The question of why adults do not participate in education has been researched at some levels (Carp et al.,1973; Cross, 1981; Bamber and Tett, 1999; Flynn et al., 2011; Saar et al., 2014), however, more remains to be explored. As early as the mid-sixties, Johnstone and Rivera (1965) provided analysis on the barriers that prevent adults participating in higher education. They identified two categories that barriers fell into the internal and the external. Internal barriers tended to be dispositional in nature whilst external barriers tended to be situational in nature. Dispositional barriers are sometimes referred to in the literature as attitudinal barriers or psychosocial barriers (Darkenwald and Merriam, 1982), and are those individually held values and beliefs influenced by past experiences that inhibit participation in organised education (Broek and Hake, 2012). Situational barriers are those barriers that relate to an individual's life situation at a particular time, including both the physical and social environment that they find themselves in. Cross (1981) implies that barriers associated with time, cost, geographical location, access and childcare can all be seen as situational and structural barriers. Johnstone and Rivera (1965) found within their study that gender, age, socio- economic status were critical in terms of barriers to higher education participation. These findings correlated with work undertaken by Carp, Peterson and Roelfs (1973) who, utilising a multiple-choice questionnaire identified age and gender as barriers. Whilst not classifying the barriers into categories, Carp et al. (1973) listed the barriers to participation in learning activities into 24 statements. In 1981, Patricia Cross griped these 24 statements and identified them as being situational, dispositional and further identified a third barrier; namely institutional barriers. She posited that institutional barriers are barriers "erected by learning institutes that exclude or discourage certain groups of learners because of such things as inconvenient schedules, full-time fees for part-time students, restrictive locations and the like" (Cross, 1981, p.98).
Adult learners must overcome a number of challenges, not all of which are restricted to their cohort but which are commonly quoted as hurdles they experience. The most noteworthy factors involved include “financial issues, relationships with partners… other external commitments, the support [or lack thereof] they received at college” (Murphy and Fleming, 2000: 82). Stevens (2003) notes that students experience anxiety, guilt and shame particularly during the early part of their studentship. However, this doubt in one’s ability is common for virtually all students: “it must be a rare scholar or student who goes through his entire college course without feeling many twinges of doubt about his ability to complete it” (Cleugh, 1972: 81). Cleugh argues that it is important that lecturers dealing with lifelong learning students are aware of greater stress at the beginning of the course and therefore, should design assessments in the early stages with this in mind, so as to maximise the students’ confidence
43
in the early stages. Morrison argues that “women are still often central to domestic arrangements and the coordination of family life; therefore, it cannot be assumed that women have ‘private’ time to study” (Morrison, 1996 cited in Griffiths, 2002: 269). This is an important consideration in terms of how this research could lead to an improved assessment and teaching strategy for lifelong learning students. Jordan (1997) believes that “challenges arise for adult learners as the administration, resource allocation and, most importantly, teaching are primarily focused on younger students” (cited in Kelly, 2004: 47; Layer, 2011).
Shanahan (2000) argues that there is significant discrepancy between the quantitative measures of lifelong learning student success at higher education and the experiences described by them in qualitative research. She argues that despite attaining higher levels of academic achievement than their younger peers, lifelong learning learners are plagued by low levels of confidence in their academic ability. In terms of lifelong learning learners performance at higher education, the literature is inconclusive, there are those who argue that lifelong learning learners are slightly more likely than younger students to fail their course (Woodley & Wilson, 1987), while others argue that lifelong learning learners are not more likely to fail and actually are more likely than younger students to complete their course (Walker, 1975; Nisbet & Welsh, 1972; Lucas & Ward, 1985; Richardson, 1994; Richardson, 1995; cited in Wilson, 1997). These findings are at odds with Schofield & Dismore who write that there is “much evidence… that mature students show a higher dropout rate than those under the age of 21” (Schofield & Dismore, 2010: 209) meaning that even when lifelong learning students do return to education they are more likely than their younger peers to leave again without qualifying.
Murphy and Fleming (2000) state that people involved in the access movement in the United Kingdom believe that higher education often reinforces rather than reduces social inequality and they argue that universities inhibit the participation of adults. Such low levels of confidence and perceived or real barriers to entry to higher education make it all the more difficult to undertake further study as lifelong learning learners.
Stevens (2003) explores the influence that participation in higher education can have on the self and its identities. He argues that the “self is not given; participants have to continually attribute to themselves particular characteristics” (2003: 237). He believes that understanding this process can help us to understand why some lifelong learning students struggle and eventually withdraw. A better understanding of the experience of students who return to education should also help to ensure that policies and support systems can be put in place to maximise the level of success and benefit of higher education for these students. Ramsay et al. (2007: 249) suggest that there are four main types of support that are required namely,
44
emotional, practical, informational and social companionship. Some of these supports are likely to come from the student’s own social sphere particularly the emotional and social, but the practical and informational supports most likely need to come from their educational institution.
By generating a more positive learning experience for the lifelong learning student, an improved overall outcome could potentially be achieved. In order to make the most of the learning experience the lecturer must be aware of the difference between the way in which lifelong learning students and traditional students learn. Kelly argues that the lifelong learning learner is more “orientated towards deep learning” and that “learning which is based around the memorizing-regurgitation cycle does not appeal to them” (Kelly, 2004: 51)
Furthermore, the concept of experience itself is extremely subjective which makes it difficult to generalise and as a result it is difficult to formulate policy that will improve lifelong learning learner experience for everybody in the cohort. Not only do we have to consider subjectivity when we are examining student experience but it is “in turn linked to the teaching and learning strategies, pedagogic methods, learning resources and how effectively these are deployed” (Committee of University Chairs, 2006: 28). All of these factors are likely to vary from one lecturer to the next, not to mention between educational institutions.