Introduction
In 1963, Jack London presents his study on attitudes toward adult education by social class with words about a revolution in education. In the modern world, London (1963) argues that a paradigm is becoming established that an educated nation is a condition for the survival and advancement of society. No country can longer afford to tolerate any part of the population that is educated less than its own potential allows (London, 1963, p. 226). Neither in Slovakia nor in many other countries have his words been fully fulfilled even after sixty-seven years. In recent years, particularly in connection with the increasing pace of automation and digitalization and the transition to Industry 4.0, pressure on adults to continuously adapt to a fluid labor market has constantly increased. Rapid technological changes do not leave any person in a job where they could manage with the knowledge and skills with which they initially entered that job. These processes increasingly threaten larger groups of workers across all sectors. A stable position is nonetheless occupied by numerous groups of population on the margins of these massive social changes, who live in generational poverty, geographic isolation, social declassing, with substandard housing, health, pathological behavior, and illiteracy. In Slovakia, this concerns primarily ethnically homogeneous marginalized Roma communities. Social inequalities are deepening through education, which, among other things, is also expected to play a social integration function.
In the article we do not directly address the causes of persistently low educational attainment and illiteracy among part of the marginalized adult population, although when studying motivation for education among low-skilled and marginalized adults, one cannot do without referencing the broader social causality of their social position.
What We Know About Motivation for Learning and Education Among Low-Skilled Adults
Motivation is undoubtedly a key factor in adults’ participation/non-participation in education and learning. In the Memorandum on Lifelong Learning (2000, p. 9), the importance of motivation is expressed as follows: “Individual motivation to be educated and the variety of educational opportunities are decisive keys to successful lifelong learning.” Adults are most often motivated to learn when, behind their effort and activity, there is concrete progress, a desired change in their work, family, or personal life, when the process of learning and education is also associated with positive and encouraging experiences (especially for those who were unsuccessful in previous education), and when sufficient conditions for learning are in place (time, distance, finances). It is therefore important to focus on factors that shape, enable, or prevent motivation from directing individual psychological processes toward attitudes, decisions, and ways of acting in favor of or against education and learning.
Studies analyzing motivation and outcomes of adult learning and education (ALE – Adult Learning and Education) among non-traditional learners are mainly based on the educational and work experiences of those who participate in education. For example, these include studies analyzing motivational factors for learning and education among low-skilled employees (job-related learning) (e.g., Tikkanen, Nissinen, 2018; Brown, Bimrose, 2018; Mariager-Anderson, Cort, Thomsen 2016), and studies examining education conditions and processes for marginalized adults involved in second-chance education (external form of lower-level vocational education in adults—e.g., Pirohová, Lukáč, Lukáčová, 2019). Dæhlen and Ure (2009) conducted a research study analyzing the motivation of low-skilled adults for formal adult education. The target group were adults with low or no education who were involved in education. They examined how adults’ motivation to enter formal education was influenced by socio-cultural and economic characteristics (e.g., educational level, age, economic status, gender). Adults with the lowest level of education differed from others in the sample mainly in that they more often said they had been forced to enter education. Similarly, in our study (Pirohová, Lukáč, Lukáčová, 2019), we encountered statements by some participants that they attended training because the labor office offered it under threat of being removed from the registry for non-cooperation. It is therefore unsurprising that education into which low-skilled participants are brought under threat of punishment, or with an appeal to moral and social duty, cannot produce the desired effects. To motivate and involve low-skilled and uneducated adults, targeted and individualized tools are needed that take into account their individual and social characteristics, as well as local labor market opportunities. For this group, given their life strategies, it is hard to expect mobility for work in more distant areas (they more often have large families, traditional role divisions in the family, fear of the unfamiliar world and strangers, and so on).
A stimulating study was also published by Mariager-Anderson, Cort, and Thomsen (2016), who examined the motivation of low-skilled workers through narrative analyses of learning and education. They focused on the group of people generally known not to be motivated for development through learning and education, the group for which statistics show the lowest adult education participation rate (see, for example, international measurements AES, LFS). They wanted to understand what narratives are active among low-skilled workers when it comes to learning, work, and other activities during working life. The study authors found that the problem among employed low-skilled people is not a lack of motivation, but its orientation toward other aspects of their lives, particularly those related to work and family life. This means, among other things, that the discourse on unwillingness to learn among low-skilled and uneducated people can be misleading because it does not reveal their activity in other areas and creates or reinforces an image of them as incapable and passive. The authors also pointed out that motivation is not consistent and changes throughout life. In Piroháová, Lukáč, and Lukáčová’s (2019) study, this appeared in participants’ reflections on their own earlier decisions, which consistently portrayed themselves in younger years (when deciding whether to continue study after primary school) as insufficiently mature and even foolish, which prevented them from sufficiently understanding the consequences of their decisions.
In the professional discussion on adult motivation for education, there is also an approach based on understanding motivation as a phenomenon, a problem shaped by the interaction of public policy and individual concepts and decisions (individual agency) (Mariager-Anderson, Cort, Thomsen, 2016). A socio-constructivist view enables us to see low or no motivation for education not only as an individual sign of lack of interest but also as a product of stigmatizing a group of people with low educational attainment, thereby continuously reproducing their own capital in a form that does not allow them to meet the expectations of the education system and labor market. Therefore, the problem of low motivation and low educational attainment, linked to the persistence of poverty and social exclusion, always carries both an individual and a social and political narrative. This duality is also present in both theoretical and practical discussions of motivation. Nuances are overlooked, and diverse possibilities for achieving life goals via different paths are ignored—paths that do not always conform to the idea of an inseparable link between education and employment. Windisch (2015), in a review, states that the low level of basic skills among adults is a complex political issue that has neither direct causes nor direct solutions, and successful interventions are relatively uncommon. This means that in practice there is no tested or universal recipe for how to motivate and engage adults with little or no education into processes of building basic literacy or obtaining a level of attainment.
Regarding adults whose highest education is at most primary school (most often adults with low basic literacy), less attention is paid to issues of their motivation. This may be due to their general lack of engagement in education, or that they are engaged more under pressure than from personal conviction. From a critical emancipatory pedagogy perspective, these are adults who have no voice in society, who are enclosed in a culture of silence (Freire, 2000), accepting existing social inequalities as given and reinforced by schooling according to the assumptions and needs of the dominant social class. In educational policy they are most often overlooked, because in public discourse they are linked to reluctance and incapacity to learn. A well-known source of disproportion and persistent social inequality in adult education is, among other factors, the “Matthew effect.” It is manifested in that those who attend adult education most are people who are already educated and least those who need it most. The distribution of power in society and attempts to preserve the status quo are also reflected in the adult education system. Kilpi-Jakonen et al. (2015) conclude their study, among other findings, that it is fairly clear that today almost no country is truly capable of reducing social inequalities through adult education. And so, although adult education has the potential to reduce social inequality by enabling disadvantaged individuals to gain new skills and thus improve their chances in the labor market, it simultaneously strengthens the “cumulative advantage” of highly qualified people who have easier access to adult education. Adult education therefore performs both a social inclusion and a social exclusion function, depending on participant characteristics and national approaches to debarriering adult education. The higher an adult learner’s educational status (in relation to work position and economic capital), the more motivated, determined, and able they are to overcome time, physical, and financial barriers associated with participation in education.
I Don’t Know, I Don’t Understand, I Can’t Manage – On the Basic Obstacles and Barriers in Adult Education for Low-Skilled Adults
Many factors of both an individual and structural nature contribute to the overall low rate of participation of low-skilled adults in adult education. Data on the participation rate of adults with primary or no education can be drawn from Eurostat statistics (AES – Adult Education Survey, LFS – Labour Force Survey). Based on LFS methodology, in Slovakia in 2019, over the last 4 weeks (which is how the question is framed in the questionnaire), 3.6% of adults aged 25 to 64 were in education (Participation rate in education and training (last 4 weeks) by sex and age, 2019). Data on the share of people with low or no level of education (ISCED 0–2) are missing for Slovakia. Thus, in 2019 Slovakia was among the six countries with the lowest adult education participation rate among EU member states (followed by Croatia, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, and Romania). More favorable data come from AES, available for 2016, where a figure of 46.1% of adults aged 25 to 64 was given (Participation rate in education and training by sex, 2016). In this case, the question was whether an adult had participated in formal as well as informal education in the last 12 months. In addition to differing methodologies and data collection frequencies, an important difference between the two data sets is that AES methodology includes “learning at work,” which LFS does not take into account. The share of adults who entered formal or informal education in the last 12 months and had education at ISCED level 0–2 (lower secondary education or incomplete primary school) was 14.2% in 2007, while data for Slovakia in 2016 are missing. By comparison, in Nordic countries, the participation rate of low-skilled adults in adult education ranges from 31 to 45%.
Dovaľová (2014), among other things, analyzes the amount of financial resources invested in education by low-skilled individuals. In Slovakia, these investments were about 18 times lower than in Denmark; even in neighboring countries (Hungary, Poland), low-skilled people spent roughly four times more on developing their skills in education than in Slovakia. This may be one of the main reasons why, according to Eurostat statistics, financial barriers are cited by low-skilled adults as the main reason for not participating in further education. On the other hand, adults already studying in second-chance education most often report concerns linked to childcare, lack of motivation, weak school performance, fear of failure, and circumstances connected to their work obligations (Räis et al., 2014).
When identifying causes of low adult participation in education, specifically of adults with low or no level of education, it is necessary to take into account basic characteristics of the adult learner, especially when it concerns adults with low or absent educational attainment. We must also keep in view technological and economic development dynamics that influence demands on the qualification profile of the workforce. The OECD Skills Outlook study (2013) pointed to a widening gap between the low-educated (in the study, “low-educated” included adults with lower than secondary vocational education) and people with secondary and higher education in access to information. Skill demands for adults are moving toward increasingly sophisticated tasks, and performance demands require analytical and communication skills. Adults with low levels of skills cannot keep up in intensifying labor market competition; they are constrained in access to basic services (for example, continuing digitalization of state and public administration services), better-paid jobs, and opportunities to participate in education that is key to developing skills in work, personal, and social life. The set of life situations in which uneducated and low-educated people are constrained could be expanded to many other key areas where deficits in low-skilled adults’ abilities can be identified (child care and care for family members, civic participation, managing finances and property, and many others). Among the determinants that co-produce barriers and obstacles to participation and persistence in education are:
- belonging to a lower social class,
- missing family support (with assumed low educational value),
- intergenerational unemployment, and
- non-participation or failure in compulsory education.
Adults rarely incline toward learning unless it brings real meaning for their life goals; they assume as much responsibility for learning as they personally wish, and ultimately adults’ learning is guided by the experiences and resources they have (Illeris, 2010; Machalová, 2017). Therefore, in seeking answers to why exactly those who need it most participate least in adult education (formal or informal), it is necessary to keep both individual educational biographies and structural factors relatively independent of the individual in view. A suitable starting point for considering motivation for education (raising educational level) can also be classic studies on the nature of obstacles and barriers faced by low-skilled and uneducated adults (Cross, 1981, Rubenson, 2010, etc.). In the structure of motivation for education, a complex set of causes appears in the final reasoning and action of adults regarding education and learning. Cross (1981) developed a classification of participation barriers among marginalized adult learners:
- dispositional (psychological): fear, low self-confidence, depression, frustration, fatalism,
- situational: financial problems, lack of resources for everyday living, life strategies focused on immediate satisfaction of material needs, prioritization of family and parental duties over self-development,
- institutional: lack of educational opportunities, insufficiently flexible scheduling, strict admission requirements, location of training/course, inadequacy of educational content, methods, formats, didactic tools, insufficient support, and more.
One of the most significant barriers to access and success in education is low basic skill levels (literacy and numeracy) (Volkoff et al., 2008), and in our context, also low mastery of the Slovak language, i.e., a limited language code (Pirohová, 2019). These phenomena then translate into low participation of adults with these characteristics in education. People with low education and basic skills often do not perceive education as something that could help improve their situation. Their own experiences, family history, and the experiences of members of their own communities, as well as the broader societal situation characterized by persistent discrimination, lead them to this conviction. Data from the AES survey in 2016 show that more than 78% of Europeans (all education levels), who did not participate in education, did not want to; in Slovakia this was as high as 85.1%. The most common reason was that they considered education unnecessary. Among the part of the population that would like to study, the most frequent reasons for non-participation were family reasons (18.9%) and financial reasons (17.9%). These findings contradict the prevailing view that adults see time and place of education as the main reasons for non-participation. The reasons stated by those who do not want to study are formulated so generally that they do not reveal concrete reasons why adults do not want to learn. For adults with the lowest educational level (ISCED 0–2: incomplete or completed primary education) in Slovakia who expressed interest in learning, no data are available. From Eurostat AES data, it follows that barriers perceived by adults in European countries are mainly of an individual nature. Ricardo et al. (2015) provided interesting findings by comparing data between Hungary, Italy, Portugal, and India. Their conclusions suggest that reasons for non-participation are situated more individually in the European context, while in India they are more contextual. The authors therefore suggest that India’s situation could enrich the European discussion on adult education participation by placing stronger emphasis on social context in shaping adults’ motivation to learn.
Insufficiently Inclusive Conditions for Adult Education
Theoretical studies analyzing social inequalities in adult education in recent years have examined basic trends in adult education and learning. Rubenson (2018) pointed to two key processes significantly affecting adult education policy. The first is the increasing participation rate in adult education, strongly supported by increasingly intensive employer investment in training their employees (job-related learning). National and international studies in this field also long-term indicate another trend: persistent and growing inequalities in participation and access to adult education, closely linked to different national social and educational policies and varying welfare-state levels. A study of educational trajectories and social mobility of British men and women in Bukodi’s study (2017) concluded that qualifications gained through lifelong learning primarily serve to maintain, rather than reduce, inequalities tied to social origin in Britain. There is also ample evidence that prior learning significantly affects chances of obtaining qualification in adulthood (e.g., Jenkins et al., 2003; Blanden et al., 2010).
Existing approaches to raising basic skills are usually contextualized in two positions—learning in the workplace (work-life based learning) and academic school-based learning. Both approaches have their advantages; each can attract and motivate people and enable personal growth, increase educational attainment, literacy levels, develop skills, etc. Learning processes also occur in family and community contexts. Basic skills connected to work-skill development are more likely to be retained in the long run through use in employment. The same applies to basic skills acquired in school/non-school educational systems because they are often linked to practical requirements of everyday life outside work, such as financial literacy, household care, civic competences, and so on. Some adults may benefit more from school-based education, but for others it may reawaken unpleasant memories of unsuccessful early education in childhood and youth. Many adults may prefer learning at home, intergenerational learning (Brooks et al., 2008), or learning directly during work. All the pathways point to acquiring or increasing basic skills, but it is essential to offer and design these paths in differentiated ways according to adults’ individual capacities and needs.
Adults with low basic skills, especially in our context adult members of marginalized Roma communities, are not able to sufficiently recognize deficiencies in their own skills, and even when they are able to (often under the influence of counseling and educational programs), they still face individual and structural barriers that prevent them from entering educational programs (e.g., Lukáč, 2018). For motivating low-skilled adults, access to information and available professional counseling (social andragogical counseling) is therefore key. Such services could be expected from community center networks, but these primarily focus on leisure activities for children and youth from socially disadvantageous environments. “Useful information and counseling can support motivation,” Windisch (2015) also states; in a review study he also cites examples of institutional and process-oriented services for low-skilled adults in countries such as Austria and Germany. Hamilton and Wilson (2005, in: Windisch, 2015) emphasize the importance of social networks in communities where education proves to be an effective tool for improving individuals’ lives. Concrete examples of direct links between learning and work (including gaining employment) are crucial for motivating marginalized people. We confirm this with an example from the municipality of Varhaňovce, where a positive shift occurred in the motivation of low-skilled adults to engage in second-chance education (lower secondary vocational education provided directly in the community at a local secondary school), because many female graduates manage to find work in nearby Košice. Similarly, Brown and Bimrose (2017) uncovered in their study the role of socially significant persons in the process of motivating adults to learn. Personal contact can support a person’s decision and willingness to engage in learning and education. In the cited study, teachers and lecturers in adult education, parents, and employed people with whom adults identified were the most influential among inspiring persons. We also highlighted the importance of socially significant people in our own study, where we identified the master craftsperson as a key person both in the decision-making process before entering education and during its implementation (Pirohová, Lukáč, Lukáčová, 2019).
Access to raising basic skills and educational level among adults with low or no education is not systematic in Slovakia and is instead shaped by partial and time-limited activities supported by structural funds. A current project worth mentioning is BLUESS, whose main goal is to respond to the missing systematic approach by creating a development plan for adults’ basic skills in Slovakia. The project supports coordinated approaches and strategy in assessing and developing basic skills in Slovakia. A project addressing the lack of opportunities to complete education for those who left the education system early was implemented from 2018 under the title “Public Administration actively supporting second-chance education.” Its aim was to create and establish a suitable model enabling unemployed and low-educated Roma men and women aged 16–35 to obtain or complete lower secondary and/or full secondary education and thereby increase their chances of active participation in the labor market. Unfortunately, these project activities do not currently supplement a system of adult education focused on building basic skills and obtaining educational attainment, but they do at least partially compensate for it, because a coordinated approach to this specific group of adults with low skill levels and missing education does not exist in Slovakia.
Conclusion
The processes of recognizing individual potential and possibilities for development, motivating adults to enter educational activities, and ways of retaining participation in education should be based on a lifelong learning concept. Key is learning, both planned and unplanned, in the workplace and outside it, as well as the mechanism of transition from unemployment to employment and between jobs (Brown, Bimrose, 2017), and of course in the family and community to which the adult belongs. Providing targeted interventions, including tailored participation incentives and program proposals suitable for each sub-group, and a well-trained teaching/teaching staff represent a particular challenge for interventions in adults’ basic skills (Windisch, 2015).
The problem of insufficient motivation for education among low-skilled people is often understood from the position of their individual capital, which significantly reduces the possibility of applying effective approaches to increasing their motivation and participation in education. It is clear that increasing motivation and participation in adult education is not possible without changing the approach of current educational and social policies. It is necessary to individually assess adults’ possibilities and needs, raise awareness, make positive examples and role models visible, provide professional counseling, and offer accessible andragogically and economically effective educational programs for all interested people in the most suitable location and form for adults themselves.
A useful starting point for research activities, planning, and shaping regional and national policies as well as targeted local interventions could be the WPR (‘What’s the Problem Represented to be?’) approach developed by Bacchi (2012). It is based on the premise that what someone identifies as something that needs to be done also contains their interpretation of where the problem lies and what should be done about it. This means that public policies and policy proposals also include implicit statements about what is considered a “problem.” It is therefore important to analyze policies with a critical eye as to how and why problems are presented, and to separate their framing of the problem from real problems embedded in reality. Bacchi (2012) formulates six key questions that should be asked when searching for the essence of a problem and formulating proposals for change. We will attempt to apply these to the problem we analyzed:
- What problem is represented in a specific policy or policy proposal? It is necessary to analyze how motivation of low-skilled and marginalized people is discussed in existing policies (education, social).
- What assumptions produce such representation of the problem? What is the argument for and support of insufficient motivation? What is taken for granted when it is presented that marginalized people with low or no education lack motivation? What do we base conclusions on regarding low or no motivation to learn?
- How did this representation of the problem come about? When, by whom, and under what circumstances is motivation considered a problem? Who and why in public policy defined the problem of motivation? What was it meant to accomplish? We combined this point with the sixth question posed by Bacchi: “How and where did the representation of the problem emerge, spread, and get defended?”
- What remains unproblematic? Where are the “silences”? Can the problem be thought about differently? It is necessary to name what is missing from representations of low motivation in public discourse. What is really behind low motivation? For example, how available is information about opportunities to increase educational attainment in a specific locality for a specific group of people? What are the real obstacles and what are the real possibilities for overcoming them? Could it not, for example, be a key problem that education is not connected to real adult needs and possibilities of use in the locality where they live?
- What effects are associated with this representation of the problem? What does defining marginalized low-skilled adults as people who lack motivation generate? What subsequent measures are implemented on the basis of this postulate? Are few opportunities offered for their education because it is assumed they do not want to study?
- Part of this question we separated from its full wording, and part of it we moved to point four. The remaining question is: how should and how could the representation of the problem be challenged, disrupted, or replaced? It is important to summarize previous studies and projects in the area of motivation and their recommendations for public policy. It then becomes possible to analyze the extent and way these recommendations really disrupt public discourse on motivation among marginalized low-skilled adults. Within the Bacchi framework, we also allow questions concerning who, why, and in what context formulates practice recommendations for necessary changes in public policy (different opinions and arguments used by schools, local authorities, think tanks, etc.).
In the conclusion itself, we align with Ricardo et al.’s (2015) claim about possibilities for reducing reasons for non-participation in education. A professional approach and support based on real (current and anticipated) needs of people with low or no educational attainment should be central in this process. Public policies need to place greater emphasis on the availability of adult education for those who do not participate, especially those educationally disadvantaged. Expanding availability is necessarily linked to higher levels of awareness and development of basic skills. Involving and successfully retaining adults in education depends on the local availability of education and its relevance. Educational programs for low-skilled adults must meet their educational needs and interests; flexibility in education is key to the relevance of adult education.
Author: PhDr. Marek Lukáč, PhD. The author works as a senior assistant at the Department of Andragogy at Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Prešov. In addition to long-standing pedagogical practice, he also works as an instructor in continuing education courses. His publication activity focuses on social aspects of adult education, especially education for adults of Roma ethnicity. He is the author and co-author of four scientific monographs and dozens of scientific and professional studies both in Slovakia and internationally.
This contribution was created as part of the APVV-18-0018 project, Teaching in second-chance schools from the perspective of the teacher and the adult learner.
List of Bibliographic References
BACCHI, Carol. 2012. Introducing the ‘What's the Problem Represented to be?’ approach. In: BLETSAS, Angelique – BEASLEY, Chris, eds. Engaging with Carol Bacchi: Strategic Interventions and Exchanges. Adelaide : The University of Adelaide Press, 2012. ISBN 978-0-9871718-6-3, pp. 21-24.
BLANDEN, J., et al. 2010. Measuring the returns to life-long learning. In: Economics of Education Review. ISSN 0272-7757, 2010, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 501-514.
BROOKS, Greg et al. 2008. Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy: a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally [online]. Hyderabad : CfBT Education Trust, 2008. 153 p. ISBN 978-0-86160-037-3. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267683370_Effective_and_inclusive_practices_in_family_literacy_language_and_numeracy_a_review_of_programmes_and_practice_in_the_UK_and_internationally
BROWN, Alan – BIMROSE, Jenny. 2018. Drivers of learning for the low skilled. In International Journal of Lifelong Education. ISSN 1464-519X, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 151-167. DOI:10.1080/02601370.2017.1378934
BUKODI, Erzsébet. 2017. Cumulative inequalities over the life-course: Life-long learning and social mobility in Britain. In: Journal of Social Policy. ISSN 1469-7823, 2017, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 367-404. DOI:10.1017/S0047279416000635
CROSS, K. Patricia. 1981. Adults as learners: Increasing participation and facilitating learning. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass. 300 p.
DÆHLEN, Marianne – URE, Odd Bjørn. 2009. Low-skilled adults in formal continuing education: Does their motivation differ from other learners? In: International Journal of Lifelong Education. ISSN 1464-519X, 2009, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 661-674. DOI: 10.1080/02601370903189948.
DOVAĽOVÁ, Gabriela. 2014. Ďalšie vzdelávanie nízkokvalifikovaných pracovných síl. In: KOŠTA, Ján a kol. Aktuálne problémy (ne)zamestnanosti nízkokvalifikovaných pracovných síl [online]. Bratislava : Ekonomický ústav SAV, pp. 80-85. [cited 2020-10-01]. ISBN 978-80-89608-16-4. Available online: http://www.ekonom.sav.sk/uploads/journals/287_monografia_jan_kosta_a_kolektiv.pdf
FREIRE, Paolo. 2000. Pedagogy of the oppresed. 30th Anniversary Edition. New York : Continuum. 183 p. ISBN 978-08-264-8.
HAMILTON, Mary – WILSON, Anita, eds. 2005. New Ways of Engaging New Learners: Lessons from Round One of the Practitioner-led Research Initiative. London : NRDC, 110 p. In: WINDISCH, Hendrickje Catriona. 2015. “Adults with low literacy and numeracyskills: A literature review on policy intervention”. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 123 [online]. Paris : OECD Publishing, 2015, p. 10. [cited 2020-09-08]. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrxnjdd3r5k-en
ILLERIS, Knud. 2003. Adult education as experienced by the learners. In: International Journal of Lifelong Education. ISSN 1464-519X, 2003, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 13-23. DOI: 10.1080/02601370304827
JENKINS, Andrew et al. 2003. The determinants and labour market effects of lifelong learning. In: Applied Economics [online]. ISSN 1466-4283, 2003, vol. 35, no. 16, pp. 1711-1721. [cited 2020-11-01]. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/0003684032000155445
KILPI-JAKONEN, Elina – VONO DE VILHENA, Daniela – BLOSSFELD, Hans-Peter. 2015. Adult learning and social inequalities: Processes of equalisation or cumulative disadvantage? In: International Review of Education – Journal of Lifelong Learning [online]. ISSN 0020-8566, 2015, vol. 61, pp. 529–546. [cited 2020-09-08]. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-015-9498-5
LONDON, Jack. 1963. Attitudes Toward Adult Education by Social Class. In Adult Education Quarterly. ISSN 1552-3047, 1963, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 226-233.
LUKÁČ, Marek. 2018. Marginalizovaní dospelí ako učiaci sa. In: KRYSTOŇ, Miroslav, ed. Andragogické štúdie. Banská Bystrica : Belianum, 2018. ISBN 978-80-557-1500-1, pp. 323-337.
MACHALOVÁ, Mária. 2017. Psychológia a andragogika na pomoc dospelému človeku. In: Prohuman [online], 8.2.2017. Available online: https://www.prohuman.sk/psychologia/psychologia-a-andragogika-na-pomoc-dospelému-cloveku
MARIAGER-ANDERSON, Kristina – CORT, Pia – THOMSEN, Ria. 2016. ‘In reality, i motivate myself!’. ‘Low-skilled’ workers’ motivation: between individual and societal narratives. In: British Journal of Guidance & Counselling. ISSN 1469-3534, 2016, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 171-184. DOI: 10.1080/03069885.2016.1145191
Memorandum o celoživotnom vzdelávaní sa [online]. 2000. Brusel : Európska komisia [cited 2020-10-10]. Available online https://www.minedu.sk/data/files/1e5ba3ab0effad181acabe88d8883ec5
OECD Skills Outlook 2013. First results from the survey of adult skills [online]. 2013. Paris : OECD Publishing. [cited 2020-09-22]. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204256-en
Participation rate in education and training (last 4 weeks) by sex and age [online]. 2019. Luxembourg : Eurostat [cited 2020-10-01]. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/trng_lfse_01/default/table?lang=en
Participation rate in education and training by sex [online]. 2016. Luxembourg : Eurostat [cited 2020-10-01]. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/trng_aes_100/default/table?lang=en
PIROHOVÁ, Ivana – LUKÁČ, Marek – LUKÁČOVÁ, Silvia. 2019. Vzdelávanie dospelých Rómov z marginalizovaných rómskych komunít. Prešov : Vydavateľstvo Prešovskej univerzity v Prešove, 2019. 187 p. ISBN 978-80-555-2318-7.
PIROHOVÁ, Ivana. 2019. Vzdelávateľ dospelých a jazykový kód vo vzdelávaní dospelých Rómov z marginalizovaných komunít. In: MAYER, Katarína, ed. Teória a prax edukácie dospelých : andragogické vedecké štúdiu [online]. Prešov : Prešovská univerzita v Prešove, pp. 125-135. [cited 2020-10-06]. ISBN 978-80-555-2218-0. Available online: http://www.pulib.sk/web/kniznica/elpub/dokument/Mayer2
RÄIS, Mari Liis et al. 2014. Supporting Adults without Secondary Education in Re-turning to Formal Education. Research report [online]. Tallinn : Estonian Cent-ter for Applied Research. 116 p. [cited 2019-09-15]. Available online: https://centar.ee/uus/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Returning-to-formal-education-Report-in-English.pdf
RICARDO, Rute et al. 2015. Participation and non-participation in adult education and learning. A comparative study between Portugal, Italy, Hungary and India. In: EGETENMEYER, Regina, ed. Adult Education and Lifelong Learning in Europe and Beyond [online]. Bern: Peter Lang D., pp. 149-168. [cited 2020-10-31]. ISBN 978-3-653-95101-1. Available online: https://www.peterlang.com/view/title/18527
RUBENSON, Kjell. 2010. Barriers to Participation in Adult Education. In: RUBENSON, Kjell, ed. Adult Learning and Education [online]. Vancouver : University of British Columbia, pp. 216-221 [cited 2019-08-20]. ISBN 978-012381-489-0. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/32372353/Kjell_Rubenson_Adult_Learning_and_Education_BookFi
RUBENSON, Kjell. 2018. Conceptualizing Participation in Adult Learning and Education: Equity Issues. In: MILANA, Marcella et al., eds. The Palgrave International Handbook on Adult and Lifelong Education and Learning [online]. London : Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 337-357. [cited 2020-10-12]. ISBN 978-1-137-55783-4. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55783-4_18
SISSEL, Peggy A. – HANSMAN, Catherine A. – KASWORM, Carol E. 2001. The politics of neglect: Adult learners in higher education. In: New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. ISSN 1536-0717, 2001, autumn, issue 91, pp. 17-27.
TIKKANEN, Tarja – NISSINEN, Kari. 2018. Drivers of job-related learning among low-educated employees in the Nordic countries. In International Journal of Lifelong Education. ISSN 1464-519X, 2018, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 615-632. DOI: 10.1080/02601370.2018.1554720.
VOLKOFF, Veronica et al. 2008. Impact of TAFE inclusiveness strategies. Adelaide : NCVER, 2008. 48 p. ISBN 978-1-921412-25-7.
WINDISCH, Hendrickje Catriona. 2015. “Adults with low literacy and numeracyskills: A literature review on policy intervention”. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 123 [online]. Paris : OECD Publishing, 2015. 125 p. [cited 2020-09-08]. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrxnjdd3r5k-en
i In this study we use the term “low-skilled” for adults who do not attain higher than lower secondary vocational education (they have incomplete primary education, completed primary education, or lower secondary vocational education as their highest completed level). These are people with low educational attainment; this wording is awkward for the flow of the text. We are aware, however, that low educational attainment does not always mean low skill level. Compared to our operationalization based strictly on education level, one may also encounter a more flexible definition of low-skilled adults, for example in Dovaľová (2014), which includes people with low income even if they have higher formal education. ii We use the term “non-traditional” as an umbrella term for adults whose social, economic, and psychological characteristics differ from usual learners. Adults are generally considered non-traditional students in formal education. Adult learners face greater oversight, prejudice, or unequal opportunities in education than other groups of learners—at the level of politics, in program design (curriculum), in financial support (Sissel, Hansman, Kasworm, 2001). This concept is suitable to work with in second-chance education. A brief review article on the phenomenon of marginalization in adult education is presented by Lukáč (2018).