Captivating Lifelong Learners in the Third Age

Abstract

The prevalence of learning providers for third agers continues to expand alongside the growth of the older adult population, yet there remains little empirical evidence on what types of learning experiences are most desired by lifelong learners. This article examines the effects that different learning topics have on attendance at classes hosted by a university-based lifelong learning institute, asking, Which learning topics draw enrollment in a lifelong learning program? Registration data were collected from 7,332 attendees of 290 learning experiences held over four semesters; class topics were coded and analyzed using a multivariate regression procedure. Results indicate that lifelong learners are more interested in classes concerning global issues, religion/philosophy, and social issues focusing on particular groups and individuals. The results remain significant after accounting for structural arrangements such as class time, day of the week, number of sessions, and location. Implications for enhancing lifelong learning experiences and programs are discussed.

Keywords

lifelong learning third age older adults positive aging adult learners adult education

Introduction

What topics captivate us? To this day, individuals and institutions of lifelong learning have long sought the answer to this question. In fact, the topics we desire to learn about may change across our lifespans. Philosophically, lifelong learning can act as a mechanism for self- and community-betterment and psychological growth, which justifies the aforementioned question (Boulton-Lewis, Buys, & Lovie-Kitchin, 2006). From an economic standpoint, answering this question helps provide insights on what learning experiences best meet the demands and interests of adults in the third age—persons 50 years and older in this study (Boulton-Lewis, 2010). Recently, John (2011) noted that issues that affect the recruitment and retention of lifelong learners should be a primary concern of adult education providers, because they must understand those issues to build trust, solidarity, and social capital in their communities.

Especially now that the number of learning providers for third agers continues to expand alongside the growth of the older adult population, this study follows suit as the previous question continues to be asked (Formosa, 2014; Radcliffe, 1985). This study assesses the influence of course topics on enrollment in a lifelong learning program, while also accounting for how the program is structurally arranged (i.e., time of day, day of the week, number of sessions, or location). Through this effort, light is shed on the kinds of topics that older adults—adults in the third age—want to learn about.

This article is grounded in a positive and holistic approach to lifelong learning in the third age. Fisher (1998) has noted that much of the research on lifelong learning in the third age has taken a reductionist approach. Scientific explorations of the third age experience appear overtly expert-led rather than allowing the wholeness and complexities of the third age to emerge from voices of third agers themselves. This may be because much of the research has been secluded within social scientific milieus, such as education, gerontology, educational gerontology, and gerontological education (Chen, Kim, Moon, & Merriam, 2008; Findsen, 2002). In contrast, this article aims to celebrate the diversity and uniqueness of the third age population and literature.

A sole focus on the limitations of older adults and their situational contexts (i.e., retired, physically older) has been termed the misery perspective (see Tornstam, 2011, p. 166) and has spurred a research direction that is focused on age-related problems such as diseases and overall decline in health. This deficit-based perspective focused solely on the fulfillment of physiological and social needs has also overflowed into research on lifelong learning (Boulton-Lewis, 2010; Kerschner & Pegues, 1998). But, there lies hope and merit in more positive approaches to the third age and lifelong learning. Tornstam (2011) writes, “human aging includes a potential to mature into a new outlook on and understanding of life” (p. 166). Researchers like Boulton-Lewis (2010) have begun to focus on third agers’ potential for new knowledge acquisition and fulfillment of learning needs, rather than focusing solely on how can they meet their physiological and social needs associated with aging.

The Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at Arizona State University, which provided its registration data for analysis in this study, reflects an alternative to the misery perspective in its approach to lifelong learning for those in the third age. Its mission is both to provide university quality learning experiences and to build a strong community of learners. The Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at Arizona State University staff operate under the belief that third agers can and want to be in charge of their own learning experiences. They want to choose what to learn, how to learn, with whom to learn, what goals to set for learning, how to evaluate their goals for learning, and what value they get from learning.

Who Are the Third Agers?

In defense of the positive approach to older adulthood, researchers and practitioners alike have responded with innovative studies to counter or offer alternative interpretations of findings from misery-perspective research. Among them, Peter Laslett (1989) noted in his work, A Fresh Map of Life, that new approaches as opposed to traditional education models were needed to help engage older adults in lifelong learning experiences. In kind, he felt that these new approaches could only succeed after our conceptualizations of age were rethought and reconstructed. He claimed that further research on the intersections of education and older adults was also crucial to the success of lifelong learning experiences for older adults.

Laslett (1989) drew on Erik Erikson’s (1950, 1968) work to construct a four-phase model of the human lifespan, which, though not explicitly emphasized, was a more positive approach to aging because of its focus on capacity rather than deficiency. The first age defines an era of early socialization where children and adolescents are dependent on their parents or other caring persons. This is the time of preparation for adulthood. The second age is the time of working adulthood. Individuals in the second age take on social and job responsibilities and establish lives independent from their previous caretakers; this era also consists of attempts and success at individual achievement. The third age is an era freer of constraints such as child rearing and full-time employment, which are often found in the second age. The third age is a time of fuller autonomy. Individuals have the opportunity to further build on their years of knowledge and experience and enhance their individual capacities. It is also seen as an era focused on fulfillment. Finally, the fourth age refers to the end or completion of life, where an individual is, once again, dependent on others for care and later dies; this age is usually short (see also Findsen, 2002, 2006; Glendenning, 2001).

The different ages are interwoven. For example, Radcliffe (1984) writes, “A good third age can minimize the adjustments and deficits, and indeed the duration of the fourth age” (p. 62). Slowey (2008) also cautions that the providers of learning opportunities should not neglect those in the fourth age. In fact, this study’s lifelong learning program had a 98-year-old learner who enrolled in and attended its courses.

Furthermore, the age boundaries of each phase differ among researchers. Laslett’s (1989) third age stage was originally intended to encompass persons older than 60 or 65 years, but others have extended it to those older than 50 years (e.g., Boulton-Lewis, 2010; Glendenning, 2001). In recent writings, the third age is attributed to age spans inclusive of 80 years of age or later (Boulton-Lewis, 2010). Age appears not to be the defining criteria for the third age; thus, the third age may be better defined not by crisis (like Erikson, 1950, 1968) or policy (like AARP, n.d.), but by the decision of a person to exist outside of the work activities and careers he or she was immersed in during the second age (see review by Glendenning, 2001).

Lifelong learning can increase the well-being of those in the third age (Jenkins, 2011). If the third age is a time “for the greatest achievement of humanistic ideals” (Findsen, 2002, p. 47), then lifelong learning may become the opportunity third agers desire or seek out. At the lifelong learning institute from where this research is derived, third agers have often said that they never knew that learning opportunities were available. This anecdotal evidence is supported by Arsenault and Anderson (1998) and Hebestreit (2009). These authors noted that awareness is imperative to initial involvement in learning experiences. All of this research supports the notion that lifelong learning is beneficial for third agers.

Why Learn in the Third Age?

Findsen (2002) wrote, “The question, which is often asked, is ‘What do older adults need education for?’ . . . it is important for educators to be able to respond proactively to this question” (p. 37). Lifelong learning provides third agers with meaning and purpose in their leisure and in their overall lives (Arsenault & Anderson, 1998; Laslett, 1989). Third agers choose from a wide array of learning opportunities because of their interests in and perceived benefits from the opportunities. The potential benefits of lifelong learning have been identified in a variety of nomenclatures for each individual. They include intrinsic satisfaction, enjoyment, self-confidence, coping abilities, social involvement, physical fitness, intellectual stimulation, self-knowledge, practical knowledge, nurturing and supportive communities, enhanced self-esteem, personal and spiritual renewal, meaning, and purpose (Arsenault & Anderson, 1998; Cross, 1992; Lamb & Brady, 2005; Timmermann, 1998; Tornstam, 2011; Yenerall, 2003).

Several researchers have discovered the paramount role of lifelong learning in helping individuals adjust to life transitions (Cross, 1992; Selman & Dampier, 1991; Timmermann, 1998). Ardelt (2000) suggests that learning can help third agers adjust to these transitions by helping them stay updated with technological and scientific advances and devices and helping them explore and fulfill learning goals that they may have desired to pursue earlier in life (Ardelt, 2000). Third agers want to learn for the sake of learning, itself (Yenerall, 2003); they want “to keep the mind active, use the brain, exercise the mind, stay mentally stimulated, grow, attain goals, constantly learn, never stop” (Boulton-Lewis et al., 2006, p. 279). Mental power and memory can also be improved from lifelong learning (Boulton-Lewis, 2010).

Third agers are motivated to learn because of the joy they find in learning itself; however, they engage in learning because they also get to socialize with others (Hafford-Letchfield, 2010; Morstain & Smart, 1974; Peterson, 1981). But social motives consistently come second to cognitive desires to learn (Findsen & McCullough, 2007; Kim & Merriam, 2004; Peterson, 1981). Third agers want to draw on others’ experiences and be able to share their own experiences (Hafford-Letchfield, 2010). Also, lifelong learning can lead to greater civic participation and engagement for social justice and quality of life improvement for older adults (Bennett & Wells, 2009; Gouthro, 2007; Hafford-Letchfield, 2010).

While learning in the third age (and overall) often appears to be a more intrinsically motivated experience, individuals can also be moved to learn by extrinsic factors (Albert & Dignam, 2010; Morstain & Smart, 1974); however, this article draws more on the intrinsic motives as they relate more to positive psychological approaches (see Sachau, 2007). Knowingly, lifelong learning programs, institutions, and researchers succeed by captivating and inspiring third agers to engage in learning for its benefits, but third agers enroll in learning programs largely based on what opportunities are offered.

What to Learn in the Third Age?

Third age learners expect their lifelong learning providers to offer a variety of topics (e.g., religion, history, or biology) in their learning experiences (Lamb & Brady, 2005; Yenerall, 2003); however, more research is still necessary to determine which topics are most valued by third age learners. The argument can be made that topics that are familiar or relevant to lifelong learners will be of interest to them (Duay & Bryan, 2008); yet, third age learners also want to explore new topics that they may have set aside during the earlier stages of their lives (Ardelt, 2000). Thus, the diversity of third age learners further amplifies their desires for a wide range of learning offerings.

Table 1 summarizes and synthesizes topics that have been offered in third age learning programs globally as noted throughout previous research on lifelong learning in the third age. It appears that learners not only want to learn about a large range of topics resembling academic disciplines but they also want to learn practical life and vocational skills (Boulton-Lewis, 2010). Third agers want to relate what they learn to contexts beyond their immediate community such as through the study of global issues (Sewpaul & Hölscher, 2004). Many learners want to learn about art and learn through artistic experiences as can be achieved through drawing, painting, theatre, and music (Boulton-Lewis, 2010; Cherem, 2010; Hafford-Letchfield, 2010; Jenkins, 2011; Yenerall, 2003). Third age learners may desire courses focused on memoir writing or autobiography to record their life stories and memories (Ardelt, 2000). They may also pursue courses where they can learn life skills regarding their changing bodies and lifestyles as they age (Boulton-Lewis, 2010; Jenkins, 2011; Leung, Lui, & Chi, 2005) and regarding changing technologies in society (Ardelt, 2000; Boulton-Lewis, 2010; Chou, Chi, & Leung, 2003; Johnson, 1995; Timmerman, 1998). However, it should be noted that life skills courses appear to align more closely with the misery perspective, a model focused on deficits and decrement, rather than more holistic and positive approaches. Additionally, there is some disagreement about the importance of life skills to third age learners (Boulton-Lewis, 2010).

Table 1.

Third Age Learning Topics.

Topics	Citation
Arts and hobbies (crafts, music, painting, drawing, theatre, and dance)	Boulton-Lewis, 2010; Cherem, 2010; Jenkins, 2011; Hafford-Letchfield, 2010; Yenerall, 2003
Autobiography and reflection	Ardelt, 2000
Computers, technological and scientific advances	Ardelt, 2000; Boulton-Lewis, 2010; Chou et al., 2003; Johnson, 1995; Timmerman, 1998
Current affairs, politics	Boulton-Lewis, 2010
Genealogy	Boulton-Lewis, 2010
Languages	Boulton-Lewis, 2010; Leung et al., 2005
Liberal arts, history, humanities, global studies, and cultures	Ardelt, 2000; Boulton-Lewis, 2010; Cherem, 2010; Johnson, 1995; Sewpaul & Hölscher, 2004; Yenerall, 2003
Life skills (health, exercise, safety, transportation)	Boulton-Lewis, 2010; Jenkins, 2011; Leung et al., 2005
Math and science	Johnson, 1995
New subjects, skills, and vocations (in general)	Boulton-Lewis, 2010
Social science	Johnson, 1995; Yenerall, 2003
Spirituality	Boulton-Lewis, 2010

Education providers for older adults often uncritically assume that they know what is best for their learners to learn (Findsen, 2006). This patronizing stance is harmful to learning for third agers (Findsen, 2006) because it neglects third agers’ course topic preferences and desires. An opposing, but equally problematic instance may occur when overly politicized and assertive third agers come forward and suggest that they, too, know what is best for their fellow learners to learn (Findsen, 2006). A better and likely more balanced and democratic approach for lifelong learning institutions is such that anchors its judgments of appropriate and desirable learning experiences in research conducted with not for the lifelong learners in a particular program. Findsen (2006) writes,

The essential message is that older adults . . . want to take greater charge of their own educational affairs. When the involvement of seniors in their own administration, programme planning, and pedagogical practices occurs, there is a strong tendency to avoid bureaucratic mechanisms that impede collective decision making. (p. 71)

Therefore, the co-construction of learning experiences through dialogue, research, and practice benefits from its strong grounding in autonomous and democratic research (Findsen, 2006).

This study describes one such approach. Registration data from the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute is used as a mechanism to better understand what topics captivate third agers, which in turn encourages them to enroll in a learning experience. In this study, registration data are understood as a form of preference expression. Third agers’ course topic preferences are evidenced in their enrollment decisions. Thus, the analysis of their patterns of enrollment gives a voice to their respective topical interests as they were freely chosen. Two important exceptions in enrollment decisions include third agers choices to enroll in a particular opportunity because friends or family are taking the course or because a favored instructor is teaching the course.

Overall, the purpose of this article is to understand what learning topics captivate learners as measured through enrollment, but what third agers like about those topics is not measured. What third agers like about those topics is an equally important quest. Within a lifelong learning program, an investigation of what third agers like is another democratic evaluation approach. Though it may seem intuitive, providers of lifelong learning experiences for third age learners need to offer learning experiences that will draw others to take part in them; lifelong learning experiences cannot be catered simply to the desires of one learner or one group of learners.

This study investigates what learning experiences draw enrollment in a university-based lifelong learning institute for third agers (persons 50 years of age and older) in the southwestern United States. New insights are provided regarding the lifelong learning preferences of third age learners, in general, through the exploration of the following research question: Which learning topics draw enrollment in a lifelong learning program? This is explored in two models; one examining just the learning topics, and another that includes the structural arrangements of the classes to ensure that learning topics are driving the attendance rather than factors such as class time and location. In addition to the practical information that this study provides providers of lifelong learning services, this article will discuss potential theoretical implications from these findings.

Method

The Lifelong Learning Institute

This study used registration data from the university-based institute drawn from four semesters of offerings (Fall 2012, Spring 2013, Fall 2013, and Spring 2014). Forty-seven learning experiences were offered in Fall 2012, 63 were offered in Spring 2013, 80 in Fall 2013, and 100 in Spring 2014. In total, the lifelong learning institute hosted 290 learning experiences across those four semesters. The offerings were held at seven locations throughout the metropolitan area; none were offered online.

This study’s lifelong learning institute is membership based. All members are required to pay a fee of $15 to join the institute. Nine of the 290 experiences were offered at no cost to members of the learning institute. The other 281 experiences were offered for a fee, which was not more than $10 per class session. No experience lasted more than six sessions, and no single session lasted for more than 2 hours at one time. The time of day, day of the week, and locations that courses were offered (dummy coded as 0 or 1) were included in the data set. For example, if a class was held only on Monday, then under the variable “Monday” it received a “1”; however, under the other days of week a “0” was entered for “Tuesday,” “Wednesday,” and so on. Table 2 outlines the overall structure of this study’s lifelong learning institute based on the 290 learning experiences it provided; these served as control and quasi-independent variables.

Table 2.

Structural Arrangements.

Structural arrangements	Count	Percentage
Number of sessions
One	104	35.9
Two	10	3.4
Three	4	1.4
Four	147	50.7
Five	16	5.5
Six	9	3.1
Time of day
Morning	133	45.9
Evening	157	54.1
Day of the week
Monday	52	17.9
Tuesday	76	26.2
Wednesday	73	25.2
Thursday	44	15.2
Friday	40	13.8
Saturday	10	3.4
Location
Western location	80	27.6
Downtown location one	12	4.1
Downtown location two	43	14.8
Eastern location one	67	23.1
Eastern location two	39	13.4
Eastern location three	42	14.5
Off-site^a	9	3.1

Off-site learning experiences were held at cultural centers, such as museums, theatres, and opera houses.

A total of 7,332 seats were registered for of the 290 learning experiences provided. In total, 493 individuals signed up as members for the Fall 2012 semester, 692 persons signed up as members for the Spring 2013 semester, 740 persons signed up as members for the Fall 2013 semester, and 936 persons signed up as members for the Spring 2014 semester. The average (mean) number of persons per learning experience was 25.283 (Mdn = 22, min = 5, max = 93, s = 13.704). The square root of the number of persons enrolled was used as the dependent variable in this study to correct for positive skew and leptokurtosis. This was deemed necessary as performing linear regression analysis on the initial numbers resulted in residuals that did not appear normally distributed.

Coding the Learning Offerings

A total of three subject matter experts (SMEs) who were associated with the institute and professionals in community development categorized the learning experiences to create this study’s quasi-independent variables. Three SMEs were deemed sufficient because this study’s codes were quite straightforward and greater consistency during the coding process was desired. These SMEs are also three of this article’s authors.

The 14 categories used for coding each learning experience offered were based on a two-step process. First, the SMEs familiarized themselves with common course topics used in third age learning research (i.e., Table 1). Second, the SMEs considered common divisions among the academic disciplines and fields in the traditional university and college settings (i.e., Krishnan, 2009), which the lifelong learning institute desires to mirror. Based on these first two processes, the SMEs created a coding process to categorize the courses by three sets of criteria. The institute’s course catalogs, which listed class titles and a paragraph description of the classes, were used by the SMEs to code the data.

The learning experiences (i.e., lectures and courses) were first categorized by the timeframe that they concerned such as past or present and future. For example, a class titled, “The Rhetoric of Powerful People: Political Moments History Will Never Forget,” would be categorized as past, but not categorized as present or future, unless it discussed, in its title and description, how that history still influences politics today. The learning experiences were next categorized based on the geographic scope they concerned: statewide, United States, or global issues. For example, a course on the Brazil’s tourism industry would be categorized as global only. Finally, the learning experiences were categorized based on nine possible course topic categories based on traditional academic disciplines and the previous review of the literature. Most categories should be self-explanatory to the reader; the only atypical choice made in coding was to separate the studies of social issues into a “macrosocial” code (which focused on large societal trends or social movements that occur on a global, national, or regional scale) and a “microsocial” code (which focused on specific individuals and/or small social groups during particular time periods); so topics such as political science or global economics would fall into macrosocial code, and personal biographies, psychology, or individual stories and struggles would fall into the microsocial code.

All of the 14 course topics were evaluated for each of the 290 learning experiences. The variables were dummy coded as 0 or 1; multiple categories for each variable could be selected by the SMEs. It was recognized early on during coding, that a single course might cover multiple categories; so, one course could be categorized as covering several different topic codes. For example, the course, “Sacred Deeds and Holiness Habits in Judaism,” would be coded both as past and present, as global, and both as religion/philosophy and macrosocial issues. The number of occurrences for each course topic of the 290 experiences offered is shown in Table 3. The presence of at least 30 cases per code justified the use of powerful statistical procedures.

Table 3.

Course Topics.

Course topic categories	Count	Percentage
Time categories
Present/future	101	34.8
Past	71	75.5
Spatial categories
Statewide	37	12.8
USA	78	26.9
Global	114	39.3
Topic categories
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics	62	21.4
Literature	48	16.6
Film/TV	30	10.3
Visual/performing arts	68	23.4
Music	36	12.4
Religion/philosophy	61	21.0
Macrosocial issues	144	49.7
Microsocial issues	56	19.3
Life skills	40	13.8

Stepwise linear regression (entering variables at α = .05) was used to analyze the registration data to discover the structures (i.e., physical location, time of day, or day of the week) and course topics that predicted (or deterred) enrollment in this study’s lifelong learning experiences. Stepwise regression was chosen as this study is largely exploratory and wished to test a large number of variables, and the stepwise regression reduced collinearity in the final models. Collinearity—the presence of a strong correlation between two or more predictor variables in a regression analysis—needed to be avoided, so that the unique contribution of each predictor could be better elucidated and explained in each of the regression models (Field, 2005). The first explored model included the course topics only. The second explored model included those same variables but added in the structural arrangements. These two generated models responded to the research question: Which learning topics draw enrollment in a lifelong learning program?

Methodological Rigor and Limitations

The three SMEs coded the learning experiences independently. They had an interrater agreement of 93.43%. In cases where a coding decision was not unanimous, the code was assigned based on the majority decision.

The study’s main methodological limitation concerned range restriction. Range restriction did affect the dependent variable (number of persons enrolled), such that some classes with lower enrollment numbers were cancelled and not held, which excluded them from the registration data. Future studies should note the enrollment numbers of classes that were cancelled based on low enrollment. Additionally, some classes were filled to room capacity, which possibly prevented enrollment in a class to reach its full potential. Future studies could also take into account waitlist numbers for full classes to deal with this issue. In this study, only 42 out 290 courses and lectures (14.448%) filled to their room capacities. Despite range restriction, the large sample size yielded significant results.

Results

The first model explored the course topics by themselves and predicted the (square rooted) number of persons enrolled. This model was significant, F(3, 286) = 14.285, p < .001, and explained 13.0% of the variance in the (square rooted) number of students enrolled in an individual course (adjusted R² = .121; see Table 4). Three course topics were significant. First, courses that pertained to life skills appeared to draw fewer persons to enroll (β = −.253, p < .001). Second, third agers appeared to enroll in courses that pertained to microsocial issues (β = .167, p < .01). Finally, courses that pertained to global or international issues appeared to draw more persons to enroll (β = .161, p < .01).

Table 4.

The Influence of Course Topics on Enrollment Numbers (Square Rooted) in the Lifelong Learning Program.

Course topics	B (SE)	β	t	Zero-order (r)	Semipartial (r)	Variance inflation factor
Constant	4.719 (0.104)	—	45.471***	—	—	—
Life skills	−0.944 (0.217)	−0.253	−4.349***	−0.268	−0.240	1.113
Microsocial issues	0.545 (0.184)	0.167	2.966**	0.141	0.164	1.046
Global	0.423 (0.152)	0.161	2.787**	0.241	0.154	1.093

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The second model explored accounted for the structural arrangements in addition to course topics. This model was significant, F(7, 282) = 11.129, p < .001, and explained 21.6% of the variance in the (square rooted) number of students enrolled in an individual course (adjusted R² = .197; see Table 5).

Table 5.

The Influence of Course Topics and Structural Arrangements on Enrollment Numbers (Square Rooted) in the Lifelong Learning Program.

Course topics and structural arrangements	B (SE)	β	t	Zero-order (r)	Semipartial (r)	Variance inflation factor
Constant	4.613 (0.112)	—	41.029***	—	—	—
Life skills	−0.669 (0.215)	−0.179	−3.111**	−0.268	−0.163	1.189
Microsocial issues	0.704 (0.182)	0.216	3.865***	0.141	0.205	1.120
Eastern location three	0.574 (0.198)	0.157	2.906**	0.189	0.153	1.048
Global	0.376 (0.155)	0.143	2.420*	0.241	0.130	1.243
Eastern location two	−0.593 (0.213)	−0.156	−2.780**	−0.199	−0.153	1.120
Saturday	−1.217 (0.398)	−0.173	−3.055**	−0.130	−0.161	1.145
Religion/philosophy	0.462 (0.184)	0.146	2.511*	0.132	0.130	1.202

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Seven predictor variables were significant (four course topics and three structural arrangements). First, learning experiences that pertained to life skills appeared to draw fewer persons to enroll (β = −.178, p < .01). Second, third agers appeared to enroll in courses that pertained to microsocial issues (β = .217, p < .001). Third, a location in the eastern part of the metropolitan area (location three) appeared to draw greater enrollment (β = .157, p < .01). Fourth, learning experiences pertaining to global or international issues appeared to draw in greater numbers (β = .145, p < .05). Fifth, learning experiences held at a different location in the eastern part of the metropolitan area (location two) appeared to draw fewer total persons (β = −.162, p < .01). Sixth, courses held on Saturday appeared to draw in fewer persons (β = −.172, p < .01). Finally, lifelong learning experiences that pertained to religion and/or philosophy appeared to draw in more persons (β = .143, p < .05). Despite the number of variables entered into the model, the variance inflation factors remained low, indicating no multicollinearity in the model.

The second model demonstrates that even after the addition of the structural arrangements, the learning topics were still significant predictors of attendance. These relationships remain in the same direction, and none of the semipartial correlations decreased dramatically, indicating that the topics still make strong, unique contributions to the model’s predictive power. A fourth topic, religion and/or philosophy, became a significant predictor.

Discussion

The study methods and results successfully elicited the course topics and structural arrangements that draw third agers to enroll and the course topics and structural arrangements that hinder enrollment. The significant findings in both models shed light on the research question that drove our inquiry: Which learning topics draw enrollment in a lifelong learning program? Both course topics and structural arrangements appear to significantly predict enrollment. Some course topics and structural arrangements also appear to hinder enrollment.

Institutional Considerations

The stepwise regression models yielded both expected and unexpected results regarding the structural arrangements. First, it was not surprising that one location in the eastern part of the metropolitan area (eastern location three) appeared to draw greater enrollment. The facilities of this location offered larger rooms that could hold more persons for classes; poc hoc analyses indicated that the maximum number of persons that could enroll—this figure was mostly based on the number of persons a classroom could accommodate—in a class for this location were significantly higher, t(46.419 = 6.135, p < .001, r² = .448. This location also hosted the learning experience that drew the largest amount of learners (n = 93), which was a course on educational travel opportunities.

Second, it was surprising that a different location in the eastern part of the metropolitan area (eastern location two) appeared to draw fewer learners to enroll. The room sizes at this location were approximately the same as the other locations; that is, post hoc analyses indicated that the maximum number of persons that could enroll at classes offered at this location were not significantly different, t(40.751) = 1.691, p = .099, r² = .066. Twenty-one of the 39 learning experiences offered at this location had less than 15 enrolled people enrolled (53.846% of experiences offered), compared with the rest of the data set in which only 60 learning experiences offered at other locations had less than 15 people enrolled (23.904% of experiences offered). Thus, it is important for future research to consider not just the influence of location but also room size, consistent enrollment figures, and decisions at each site as well.

The 10 learning experiences held on Saturday appeared to draw in fewer learners. This was not due to enrollment limits; post hoc analyses indicated that the maximum number of persons that could enroll at this time were not significantly different, t(288) = 1.427, p = .155, r² = .007. On average, these Saturday experiences drew nine less people than weekday experiences, t(12.561) = 4.428, p < .01, r² = .610. This lower observed draw could be because of the many other programs that are available to older adults on weekends. This lower draw could be attributed to weekend travel decisions made by the learners. But this finding should not be overemphasized because only 10 experiences were considered and also should not be overemphasized because learners were not actually asked which days they preferred.

Other days of the week and time of day did not positively or negatively relate to enrollment numbers. Because the majority of classes were offered during the daytime, the safety of the learners was not a substantive concern. Additionally, free parking was offered via available free lots or reimbursement for pay lots to all attendees. Transportation was not facilitated nor provided to and from the institute’s locations.

In post hoc analyses, only the number of sessions offered appeared to influence enrollment when considered alone (β = −.135, p < .05), such that the more sessions that were offered, the fewer learners enrolled. But, the number of sessions did not affect enrollment after including the course topics and other structural arrangements in the explored models. These findings indicate that coordinators of lifelong learning do not need to worry as much about these structural variables when scheduling learning experiences to attract many attendees.

Apparent Course Topic Preferences and Considerations

The main purpose of this research was to discover what topics drew third agers to enroll in a lifelong learning program. Third agers appear to want both breadth and depth in their lifelong learning experiences. Microsocial issues and global and international issues were significant predictors of enrollment in both of the explored models. Third agers want to spend their time learning deeply about the experiences of specific individuals and social groups during particular time periods. They also want to learn more about the global and international issues that affect them and other individuals, communities, and societies across the globe, which is consistent with Sewpaul and Hölscher’s (2004) work. Consistent with the notions of Sewpaul and Hölscher, religion and/or philosophy were significant in the second model, which included the structural arrangements as well. These findings align with non–misery perspectives (e.g., Tornstam, 2011). Third agers appear more inclined to pursue experiences that expand their worldviews, philosophies, and understandings of the universe (Tornstam, 2011; Yenerall, 2003). Third agers are drawn to novel learning experiences, not just reiterations of prior learning (Ardelt, 2000; Boulton-Lewis, et al., 2006; Findsen & McCullough, 2008; Kim & Merriam, 2004; Peterson, 1981). This is contrary to Duay and Bryan’s (2008) suggestions that third agers are drawn to more familiar or relevant lifelong learning experiences.

Lifelong learning may help third agers to adjust to life’s transitions (Cross, 1992; Selman & Dampier, 1991; Timmermann, 1998), but they appear less interested in learning life skills through this study’s lifelong learning program (Boulton-Lewis, 2010). In both models, life skills were negatively related to lower enrollment in lifelong learning experiences. Third agers may see the benefits of these sorts of experiences; however, they prefer to learn about other topics. This finding reinforces current research claims that the misery perspective is limited in its utility to fully understand older adults (e.g., Tornstam, 2011). It should be noted that other studies have found that some third agers still want experiences that relate to building life skills (Boulton-Lewis, 2010; Jenkins, 2011; Leung et al., 2005).

As previously mentioned, building life skills was not the core focus of this Osher Lifelong Learning Institute. Students interested in vocational or skill-building courses were usually referred to offerings at the local community colleges. However, many of the courses offered at the lifelong learning institute were very much still production oriented. For example, students in the travel writing class often submitted their travel stories to local news outlets. Thus, even though life skills are not captivating in this study, this finding should not be overemphasized to suggest that students do not want any production-oriented courses. Future research should explore how important production-oriented classes are to third age learners.

Course topic preferences may also be influenced by the demographics of an adult education providers’ target population. For example, McGivney (1997) noted that demographic factors (i.e., social class, gender, or race) likely affect learning decisions because these factors are “associated with particular cultural pressures and norms” (p. 133). Because of the composition and structure of the registration data acquired for this study, demographic information was out-of-reach regarding the purview or scope of this study. Future studies should seek to further understand the individual differences between third age learners’ enrollment decisions. Additionally, this study analyzed noncredit courses offered through a 4-year university-based institution; other studies should look at registration information from community colleges (whose demographics may differ) that offer lifelong learning programs for adults in the third age.

Conclusion

As the third age population continues to evolve and diversify, new expectations, new technologies, new advances, and opportunities must be considered. This study presents findings that suggest that third agers want both breadth and depth in their learning experiences rather than superficial and skill-based learning experiences. They want to expand their minds and perspectives by learning about specific instances in history, by learning about global and international affairs, and by learning more about religion and philosophy.

These findings will help lifelong learning programs plan out their learning offerings based on the topics discovered to be of interest to third agers at a university-based lifelong learning institute in the southwestern United States. This study’s findings also suggest that these aforementioned topics of interest could be used in future marketing and community-engagement initiatives to draw more third agers to lifelong learning programs and experiences. Student and instructor feedback through class evaluations and communication with lifelong learning program staff may bring additional insights into this study’s findings to help plan out learning offerings and marketing and community-engagement initiatives. This study’s tracking of 2 years and 4 semesters of offerings provides insight into the topics of interest and structural arrangements of programs that affect third age learners and their lifelong learning programs; however, even more cross-sectional and longitudinal research is needed to understand more fully what third agers want to learn about. Future research might also focus on changes in learners’ topic preferences across time. Finally, future research programs could also incorporate more qualitative approaches, which might include focus groups or interviews with members of lifelong learning programs or institutes. They might consider field observations of lifelong learning experiences as well.

Lifelong learning experiences matter to third agers, and the question, “what topics captivate third agers?” must continue to be asked. Findsen (2002) writes, “The concept of lifelong learning provides a basis for arguing that learning for older adults is a natural element of living and that educational provision should be justified as a basic human right” (p. 47). Thus, while this study suggests that future researchers continue to explore what topics captivate learners in the third age, researchers must also seek to discover what third agers like about those topics. A prospective approach appears as worthy as this study’s retrospective approach, if not complementary as well. Democratically, lifelong learning providers must seek to allow their learners to express and voice their opinions regarding what, how, and why they want to learn.

This study has provided a small walk through what is of interest to third agers, and it has provided directions for future research. Learning allows third agers to see their worlds differently (Boulton-Lewis, 2010), and they want to see and understand more of their worlds differently.

You may grow old . . . There is only one thing for it then—to learn. Learn why the world wags and what wags it. That is the only thing which the mind can never exhaust, never alienate, never be tortured by, never fear or distrust, and never dream of regretting. Learning is the only thing for you. Look what a lot of things there are to learn. (Merlin the Wizard from T. H. White, The Once and Future King; 1958/1966, p. 183)

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the members and staff of the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at Arizona State University who are committed to lifelong learning. They are inspirations to our work. We also wish to acknowledge our colleagues involved with Partnership for Community Development at Arizona Sate University for their ongoing support.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Craig A. Talmage, PhD serves as faculty associate at Arizona State University (ASU) where he instructs students in the School of Community Resources and Development and the School of Public Affairs. He also supports ASU’s Partnership for Community Development and the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI at ASU). For both entities, he instructs classes, conducts research, and manages their websites. He studies the psychosocial development of individuals, associations/organizations, and communities.

R. Geoffrey Lacher, PhD serves as assistant professor for the School of Community Resources and Development at Arizona State University (ASU). He instructs tourism development and management to students at ASU regarding planning, statistics, and sustainability. He studies the importance of economics and sustainability in the parks, recreation, and tourism sectors.

Mikulas Pstross is a doctoral candidate in the School of Community Resources and Development at Arizona State University (ASU). He serves as coordinator for the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI at ASU). In his work in ASU’s Partnership for Community Development and OLLI at ASU, he focuses on the theory and practice of community building and lifelong learning in the lives of individuals of all ages.

Richard C. Knopf, PhD serves as professor for the School of Community Resources and Development at Arizona State University (ASU) and director of both the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI at ASU) and ASU’s Partnership for Community Development. He studies the application of community development theory into practice in various milieus including but not limited to lifelong learning programs for older adults.

Karla A. Burkhart, MEd is the program manager for the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at Arizona State University (OLLI at ASU). She manages the core functions of operational management of the Institute’s programming, including curricula, enrollment, staffing, marketing, and business functions.

References

AARP. (n.d.). My membership resources. Retrieved from http://www.aarp.org/benefits-discounts/my-membership/

Albert

L. R.

Dignam

(2010). The decision to learn: Why people seek continuing education and how membership organizations can meet learners needs. Washington, DC: ASAE: The Center for Association Leadership.

Ardelt

(2000). Intellectual versus wisdom-related knowledge: The case for a different kind of learning in the later years of life. Educational Gerontology, 26, 771-789.

Arsenault

Anderson

(1998). New learning horizons for older adults. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 69(3), 27-31.

Bennett

W. L.

Wells

(2009). Civic engagement: Bridging differences to build a field of civic learning. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(3), 1-10.

Boulton-Lewis

G. M.

(2010). Education and learning for the elderly: Why, how, what. Educational Gerontology, 36, 213-228.

Boulton-Lewis

G. M.

Buys

Lovie-Kitchin

(2006). Learning and active aging. Educational Gerontology, 32, 271-282.

Chen

L. K.

Kim

Y. S.

Moon

Merriam

S. B.

(2008). A review and critique of the portrayal of older adult learners in adult education journals, 1980-2006. Adult Education Quarterly, 59, 3-21.

Cherem

B. F.

(2010). What sustains learning in the later years? ILL Review, 5, 105-111

10.

Chou

K. L.

Chi

Leung

(2003). Interest in formal learning among soon-to-be-aged adults in Hong Kong. Educational Gerontology, 29, 723-737.

11.

Cross

K. P.

(1992). Adults as learners: Increasing participation and facilitating learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

12.

Duay

D. L.

Bryan

V. C.

(2008). Learning in later life: What seniors want in a learning experience. Educational Gerontology, 34, 1070-1086.

13.

Erikson

E. H.

(1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

14.

Erikson

E. H.

(1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

15.

Field

(2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.

16.

Findsen

(2002). Developing a conceptual framework for understanding older adults and learning. New Zealand Journal of Adult Learning, 30(2), 34-52.

17.

Findsen

(2006). Social institutions as sites of learning for older adults: Differential opportunities. Journal of Transformative Education, 4(1), 65-81.

18.

Findsen

McCullough

(2007). Older adults’ engagement with further and higher education in the west of Scotland: Tracking educational journeys. Paper presented at Annual Adult Education Research Conference. http://www.adulterc.org/Proceedings/2007/Proceedings/Findsen_McCullough.pdf

19.

Fisher

J. C.

(1998). Major streams of research probing older adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 77, 27-39.

20.

Formosa

(2014). Four decades of Universities of the Third Age: Past, present, future. Ageing & Society, 34, 42-66.

21.

Glendenning

(2001). Education for older adults. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(1-2), 63-70.

22.

Gouthro

P. A.

(2007). Active and inclusive citizenship for women: Democratic consideration for fostering lifelong education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26, 143-154.

23.

Hafford-Letchfield

(2010). The age of opportunity? Revising assumptions about the life-long learning opportunities of older persons using social care services. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 496-512.

24.

Hebestreit

L. K.

(2009). An evaluation of the role of the University of the Third Age in the provision of lifelong learning (Doctoral dissertation). Pretoria, South Africa: University of South Africa. Retrieved from http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/1498/thesis.pdf

25.

Jenkins

(2011). Participation in learning and wellbeing among older adults. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 30, 403-420.

26.

John

(2011). Community development in a post-conflict context: Fracture and depleted social capital. Community Development Journal, 46(Suppl. 1), i51-i65.

27.

Johnson

M. L.

(1995). Lessons from the Open University: Third-Age learning. Educational Gerontology: An International Quarterly, 21, 415-427.

28.

Kerschner

Pegues

J. A. M.

(1998). Productive aging: A quality of life agenda. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 98, 1445-1448.

29.

Kim

Merriam

S. B.

(2004). Motivations for learning among older adults in a learning in retirement institute. Educational Gerontology, 30, 441-455.

30.

Krishnan

(2009, January). What are academic disciplines? Some observations on the disciplinarity vs. interdisciplinarity debate (NCRM Working Paper No. 783). Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/783/1/what_are_academic_disciplines.pdf

31.

Lamb

Brady

E. M.

(2005). Participation in lifelong learning institutes: What turns members on? Educational Gerontology, 31, 207-224.

32.

Laslett

(1989). A fresh map of life: The emergence of the third age. London, England: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.

33.

Leung

Lui

Y. H.

Chi

(2005). Later life learning experience among Chinese elderly in Hong Kong. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 26(2), 1-15.

34.

McGivney

(1997). Adult participation in learning: Can we change the pattern? In Coffield

(Ed.), A national strategy for lifelong learning (pp. 127-141). Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Newcastle University.

35.

Morstain

B. R.

Smart

J. C.

(1974). Reasons for participation in adult education course: A multivariate analysis of group differences. Adult Education, 24(2), 83-98.

36.

Peterson

D. A.

(1981). Participation in education by older people. Educational Gerontology, 7, 245-256.

37.

Radcliffe

(1984). The international perspective of U3As. In Midwinter

(Ed.), Mutual aid universities (pp. 61-71). Beckenham, England: Croom Helm.

38.

Radcliffe

(1985). Universities of the Third Age: An international perspective. Convergence: An International Journal of Adult Education, 18, 67-74.

39.

Sachau

D. A.

(2007). Resurrecting the motivation-hygiene theory: Herzberg and the positive psychology movement. Human Resource Development Review, 6, 377-393.

40.

Selman

Dampier

(1991). The foundations of adult education in Canada. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Thompson Educational.

41.

Sewpaul

Hölscher

(2004). Social work in times of neoliberalism: A postmodern discourse. Pretoria, South Africa: Van Shaik.

42.

Slowey

(2008). Age is just a number? Rethinking learning over the lifecourse. Ageing Horizons, 8, 22-30.

43.

Timmermann

(1998). The role of information technology in older adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1998(77), 61-71.

44.

Tornstam

(2011). Maturing into gerotranscendence. Journal of TransPersonal Psychology, 43, 166-180.

45.

White

T. H.

(1966). The once and future king. New York, NY: Berkley Medallion. (Original work published 1958)

46.

Yenerall

J. D.

(2003). Educating an aging society: The University of the Third Age in Finland. Educational Gerontology, 29, 703-716.