFT 10/09/2008
These data suggest that age and gender differences do not hold across the countries. Some explanations
for these gender and age differences have been offered above. In addition, it is suggested in relation to
the Flemish data that Flemish women were more likely to engage in learning both for personal fulfilment
and social reasons. This is in line with previous research which shows that participation in learning in
women is related to personal development and hobbies, whilst men engage more for reasons focused on
the labour market (Houtkoop & van der Kamp, 1992). The fact that older Flemish learners scored lower
on the human capital index is explained by their closeness to retirement age. However, this explanation
does not hold for the Bulgarian sample where older people scored higher on this index. It may be
explained by the overall much older sample in Flanders as 55% were 41 and over; in Bulgaria only 9% fell
into this age group with the majority much younger. It may also be that welfare provision for pensioners
are more generous and secure in Flanders than in Bulgaria.

The third question considered similarities and differences between the four countries. There were, as can
be seen from tables 1 and 2 and figure 1, some differences in the samples. The Bulgarian learners were
mainly below the age of 41; in Flanders the majority were over 41; Scotland fell in between these two.
The Bulgarian sample had a slightly higher proportion of men, in comparison nearly three quarters of the
Scottish sample was female. The Scottish sample had the lowest number of learners at ISCED levels 1 –
2; however, this may be an artefact of the classification system used. The data on previous qualifications
in the samples show that the Bulgarian sample had the highest number of learners with no previous formal
education, followed by Scotland; in contrast Flanders had a higher proportion of highly qualified learners.
In relation to qualifications in the overall working population, if ISCED level 3 is used as a measure, the
level is highest in Norway followed by Bulgaria, Scotland and Flanders are similar; however, the level of
qualifications in the oldest working age group (55-64) in Flanders is markedly lower than in Scotland and
Norway. It may be then, that the lack of relationship across the countries in relation to age and gender are
due to the differences in the sample – more detailed and fine-grained analysis may cast further light on
this.

It is worth considering if the differences in percentages of those with no previous qualification indicate
difference between the countries in the flexibility of the formal educational system to offer lifelong learning
opportunities to all. In both the Norwegian and the Flemish sample the proportion of this type of learner is
very low. In Norway this could be explained by the fact that a high number of those of working age
population have at least ISCED level 3 qualifications; this is not the case in Flanders. In addition, the
generally lower age of learners in the Bulgarian sample may indicate that provision in adult and continuing
education is geared more towards the younger than the older age group.

The data does suggest that there is a difference in motivation for learning as learners on the most basic
courses experience both more social control and more personal fulfilment in relation to their educational
experience. In a sense this is a positive message; however, what we cannot consider is the extent to
which social control measures impact negatively on those that are not participating in learning, those that
might be considered as lacking in motivation as suggested by Ahl (2006). It could also be suggested that
learners at this level have less agency, less control over their learning than those at other levels.

References
Ahl, H. (2006) Motivation in adult education: a problem solver or a euphemism for direction and control?
International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 385-405
Antikainen, A., Harinen, P. and Torres, C.A. (2006) In from the margins: adult education, work and civil
society. Rotterdam: Sense Publisher
Bandura, A. (1989) Self-regulation of motivation and action through internal standards and goal systems.
In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goals concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 19-85). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Biesta, G. & Tedder, M. (2006) How is agency possible? Towards an ecological understanding of agency-
as-achievement. Working Paper 5, ESRC/TLRP project: Learning, identity and agency in the lifecourse.
Boshier, R. (1991). Psychometric properties of the alternative from the Education Participation Scale.
Adult Education Quarterly, 41, pp.150-167
Boshier, R. (1998) Edgar Faure after 25 years: Down But Not Out, in J. Holford, P. Jarvis & C. Griffin (eds.)
International Perspectives on Lifelong Learning. London, Kogan Page
Бояджиева, П., Е. Герганов, М. Дилова, Е. Паспаланова, К. Петкова (1994) Образованието
извън училищните стени. София: Гал-Ико. [Boyadjieva, P., E. Gerganov, M. Dilova, E. Paspalanova,
K. Petkova (1994) Education Outside the School Doors. Sofia: Gal-Iko.]
Coffield, F. (1999) Breaking the consensus: lifelong learning as social control. British Educational
Research Journal, Vol 25, No. 4, pp. 479-498
Courtney, McGivney, McIntyre & Rubenson (1988) Rethinking participation research in adult education :
international perspectives. AERC proceedings 1988

19
DRAFT 10/09/2008
Davey, J. & Jamieson, A. (2003) Against the odds: pathways of early school leavers into university
education: evidence from England and New Zealand, International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vo. 22,
No. 3, pp. 266-280
Desmedt, E. (2004) Research into the theoretical base of learning styles in view of educational
applications in a university setting. Doctoral dissertation, University Ghent.
Ecclestone, K., Blackmore, T., Biesta, G., Colley, H. & Hughes, M. (2006) Lost in transition: managing
change and becoming through education and work. Nottingham: TLRP Seminar Series ‘Transitions
through the lifecourse’, Seminar 12-13 October 2006.
Fejes, A. (2006) The planetspeak discourse of lifelong learning in Sweden: what is an educable adult?
Journal of Educational Policy, Vol 21, No. 6, pp. 697-716
Field, J. (2006) Lifelong Learning and the New Educational Order, Stoke on Trent, Trentham Books
Gorard, S. and Rees, G. (2002) Creating a learning society? Learning careers and policies for lifelong
learning. Bristol: The Policy Press
Flemish Government (2000). Actieplan “Een leven lang leren in goede banen.” Brussel: Vlaamse
regering
Flemish Government (2001). Het Pact van Vilvoorde. Brussel: Vlaamse regering, Brussel
Flemish Government (2005). Strategisch Plan Geletterdheid. Brussel: Vlaamse regering
Gallacher, J., Crossan, B., Field, J. & Merrill, B. (2002) Learning careers and the social space: exploring
the fragile identities of adult returners in the new further education. International Journal of Lifelong
Education. Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 493-509.
Holford, J., Riddell, S., Weedon, E., Litjens, J., Hannan, G. (2008a) Patterns of lifelong learning: policy
and practice in an expanding Europe.
Holford, J. (2008b) Social and economic dimensions in European lifelong learning policy. Paper presented
at the Standing Conference on University Teaching and Research in the Education of Adults (SCUTREA),
2nd to 4th July, Edinburgh
Houtkoop, W. & Van der Kamp, M. (1992). Factors influencing participation in continuing education.
International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 17, pp. 537-547.
Jung, J.C. and Cervero, R.M. (2002) The social, economic and political contexts of adults’ participation in
undergraduate programmes: a state-level analysis. International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 21,
No. 4, pp. 305-320
Munn, P. & MacDonald (1988) Adult participation in education and training, Edinburgh: Scottish Council for
Research in Education
Progress towards the Lisbon Objectives in Education and Training. Indicators and Benchmarks.2008
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/progress08/report_en.pdf
Rogers, A. (2006) Escaping the slums or changing the slums? Lifelong learning and social transformation.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.125-137
Ryan and Deci (2002) The paradox of achievement: The harder you push, the worse it gets. In J. Aronson
(Ed.) Improving academic achievement: Contributions of social psychology (pp.59-85). New York:
Academic Press
Scottish Executive (2003) Life through learning through life, Edinburgh, Scottish Executive
Scottish Executive (2005) Lifelong learning statistics 2005, Edinburgh, Scottish Executive
Scottish Government (2007) Skills for Scotland: a lifelong skills strategy. Edinburgh: Scottish Government
Shilling, (1992) Reconceptualising structure and agency in the sociology of education: structuration theory
and schooling. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 13(1), p. 69-87
Tett, L., Hall, S. Maclachlan, K., Thorpe, G. Edwards, V. and Garside, L. (2006) Evaluation of the Scottish
Adult Literacy and Numeracy Initiative, Scottish Executive
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/03/20102141/
Ure, O.B. (2007) Lifelong learning in Norway: a deflating balloon or an act of piecemeal implementation.
Oslo: Fafo Institute of Labour and Social Research
Webber, (2004) Orientation to learning in mid-career management students. Studies in Higher Education,
29(2), p.259-277

20