Adult Literacy in Cambodia: Examining Teachers’ Practices From Adult Learning Perspectives and Their Effects on Learners’ Willingness to Continue Learning

Abstract

Non-formal adult literacy programme has contributed to reducing illiteracy and provided learning opportunities for disadvantaged Cambodian adults to obtain knowledge and skills to improve their life. However, there remain illiterate adults and literacy teacher’s low-capacity issue. Non-formal literacy programme is seen as contributing to adult learning and education, but literacy teaching-learning process from adult learning perspectives remains understudied. This mixed-methods study aims to investigate literacy teachers’ practices from adult learning perspectives, considering instructional practices, learning contents, learning environments, learning assessments, and their association with learner’s willingness to continue learning using ordinal logistic regression. A survey of 172 literacy learners and interviews with nine literacy teachers showed that literacy teachers’ practices in selecting content and creating learning environments were more closely aligned with adult learning principles. There is less alignment between their instructional practices and adult learning principles. Teachers’ practices in learning assessments tended to align moderately with these principles. Two main factors – learning contents and learning environments – positively influenced learners’ willingness to continue learning, suggesting they are significant predictors of adult learner’s intention to pursue continuing education. This does not mean instructional and assessment strategies are not important; but teachers should use them flexibly, considering individual adult learners’ contexts.

Keywords

adult learning adult literacy andragogy instructional practices learning environment

Introduction

Lifelong learning is not limited to only a particular period in life; it includes all learning activities undertaken throughout a person’s life from pre-school age to post-retirement aiming to improve knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values; and is not restricted to only formal schooling, but takes place in different settings through all learning modalities: formal education, and non-formal and informal learning (European Union, 2016), and in all life-wide contexts such as school, home, community, workplace, playground, and sport yard, through various activities including play, conversation, discussion, reading, writing, social participation, travel, and other activities (Torres, 2011; UIL, 2022). Generally, lifelong learning focuses on demands and choices of individual learners, and places emphasis on enhancing the foundation for effective learning throughout life, which involves developing knowledge, skills, and motivation among young people and adults to encourage them to become self-directed learners (Singh, 2015). As formal, non-formal, and informal learning have become the key terms in lifelong learning approaches, lifelong learning will not be realized without recognition and validation of non-formal and informal learning modalities (Ouane, 2011; Singh, 2015; UIL, 2022; Yang, 2015).

Non-formal education refers to any organized, institutionalized, intentional, and planned educational activities that may take place both within and outside formal educational institutions and cater to people of all ages. It may cover educational programmes to offer youth or adult literacy, basic education for out-of-school children, life-skills, work-skills, and general culture (UIS, 2012). It does not necessarily follow the ‘ladder’ system, and may have different duration, and may or may not offer certification the learning achieved. Whereas, informal learning is intentional but not institutionalized. It is less organized or structured than either formal or non-formal education. It may include learning activities that occur in the family, workplace, local community, and daily life, on a self-directed or family-directed basis (UIS, 2012).

Non-formal education in Cambodia officially provides learning opportunities for marginalized people through various programmes to promote literacy and lifelong learning (Kingdom of Cambodia, 2002). Literacy promotion or illiteracy elimination has become a major education policy of Cambodia since the 12^th century and has expanded until the modern times through non-formal education (MoEYS, 2000). Cambodia started its first literacy movement in 1964 (Pech, 2002); however, the concept of non-formal or adult education has not yet existed at that time. Since 1979, non-formal literacy activities have been implemented for people of different ages ranging from under 15 to over 50, especially among illiterate youth and adults (aged 15–44) who cannot read or write Khmer or never attend schools.

Although significant progress in promoting adult literacy has been made, some adults have remained illiterate (MoP, 2022), and those who enrolled in the literacy programme still dropped out (MoEYS/DNFE, 2021). Despite new education reforms for teacher development, literacy teachers’ capacities in teaching remained limited (MoEYS/DNFE, 2021). While adult literacy programme is perceived as one of non-formal programmes contributing to promoting adult learning and education in Cambodia, literacy teaching and learning processes from adult learning perspectives and learners’ willingness to continue learning have remained understudied. Although previous research examined adult teacher’s teaching behaviour and its relationship with learners’ satisfaction or learning outcomes, these studies were conducted elsewhere, beyond non-formal settings and Cambodian contexts, and they used only the andragogical model to assess teachers’ practices in teaching adults (Holton, Wilson, & Bates, 2009; Park et al., 2016; Victor, 2004), thereby indicating the literature gap that needs further investigations. This provides a justification for the study specifically on non-formal adult literacy programme in Cambodia.

Research Objectives and Questions

This study aims to clarify teachers’ overall practices in literacy teaching from adult learning perspectives and learners’ willingness to continue learning. This aim is narrowed down into two specific research objectives:

- To examine how literacy teachers’ overall practices in teaching align with adult learning principles by considering four factors: instructional practices, learning contents, learning environments, and learning assessments.

- To investigate how such literacy teachers’ overall practices in teaching predict learners’ willingness to pursue continuing education.

This study addressed two research questions:

RQ1. To what extent do non-formal literacy teachers’ overall practices in teaching align with adult learning principles considering four factors: instructional practices, learning contents, learning environments, and learning assessments?

RQ2. How do literacy teachers’ overall practices in teaching considering the four above mentioned factors predict learners’ willingness to pursue continuing learning?

Related Literature

Adult Literacy Practices in Global and Cambodian Contexts

Globally, literacy becomes a foundation for all learning and contributes to individual well-being, social and economic improvement, and sustainable development (UNESCO, 2015). Literacy is a key component of adult learning and education and involves a continuum of learning and proficiency which enables individuals to engage in lifelong learning and participate fully in the workplace, community, and society. It is a means of building people’s knowledge, and skills to cope with life challenges (UNESCO and UIL, 2016). A thematic paper by UIL and APCEIU synthesized some findings from several reports and field research on literacy practices in different countries, and it highlighted the benefits and outcomes of adult literacy programme such as cultural, social, and economic benefits, improved self-esteem, empowerment, and creativity. Many adult literacy programmes address more than one objective including educational, civic, social, health-related, and economic objectives (UIL & APCEIU, 2019). For instance, rural women in Timor Leste experienced empowerment in personal or psychological dimension through their participation in a non-formal adult literacy programme. Literacy programmes targeting women often take a functional and community-based approach, linking literacy learning with income generation activities meeting local needs. In Ethiopia, for example, literacy education is linked with non-formal vocational skills training and entrepreneurial or business training, helping rural women improve their livelihoods (ibid).

In some cases, adult literacy focuses on vocational skills, employability, work skills, and income generation. Economic empowerment component is the key motivating factor, attracting adult learners into the programme. It is, therefore, necessary to ensure its relevance to adult learners as most of them live in poverty, and their participation is voluntary. These are the cases in Ethiopia, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam (UIL & APCEIU, 2019). Another study on effects of a functional adult literacy programme on women empowerment in Turkey shows that the programme contributed to women’s social integration, positive self-concept, family cohesion, and cognitive gains (Kagitcibasi et al., 2011).

In Cambodia, non-formal literacy programme plays a crucial role in solving the illiteracy problem. It has provided learning opportunities for disadvantaged illiterate people especially youth and adults to be able to read and write Khmer and gain useful knowledge and skills for their life. It is characterized as functional literacy linked with vocational skill training. The programme has now been operated for different target groups including prisoners, garment factory workers, and general adults in communities. Class locations vary depending on the learners. They can be in correctional centres, factories, or any place in communities, such as teachers’ homes, community learning centres, and pagodas or Buddhist monasteries where monks and nuns live and learn Buddhism. However, the same curriculum and textbooks were used for all learners. According to the Ministry of Planning (MoP) (2022), the overall adult literacy rate (15 years and above) in Cambodia was 84.7% in 2021. However, 19.3% of adults living in rural areas remained illiterate; and 20.1% of people aged 15–44 never attended school. 38% of people aged 25 years and over did not complete primary education, whereas 15.4% had no or only some education (MoP, 2022). Formal school dropout rate in 2021-2022 was 8.6% for primary education, 16.9% for lower secondary education, and 19.2% for upper secondary education (MoEYS, 2022).

Theoretical Foundation – Adult Learning Theories

This study is based on theoretical foundations of adult learning. Adult learning theory becomes one of the core areas of lifelong education research (Hodge et al., 2022). According to Knowles et al. (2005), a shift from teaching to learning and putting learners in the roles of active participants and inquirers is one of the useful teaching methods in modern times especially for adult learners. Teachers create learning experiences that help adult learners to make transition from dependency to self-directedness. Previous literature has revealed various adult learning theories. This literature section briefly discussed some selected theoretical models of adult learning from different perspectives including Knowles’ andragogical model, Kolb’s experiential learning, Mezirow’s transformative learning theory, self-directed learning, and Freire’s problem posing method. They are different approaches and categorizations of adult learning theories but connected as there are some overlapping principles among them (Mukhalalati & Taylor, 2019).

Knowles et al. (2005) suggest six core adult learning principles and eight elements of andragogical process model. The six principles include: the need to know, the learners’ self-concept, the role of learners’ experience, readiness to learn, orientation to learning, and motivation, whereas a process model with teachers serving as facilitators, consultants, or change agents to engage learners in learning process embodies eight elements (1) preparing the learners; (2) establishing conducive learning environments; (3) creating a mechanism for mutual planning; (4) diagnosing the needs for learning; (5) formulating programme objectives that satisfy learning needs; (6) designing a pattern of learning experiences; (7) conducting these learning experiences with suitable techniques and materials; and (8) assessing outcomes and re-diagnosing learning needs. Other adult learning theories will be discussed side by side in the following sections. This paper links adult learning theories with the contextual factors which serve as the framework for developing the survey instrument for the current study.

Contextual Factors

As learning occurs in any context, contextual factors that contribute to improving teaching and learning need to be understood. All types of learning and education need to consider the context in which they occur. Previous literature shows that several contextual factors shape students’ learning; they are national and community contexts, school contexts, classroom contexts, and individual student characteristics and attitudes (Mullis et al., 2019; Reynolds et al., 2021). Schulz et al. (2023) suggest that the contextual framework has different levels (Figure 1): (1) the context of wider community of which factors can be found at local and national levels; (2) the context of schools and classrooms containing factors related to school climate and culture, and the instruction that learners experience; (3) the context of home and peer environment comprising factors related to home background and learner’s social environment outside classrooms; and (4) the context of the individual learner referring to learners’ characteristics. Moreover, a narrative literature review by Broek et al. (2023) concludes that in order to give evidence base for adult learning policy development, it is necessary to examine how adults’ relation to learning is placed in a wider social, economic, and environmental context and how this context establishes a conducive environment in which adults value and continue learning. However, the current study focuses only on the classroom context concerning what happens in the classroom and what instructions learners experience through teachers’ overall practices at the classroom level.

Figure 1.

Contextual factors focusing on classroom context

Linking Adult Learning Theories and Contextual Factors

Teachers’ Overall Practices From Adult Learning Perspectives

This study examines adult teacher’s overall practices at the classroom level from adult learning perspectives. Because teachers’ practices refer to what takes place in the classroom settings, understanding the classroom contexts is necessary. The classroom contexts are generally related to several factors including teacher training, teacher characteristics and attitudes, teacher’s capacity and experience, instructional resources, curriculum contents or topics to be taught, instructional strategies and activities, the classroom environments, and learning assessment (Mullis et al., 2019; Reynolds et al., 2021). Generally, the key components of education programmes include curriculum objectives and learning outcomes to be achieved (knowledge, skills, attitudes), learning content (what learners learn and what is taught), teaching and learning strategies, learning assessment methods, and resources (instructional materials, human, budgets, and facilities) (Morris, 1996; UNESCO, 2012). By linking adult learning theories to contextual factors, this study focuses on four pre-determined factors of the classroom contexts that reflect teachers’ overall practices, namely teachers’ instructional practices, learning contents, learning environments, and learning assessments. Thus, the following sections will review these factors from adult learning perspectives.

Instructional Practices

Instructional practice is operationally defined as teaching-learning activities carried out by the teacher and experienced by learners. From adult learning perspectives, an adult teacher plays a role as a facilitator of learning, and instructional activities involve the teacher’s facilitation, puts adults at the centre of the learning process, paying attention to adult learner’s experience, self-concept, interest, and needs (Bélanger, 2011). The learners’ self-concept is one of the assumptions that learners become independent, making transition from dependent to self-directing learners with a chance to control the purposes of learning experiences and decide how they learn. Learners’ experience is seen as the basis and resource for learning (Knowles et al., 2005). The teacher helps learners participate actively in the learning process, use their own experiences and previous knowledge as learning resources, and share responsibility in the teaching-learning process.

In the andragogical process model, teachers prepare learners for participating in learning-how-to-learn activities, thinking about content, learning to be self-directed learners, working in groups, discussing, and sharing experiences. Teachers move from teaching to facilitating learning and use suitable techniques like experiential learning, inquiry projects, independent study, and appropriate materials. Kolb’s experiential learning theory seems to support such approaches as role-playing, case studies, or content presentation. It involves four stages of learning cycle: concrete experience (immediate experience), observations and reflections, abstract conceptualizations, and active experimentation, all of which are a useful framework for designing learning experience for adults (Bélanger, 2011). Mezirow’s transformative learning theory is also appropriate for adult education, focusing on transformation of meaning, context, assumptions, and perspectives. Learning occurs when new knowledge is incorporated into the existing one. Learners maintain their original assumptions but continue to challenge and change some of their perspectives (Mukhalalati & Taylor, 2019). Transformative learning also involves around the notion of reflection on experience and facilitates the learner-centred model (Kovačević, 2021).

Like Knowles’s assumption of learners’ self-concept, self-directed learning theory takes a humanistic stance, creating the conducive learning environment, more accepted and less authoritarian with adult learners having choices and opportunities to decide what they want to learn, and how they want to learn it. Educators are facilitators of learning, and learning is self-directed, learner-centred, and personalized (Cross, 1981). In teaching-learning processes, the teacher should think with students, not for students. They are partners, thinking about problems together (Freire, 1993). Freire viewed this partnership as a horizontal relationship between teachers and students. His approach is problem posing, different from banking concept approach that treats learners as passive information recipients and objects of assistance. Its key principle is the dialogue between teachers and students, with two dimensions – reflection and action, which maximizes students’ creativity and critical thinking.

In adult learning and education, the learning-teaching process is mutual responsibilities of learners and a teacher. Teachers play a role as facilitators, resource persons, and co-inquirers, while learners can take responsibility for their own learning; learners are given opportunities to play the primary role; texts and teachers play a secondary role (Chan, 2010; Knowles, 1980). The adult teachers’ roles defined in the Curriculum globALE integrate the characteristics of three roles: (1) as ‘experts and instructors’ who provide knowledge, impart information, and develop competencies; (2) as ‘coaches and facilitators’ who support and facilitate learning processes; and (3) as ‘guides and motivators’ who support personal development, empower, and motivate learners for lifelong learning (DVV International, German Institute for Adult Education-Leibniz Center for Lifelong Learning, International Council for Adult Education, and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, 2021, pp. 23, 24). In many contexts, traditionally imparting knowledge is considered the major task of adult teachers. In other countries, the teachers’ roles are shifted towards guiding, advising, supporting, facilitating, and moderating (DVV International et al., 2021). Two important recommended aspects that assure quality implementation of adult education are teachers’ competencies and the content they are trained, in which help them teach adults effectively (ibid).

Instructional activities are determinants of successful learning. Instructional practices that increase learning motivation require teachers to relate learning content to learners’ daily lives (Mullis et al., 2019).

Learning Content

Curriculum content refers to the intended and taught curriculum (UNICEF, 2000). However, learning content in this study focuses mainly on the taught or implemented curriculum content, what the teacher teaches in classroom settings (Morris, 1996). Literacy, known as the ability to read and write, is perceived as one of the primary goals of non-formal literacy programme. Literacy skills are sometimes taught as a separate subject in formal education, where instructions may emphasize teaching a language as the main goal (UNICEF, 2000). However, in adult education like non-formal literacy programme, literacy skills may also be developed through the content embedded in the lessons. Learning content, the teacher brings to the classroom covers not only literacy skills but also knowledge for livelihood improvement.

Three of the andragogical assumptions also inform the selection of appropriate learning contents for adults: the need to know (the assumption: adults need to know in advance why they need to learn something and how learning is conducted); readiness to learn (the assumption: adult prepare to learn things they need to know and be able to deal with real-life situations); and orientation to learning (problem-oriented, life-centred, or task-centred that reflects adults’ preference for problem-solving rather than subject-centred learning) (Knowles et al., 2005). Three elements of the andragogical process model helping teachers choose appropriate, useful, and relevant content include enabling learners to assess what they need to learn and develop competency and ability to perform better, encouraging mutual negotiation among stakeholders with learners’ involvement to develop the content that satisfies learning needs, and choosing the content identified by learners and appropriate modes for learning.

In adult education, curriculum content is built around learner’s needs and interests. The teacher should help learners discover the gap between where they are now and where they want to be. Adults are motivated to learn when they see learning is useful and helps them do the tasks or solve problems they face in life. If learners do not see the value in learning content being taught, there is little chance of retaining motivation (ibid). The first thing to organize the programme content of education must reflect the current, existential, and realistic situation relevant to people’s expectations and needs (Freire, 1993). Freire’s problem-posing education approach requires teachers to locate the learning in learners’ real-life context to integrate tangible experiences with conceptual methods and content.

Learning Environments

Learning environments cover different elements including physical, psychosocial, and service delivery elements (UNICEF, 2000). Creating conducive learning environments is the crucial element for learning-teaching process. Learning environments from andragogical perspectives consist of various types, including physical and psychological environments. Physical environments refer to physical conditions concerning temperature, ventilation, refreshments, rest rooms, seating, lighting, and size and layout of the physical space. Good physical learning environments provide physically comfortable conditions with appropriate temperature and ventilation, easy access to refreshment, rest rooms, adequate light, and comfortable chairs (Knowles et al., 2005). Psychological climates refer to human environments, or the quality of interpersonal relation. Conducive psychological environments are established to be experienced and perceived by learners as ‘safe, caring, trusting, accepting, respectful, and understanding’ (ibid, p. 120). These environments enable individual differences to be valued and respected. They are established by the teacher to provide conducive learning environments with collaboration, encouragement, confidence, mutual respect, and supportive relationships between the teacher and learners, and among learners (Schulz et al., 2023).

From a social support perspective, teacher support is an essential element of social support in the classroom context and has been defined as a teacher’s act of providing informational, instrumental, appraisal, and emotional support to their students (Zhao & Yang, 2022). Teacher support generally encompasses teachers’ friendliness, caring, understanding, dedication, and dependability toward their students; the teachers develop personal relationships with learners, and provide support and advice for the learners who are in need (Ryan & Patrick, 2001). Lack of such teacher support leads to learners’ lack of motivation and interest in learning and negatively influences learning enjoyment and engagement (Zhao & Yang, 2022). This study focuses only on psychological learning environments; other aspects such as physical or organizational environments are not included.

Learning Assessments

Learning assessment is defined as a collection of information or evidence to determine whether expected learning outcomes are attained and the desired changes occur. If the focus of the assessment is on learning outcomes and the extent to which the desired changes occur after learning, it is characterized as a summative assessment. If the focus of the learning assessment is on the process of working toward learning outcomes or for improving learning, then it is a formative assessment (Knowles et al., 2005). Conducting appropriate learning assessment also appears as one of the important roles and core functions of adult educators at the classroom level. Learning assessment refers to a direct measure of learning outcomes the teacher uses to assess the desired change in the learner’s knowledge and skills through activities like tests, oral questioning, presentation, homework/assignments, practical work, and performance. In adult education, adults also evaluate their own learning with teachers playing a helping role to help them make progress towards learning goals. The teacher must involve learners in assessing learning outcomes and re-diagnosing learning needs (ibid).

Research Framework

By linking adult learning principles and contextual factors, deductive thematic analysis of theories of adult learning driven by contextual factors led to examination of teachers’ overall practices in the classroom context, considering four theory-driven factors: teachers’ instructional practices, learning contents, learning environments, and learning assessments, that were expected to determine learners’ willingness to learn. They become the core elements of the research framework and key factors to be examined. Based on this analysis, it could be assumed that teachers’ instructional practices, learning environments, learning content, and learning assessments that are aligned with adult learning principles have positive effects on learners’ willingness to pursue continuing learning and education (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Association between literacy teacher’s practices and learners’ willingness to continue learning

Materials and Methods

Research Design

An embedded mixed-methods research design (QUANT + qual) was adopted using a qualitative approach embedded in a main quantitative method for simultaneous data collection and analysis, but qualitative data played a secondary and supportive role to complement the primary quantitative results. The rationale for using this design is that a single approach alone is insufficient to fully understand the problems to answer all research questions. In other words, the secondary form of data from a qualitative approach provides arguments and supports the primary form of quantitative data.

Population and Sample

For a quantitative approach, a sample of 172 learners were selected from a target population of 362 literacy learners who enrolled in the literacy programme in 2023, while nine literacy teachers (five females and four males) were selected for qualitative interviews.

Sampling Method and Criteria

This study employed a convenience sampling method to select 172 learners from 17 literacy classes with group size varying from 7 up to 20 learners in each class. Convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling strategy for selecting participants when they are available and willing to be studied (Creswell, 2012). Whereas nine literacy teachers who taught these study participants were also selected purposively for qualitative interviews since they could provide in-depth understanding of their current practices and contexts. These teachers were recruited as contractual teachers from the places where they lived or worked. Five of them were between 30 and 40 years old, and four were over 40. The researcher chose four research sites: Phnom Penh where the programme has been well operated in the workplace (garment factories) in cooperation with private sectors, and three more provinces, all of which enrolled more illiterates as learners than other provinces.

Research Instruments

Data were collected using a researcher-completed questionnaire (or structured interview schedule) and a semi-structured interview guide. The questionnaire had three parts with 25 questions or items to collect quantitative data. Part 1 had four items collecting participants’ demographic information (age, sex, number of their children, and their occupations). Part 2 had 20 close-ended questions, measuring four selected factors, namely instructional practices (5 questions), learning environment (6 questions), learning contents (4 questions), and learning assessment (5 questions), all of which reflected literacy teacher’s overall practices applied in the classroom. These four factors and their respective questions/items were confirmed with principal component analysis (PCA) method (Table 2), and their internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) values are .692, .726, .687, and .784, respectively, and acceptable. Each question had four answer choices, that is, measured on a four-point Likert-type scale. However, the answers varied depending on each question (see Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, and Figure 5). Part 3 had one question asking if learners were willing to continue learning in a follow-up programme with their current teacher. This question had three answer choices measured at an ordinal level (1 = Not at all, 2 = Probably/likely, and 3 = Really willing to continue).

All questions in the questionnaire were developed through deductive thematic analysis of adult learning theories to measure four major factors driven by classroom contextual factors that reflected teacher’s overall practices in teaching as explained in the research framework. Figure 3 illustrates the process of developing the questionnaire by researching the meaning of the theoretical concept through thematic analysis of adult learning theories within the framework of contextual factors. This quantitative instrument was checked and discussed among experts and revised for improvement to suit literacy learners’ contexts and ensure its face and content validity. Whereas semi-structure interview protocols comprised open-ended questions to collect qualitative data to understand more about individual teachers, their overall practices, teacher training, and what they observed about learners’ motivation and interest in learning. The interview results helped to complement and support quantitative results. Almost all questions in the protocol are similar to quantitative questions used with learners.

Figure 3.

Procedure for developing a structured interview schedule

Data Collection

Data collection was conducted from August to October 2023. After obtaining the ethical clearance and official permission (No. 4624.EYS/NFE) from Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport to conduct the study, the researcher contacted staff of education offices that managed the programme in the selected locations to request for their cooperation, then obtained the verbal informed consent from all participants who happily participated in the study. The written informed consent form was not used because learners were already informed by local staff and their teachers before the survey, and the researcher used convenience sampling methods to survey only participants who were available, volunteered, and agreed to participate in the study. All participants were informed that confidentiality of their responses was protected, and they could withdraw from the study if they felt unhappy or uncomfortable. The quantitative survey through structured interviews was conducted with 172 literacy learners in total. All participants were explained how to answer close-ended questions in the interview schedule. They all understood and could provide the pre-determined answers that reflected what they experienced in the class. During the survey, the researcher asked and completed the questionnaire based on responses provided by the learners; and semi-structured interviews with nine teachers were also conducted.

Data Analysis

For quantitative data, factor analysis using a principal components method was performed with SPSS.23 to group 20 questions into four factors and determine which questions really measure these factors. Then, descriptive statistics such as mean scores, standard deviations, and percentage were computed, while ordinal logistic regression (OLR) analysis was used to predict learners’ willingness to continue learning from the four factors of teachers’ overall practices. OLR was used because it was appropriate for examining causal relationships between multiple continuous independent variables (teacher’s overall practices) and an ordinal outcome variable (learners’ willingness). Qualitative data from semi-structure interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis through transcribing the recorded interviews into texts, looking for information that reflects the four pre-determined themes or factors identified in the research framework.

Results

Literacy Learners’ Characteristics

Table 1 provides information about learners’ characteristics by age, sex, number of children they had, and occupation. Most learners were females, aged 25–44, followed by those aged 50 and above, working as manual workers and farmers. Most of them had at least two children. Although women and men are similarly busy, men went out to earn money as the self-employed motor-taxi drivers, or construction workers hired by other people, etc., while women stayed in the village or at home to care for household chores and kids. So, females had more chance to attend literacy courses when the programme operated in the community/village near their home. Similarly, for the literacy operating in the factories, the majority of women worked in the garment factory and most of them were illiterate compared to men. That was why the proportion of females (90.7%) was much higher than males (9.3%). Most literacy learners were likely from low socioeconomic status without very much different living standard, but their monthly average incomes were a bit different between learners learning in community classes (64USD) and in factory (248USD) because learners learning in factories could also work to obtain monthly salaries from 200USD to 300USD while community learners, many of whom were farmers, housewives, or unemployed, had no salaries or regular incomes, and lived on their farming, fishing, or support from other family members.

Table 1.

Learners’ demographic characteristics (N = 172)

		N	%
Age	15–24	12	7.00
	25–44	123	71.5
	45–49	7	4.1
	≥50	30	17.4
Sex	Male	16	9.3
Sex	Female	156	90.7
Number of children	None	26	15.1
	One	29	16.9
	Two	56	32.6
	≥three	61	35.5
Occupation	Manual worker	103	59.9
	Farmer	51	29.7
	Housewife and others (monk)	18	10.4

RQ1. Alignment Between Literacy Teachers’ Overall Practices and Adult Learning Principles

This section examines the classroom context, that is, the literacy teacher’s overall practices in teaching adult learners from adult learning perspectives by assessing four key factors: teacher’s instructional practices, learning contents, learning environments, and learning assessments. Firstly, a factor analysis was performed using a PCA extraction method and varimax rotation to develop these constructs from 20 four-point Likert-type questions. KMO is .769; and Bartlett’s test of sphericity is statistically significant (X²(190) = 1060.04, p < .001) indicating that the sample and questions/items for each factor are sufficient, appropriate for conducting factor analysis.

Six components were extracted with eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining 62.64% of the total variance. The scree plot seemed to show a four-factor structure (Figure 4). But the parallel analysis, the procedure that provides a more objective and less arbitrary criterion than the scree plot and eigenvalues-greater-than-one rule (Fabrigar & Wegener, 2012), indicates that three factors were retained. However, based on the research framework, the study aims to examine four major factors predicting learners’ willingness to continue learning. For this reason, the researcher decided to force a four-factor solution which explained 51.76% of the total variance. The minimum factor loading criteria was set to 0.40. Consequently, the questions/items are loading together in four components labelled as learning assessment (5 questions), learning environment (6 questions), instructional practice (5 questions), and learning content (4 questions) (Table 2). Their internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) values are .784, .726, .692, and .687, respectively, and considered as acceptable. This result of factor analysis will also be used later for logistic regression analysis in RQ2.

Figure 4.

Scree plot for factor solution

Table 2.

Factor loading for rotated component and questions that measure each component

Questions/items	Component/factor loading
Questions/items	C1	C2	C3	C4
Learning assessment (LA)
LA16	.729
LA17	.775
LA18	.749
LA19	.673
LA20	.577
Learning environment (LE)
LE10		.500
LE11		.510
LE12		.571
LE13		.781
LE14		.694
LE15		.428
Instructional practice (IP)
IP1			.768
IP2			.691
IP3			.667
IP4			.426
IP5			.487
Learning content (LC)
LC6				.507
LC7				.720
LC8				.739
LC9				.650
Eigenvalues	2.87	2.80	2.42	2.24
% of variance	14.36	14.02	12.13	11.23

These four components (factors) were measured on four-point Likert-type questions. The higher mean score indicates that the component of literacy teachers’ practices more closely aligns with adult learning principles/theories. To interpret the mean values of Liker scales, the range was calculated by subtracting the lowest from highest scale values. Dividing this by the number of scales results in an interval value of 0.75. By using this value as the interval, four levels were identified to describe the mean value of each factor/component (Table 3).

Table 3.

Criteria describing alignment between components of teachers’ overall practices and adult learning principles

Scale	Mean interval	Differences	Description/interpretation
1	1.00–1.75	0.75	Not aligning
2	1.76–2.50	0.75	Less aligning
3	2.51–3.25	0.75	Somewhat/moderately aligning
4	3.26–4.00	0.75	More closely aligning

Descriptive statistics was used to calculate the mean values for four components/factors of teachers’ overall practices to describe how they align with adult learning principles (Table 4).

Table 4.

Description of teachers’ overall practices

Component/factor	Mean	SD	Interpretation
Instructional practices	2.46	.57	Less aligning
Learning contents	3.27	.54	More aligning
Learning environments	3.59	.39	More aligning
Learning assessments	2.89	.70	Somewhat/moderately aligning

Instructional Practices

Table 5 shows that most of learners’ responses to the five questions about teacher’s instructional practices were rated with low scores (IP1–IP3), indicating that teachers insufficiently applied adult learning principles in teaching. The mean for instructional practices (M = 2.46, SD = .57) also confirms that literacy teachers’ current instructions were less likely aligning with adult learning principles (Table 4).

Table 5.

Responses about instructional practices

	Instructional practices	Responses (%)
IP1	How often is your experience considered and discussed in the class?	Never (40.1)	1 to 3 times (37.8)	4 to 6 times (14.0)	7 times or more (8.1)
IP2	During the class, how often have you had opportunities to discuss the lessons, sharing ideas with other learners?	Never (11.6)	1 to 3 times (55.8)	4 to 6 times (20.9)	7 times or more (11.6)
IP3	Has your teacher ever discussed and asked you to recommend relevant topics you need to learn?	Never (37.8)	1 to 2 times (32.0)	3 to 4 times (22.1)	5 times or more (8.1)
IP4	How much could you understand the lesson contents during the class?	Not at all (1.2)	A little (26.2)	Moderately (54.6)	Very much (18.0)
IP5	Have you obtained any advice or guidance from your teacher on how to learn effectively?	Never (4.1)	Rarely (12.8)	Sometimes (40.7)	Often (42.4)

Interview results showed that some teachers integrated additional real life–related topics with the textbooks to enrich their teaching. As one teacher [P8] said, ‘I used the textbooks together with some additional topics outside the textbooks such as issues related to domestic violence, safety in the workplace, hygiene, traffic, and other practical example from the learners’ actual problems and experiences’. Other teachers only followed the textbook content. Another teacher [P4] remarked ‘I follow the textbook only. And I added some contents such as looking after health. Since my learners rarely demonstrated any experience, I did not consider their experience’.

Learning Contents

All responses to questions about learning contents were rated highly positive (at least 63.4%), which indicate learning contents that teachers selected were useful, relevant, and appropriate for adult learners (Table 6). The high mean score for learning contents (M = 3.27, SD = .54) shows that teachers’ selection of learning contents to teach adults aligned with adult learning principles (Table 4). The qualitative interviews with literacy teachers also confirmed this quantitative result (see a quote below from [P5]).

The textbook contents are relevant but not very closely to learners. So, I added topics relevant to their real-life situation through teaching them about life skills outside the textbooks. I want them to know about sanitation; family planning; traffic law lesson; certificates of birth, marriage and deaths, etc. So, they can understand about what documents are important and relevant to their personal life. For example, we teach them about certificates of birth, death or marriage; and how important these three kinds of letters are for them. They are important for work, for health care, for transferring property to the family members. They feel happy after they understand about these things. [P5]

Table 6.

Responses about learning contents

	Learning contents	Responses (%)
LC6	Were you informed in advance about what you would learn from the literacy programme?	Not at all (5.2)	Slightly informed (31.4)	Somewhat informed (32.0)	Well informed (31.4)
LC7	Are the lesson contents you have learned useful for solving any real-life problem?	Not at all useful (0.5)	Little useful (7.0)	Useful (32.0)	Very useful (60.5)
LC8	How are the lessons you learn in the literacy class relevant to your daily living?	Not at all relevant (1.7)	Little relevant (12.8)	Relevant (40.1)	Very relevant (45.3)
LC9	How are the learning contents you learned appropriate to your level?	Not at all appropriate (0.00)	Slightly appropriate (10.5)	Appropriate (40.7)	Very appropriate (48.8)

Learning Environments

Table 7 shows that six questions measuring learning environments received more positive responses (92.4%–97.7%), indicating positive learning environments experienced by the learners. The high mean score for learning environments (M = 3.59, SD = .39) falls into the level ‘more closely aligning’ with adult learning principles, indicating that literacy teachers often apply adult learning principles to establish conducive learning environments appropriate for learners (Table 4). This result is consistent with qualitative interviews with teachers. As one teacher [P3] remarked, ‘I sometimes add some more encouraging activities so that they help learners to feel like learning more. I used some activities such as singing, games, to make them happy and reduce stress’.

Table 7.

Responses about learning environments

	Learning environments	Responses (%)
LE10	How confident of learning success are you when attending this literacy class?	Not at all confident (2.3)	Little confident (5.2)	Confident (43.6)	Very confident (48.8)
LE11	How much do you feel respected and valued when you are in this class?	Not at all respected (0.00)	Little respected (7.6)	Moderately respected (40.1)	Very much respected (52.3)
LE12	How satisfied are you with your teacher’s behaviour in the class?	Not at all satisfied (0.6)	Little satisfied (3.5)	Moderately satisfied (11.6)	Very satisfied (84.3)
LE13	How do you rate your relationships with other learners during learning?	Not good (1.7)	Slightly good (5.2)	Good (27.9)	Very good (65.1)
LE14	How do you rate your relationships with your teacher during learning?	Not good (0.00)	Slightly good (2.3)	Good (22.1)	Very good (75.6)
LE15	What materials or resources have you obtained from your teacher during the programme?	Not at all (0.6)	Notebook, pen (7.0)	Notebook, pen, reading books (23.8)	Notebooks, pen, reading books, and other necessary materials (68.6)

Learning Assessments

Figure 5 indicates learning assessments were conducted moderately by teachers through the tasks for practice, self-test and self-study at home, in-class writing exercises, class-work activities, and homework assignments. But assessing learners’ practical performance appeared to be limited. A mean score for learning assessment is 2.89 (SD = .70), implying that teachers’ assessment of learners’ learning moderately aligns with adult learning principles (Table 4). The qualitative interviews with teachers provided the same result (see a quote from [P6]).

I let students to do exercise on the board in the class, not paper-pen tests. I never give them homework because they did not do it. I only do class work activities by asking the learners to come to the whiteboard/blackboard. [P6]

Figure 5.

Responses about learning assessments used by teachers (N = 172)

The findings imply that literacy teachers’ overall practices in teaching were more aligned with adult learning principles in two aspects: selecting learning contents and creating conducive learning environments for learners. However, there is less alignment between instructional practices and adult learning principles while learning assessments appeared to align with such principles moderately. This deviation of instructional practices from adult learning principles may result from either teachers’ limited understanding of approaches to adult learning or their attempts to choose different ways to teach. Interviews with literacy teachers also confirmed that most teachers received inadequate training. The training is short, not exceeding 10 days, offered by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. Teachers expressed their concern and desires for more trainings to improve their capacity and skills in teaching adults. One teacher [P4] said, ‘I used to attend the training once, a long time ago, […] and I want more training’. Another teacher said:

I used to attend the 10-day training of literacy teachers, but I think it was still not sufficient. Later, I joined a 2-day orientation, and still insufficient since some topics were not very relevant to teaching adult literacy learners. I feel that I need more training to improve my teaching capacity and skills. […] I must be flexible with the learners for example we cannot be very strict with the literacy learners because they are very busy with other responsibilities. [P5]

The monitoring by practitioners at management levels to enhance programme implementation and help adult teachers to improve their teaching seemed insufficient. This may be considered institutional barriers that need further interventions.

RQ2. Association between teachers’ overall practices and learners’ willingness to continue learning

101 learners representing 59% were really willing to continue learning, while 70 learners, approximately 41%, were not sure whether to continue or not, by choosing the answer ‘Probably/likely’ when asked about their willingness to continue learning. More than half of learners were certainly willing and choose to continue further after they complete literacy programmes, while others hesitated to decide. As mentioned earlier, teachers’ practices covered four variables, teachers’ instructional practices, learning contents, learning environments, and learning assessments; and were expected to predict learner’s willingness to continue further learning.

Before applying the OLR, its assumption was checked based on three main conditions. Firstly, Model Fitting Information shows the model is significant (p < .001), meaning that there is a significant improvement in fit; thus, the model is showing a good fit and adequately describes the data. Secondly, for Goodness of Fit, the Pearson chi-square and deviance tests were both non-significant (p > .05), indicating the model fits the data well. Finally, Test of Parallel Lines meets the assumption of OLR because the general model is non-significant (p = .126). Therefore, the assumption is fulfilled, and OLR can be used for analysis. No problem with multicollinearity exists because significant correlations among independent variables are not strong (r < 0.5).

The result shows only two factors: learning contents (p = .005) and learning environments (p = .040), significantly influence learners’ willingness to continue learning after they complete their current courses, while instructional practices (p = .189) and learning assessments (p = .619) are not the significant predictors of learners’ willingness to continue learning when considered and analyzed together (Table 8).

Table 8.

Logistic regression analysis for the relationship between teacher’s overall practices and learners’ willingness to continue learning (N = 172)

	Estimate	SE	P
Instructional practice	−.44	.33	.189
Learning contents	1.02	.36	.005
Learning environments	1.02	.49	.040
Learning assessments	.13	.27	.619

The instructional and assessment practices are non-significant, indicating they do not influence learners’ willingness to learn. One of the teachers [P6] explained during the interview, ‘Doing many assessments or tests may create burdens and make my students tired and impatient, they feel difficult and lose interest in learning. So, I don’t do them’. This indicates that their frustration and learning difficulties may cause them to quit learning. Giving homework assignments also bored learners as they were busy with family responsibilities and did not have much time to do it. Teaching strategies with lots of learners’ activities, problem posing, and discussions were not always applicable for all learners. Besides, learning time was insufficient for teachers to organize various classroom activities like role-play or discussions. However, some teachers during the interview appeared to have limited understanding about learning assessments and facilitating techniques.

Discussion

Literacy teachers had limited capacity in applying adult learning principles in teaching due to insufficient training. These findings are confirmed by MoEYS/DNFE (2021). The teacher training content might not adequately introduce the concept of adult learning theories and practices causing teachers’ inability to fully align their instructional practices with adult learning principles. This deviation from adult learning principles might also derive from teachers trying to adapt their teaching to learners’ contexts. Learners’ hesitance to decide to continue learning may be partly due to the teachers’ practices and require teachers to reconsider teaching quality and ways of attracting learners to learn, but there may be other personal reasons beyond the focus of this study, that need further studies. The deviation of teachers’ instructions from adult learning principles and the moderate alignment of learning assessments with these principles imply the need for improving teachers’ instruction and assessment skills that are appropriate for adult learners although they were found non-significant in this study.

The findings indicate that teachers’ instructional and learning assessment practices are not significant predictors of learners’ willingness to continue learning. However, previous literature still maintained that these two factors were important determinants of other aspects of adult education, such as learners’ learning outcomes (Knowles et al., 2005) and education quality in general (UNICEF, 2000). The current non-significant result contrasts with previous literature which suggested that instructions and assessments were key components for increasing learning motivation and improving quality education (DVV International et al., 2021; Mullis et al., 2019; Reynolds et al., 2021; Schulz et al., 2023; UNICEF, 2000). It is generally accepted that teaching strategies and learning assessment practices are important elements to strengthen educational quality and improve learning outcomes. The key elements of all education programmes include learning outcomes, learning content, teaching and learning methods, and assessments (Morris, 1996; UNESCO, 2012).

Therefore, the important thing to consider is how teachers apply theories or principles in real practices, and how flexible they are. Even Knowles et al. (2005) also suggested that a core adult learning characteristic is flexibility. It is not an ideology that must be rigidly followed without consideration or adaptation to the contexts. This study shows that literacy learners whose teachers selected learning contents and created conducive learning environments in a way that aligns with adult learning principles, were more willing to continue further learning. This finding is consistent with Freire’s (1993) argument that educational content must reflect current real-life situations relevant to people’s expectations and needs. It also agrees with previous literature that motivating learners to learn involves creating conducive learning environments, selecting relevant and appropriate contents that meet adults’ learning needs (Knowles et al., 2005), and connecting what is learnt to personal experience (Bélanger, 2011). The finding is supported by UIL and APCEIU’s (2019) thematic paper emphasizing the relevance of learning content to adult learners as the key motivating factor that attracts adult learners into the programme. For example, in Ethiopia, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam, most learners were low-income people, and adult literacy focused on vocational skills, employability, work skills, and income generation, which motivated adult learners.

This study suggests that closely aligning teacher’s practices with adult learning theories in establishing supportive learning environments and selecting relevant learning contents for adults are more likely to motivate adults to learn and even continue learning in the future. From a social support perspective, supportive teachers who provide teacher support for the learners such as giving assistance and advice to the learners who are in need, and valuing and developing personal relationships with learners can increase learners’ motivation and interest in learning (Ryan & Patrick, 2001), reduce learning boredom, and foster learning enjoyment and engagement (Zhao & Yang, 2022). The current findings with mixed results of significant and non-significant factors from adult learning perspectives are partially supported by the previous research. For example, a study in Jordan on validity and applicability of the Andragogy in Practice Inventory and relationships between adult learning principles and learners’ satisfaction also found that applying andragogical model and learners’ satisfaction were significantly and positively correlated (Park et al., 2016).

Conclusion and Recommendations

This study shows that literacy teachers’ actual instructional practice was likely less aligned with adult learning principles, while their practice of learning assessment seemed to moderately consistent with such principles; and these practices were unlikely correlated to the learners’ willingness to learn. Only two major factors of teachers’ overall practices, namely learning content and learning environments, were found to closely align with adult learning principles and therefore appeared as the key factors for keeping adults motivated to learn more. They significantly and positively affected learner’s willingness to continue learning if the teachers selected relevant learning content and created conducive learning environments in alignment with adult learning theories or principles. Some teaching practices that require learners’ many involvements, too many tests, and assignments may not be significant for every adult like those in Cambodian context and may become their burdens that bother them.

From these findings, the recommendations were suggested for policy makers, practitioners, and especially for teachers to improve adult education practices. For local practitioners and teachers, instructional strategies and learning assessment should be carefully and flexibly used by considering learners’ contexts; otherwise, they can be ineffective, especially among non-formal and less literate learners. Teachers should select relevant learning content and establish conducive learning environments during their teaching in alignment with adult learning principles to suit adult learners and keep them motivated to continue learning. Policy makers may consider providing more training opportunities for non-formal and adult teachers integrating adult learning theories into training content to strengthen their capacity in teaching adults. Programme monitoring and evaluation should be regularly conducted by practitioners from ministry and provincial levels in cooperation with academics or researchers to provide feedback and help teachers improve teaching-learning quality.

Limitation and Future Research

This study analyzed learning environments only from a psychological standpoint, excluding other factors such as physical environments, resources, or other system issues; and discussed only effects of teachers’ practices on learners’ willingness to study without considering other aspects such as learners’ challenges, situations, learning outcomes, or satisfaction. Thus, for academics or researchers in adult learning and education, all these missing aspects may be considered for further studies. This is the new study in Cambodia on literacy teacher’s practices from adult learning perspectives using principal components analysis methods to develop the scales. Therefore, scale development might need further treatment with caution. The future research may consider adapting related adult learning theories to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool with the observed items or indicators of their constructs using a more robust analysis such as exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Adult teachers’ teaching practices through the lens of adult learning theories, and effects of these practices on learners’ performance and satisfaction need further investigations.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my profound gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Nakaya Ayami, for her valuable time to provide useful comments and inputs for this research. I would also like to thank the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport for their permission to conduct the study, and the Municipal/Provincial Office of Education, Youth and Sport, District Offices of Education in the target locations for their cooperation. My thanks also go to literacy teachers and learners who volunteered to participate in this study.

ORCID iD

Sophat Lang

Ethical Considerations

This study received ethical approval and permission from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS) (No. 4624.EYS/NFE) on August 04, 2023, to conduct the study.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained verbally before participation.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the Project for Human Resource Development Scholarship by Japanese Grant Aid (JDS).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

References

Bélanger

(2011). Theories in adult learning and education. Barbara Budrich Publishers.

Broek

Linden

Kuijpers

M. A. C. T.

Semeijn

J. H.

(2023). What makes adults choose to learn: Factors that stimulate or prevent adults from learning. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 29(2), 620–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/14779714231169684

Chan

(2010). Applications of andragogy in multi-disciplined teaching and learning. Journal of Adult Education, 39(2), 25–35.

Creswell

J. W.

(2012). Education research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education, Inc.

Cross

K. P.

(1981). Adult as learners: Increasing participation and facilitating learning. Jossey-Bass Publisher.

DVV International, German Institute for Adult Education-Leibniz Centre for Lifelong Learning, International Council for Adult Education, & UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning . (2021). Curriculum globALE: Competency framework for adult educators. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377422

European Union . (2016). Classification of learning activities (CLA) manual.

Fabrigar

L. R.

Wegener

D. T.

(2012). Exploratory factor analysis. University Press, Inc.

Freire

(1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.

10.

Hodge

Knight

Milana

Waller

Webb

(2022). Theorising adults, theorising learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 41(4-5), 399–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2022.2116792

11.

Holton III

E. F.

Wilson

L. S.

Bates

R. A.

(2009). Toward development of generalized instrument to measure andragogy. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(2), 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20014

12.

Kagitcibasi

Goksen

Gülgöz

(2011). Functional adult literacy and empowerment of women: Impact of a functional literacy program in Turkey. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(6), 472–489. https://doi.org/10.1598/jaal.48.6.3

13.

Kingdom of Cambodia . (2002). Policy of non-formal education. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport.

14.

Knowles

M. S.

(1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy.

15.

Knowles

M. S.

Holton

E. F.

Swanson

R. A.

(2005). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resources development (6th ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.

16.

Kovačević

(2021). Teaching adult language learners: Enhancing personal methodologies. International University of Sarajevo.

17.

Ministry of Planning (MoP) . (2022). Report of Cambodia socio-economic survey 2021. National Institute of Statistics (NIS).

18.

MoEYS . (2000). Report on the assessment of the functional literacy level of the adult population in Cambodia.

19.

MoEYS . (2022). Public education statistics and indicators 2021 – 2022.

20.

MoEYS/DNFE . (2021). Detailed report on non-formal education, 2020. Department of Non-Formal Education (DNFE).

21.

Morris

(1996). The Hong Kong school curriculum: Development, issues and policies. Hong Kong University Press.

22.

Mukhalalati

B. A.

Taylor

(2019). Adult learning theories in context: A quick guide for health care professional educators. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 6, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2382120519840332

23.

Mullis

I. V. S.

Martin

M. O.

Liu

(2019). PIRLS 2021 context questionnaire framework. In Mullis

I. V. S.

Martin

M. O.

(Eds.), PIRLS 2021 assessment frameworks (pp. 27–56). TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College, and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).

24.

Ouane

(2011). Evolution of and perspectives on lifelong learning. In Yang

Cotera

R. V.

(Eds.), Conceptual evolution and policy developments in lifelong learning (pp. 24–39). UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.

25.

Park

Robinson

Bates

(2016). Adult learning principles and processes and their relationships with learner satisfaction: Validation of the andragogy in practice inventory (API) in the Jordanian context. In Adult education research conference. https://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2016/papers/28

26.

Pech

(2002). The history of literacy in Cambodia. Leisure Cambodia, 2(9). https://www.leisurecambodia.com/news/detail.php?id=106.

27.

Reynolds

K. A.

Mullis

I. V. S.

Martin

M. O.

(2021). TIMSS 2023 context questionnaire framework. In Mullis

I. V. S.

Martin

M. O.

Davier

M. V.

(Eds.), TIMSS 2023 assessment frameworks (pp. 46–70). TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education and Human Development, Boston College, and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).

28.

Ryan

A. M.

Patrick

(2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 437–460. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038002437

29.

Schulz

Fraillon

Losito

Agrusti

Ainley

Damiany

Friedman

(2023). IEA international civic and citizenship education study 2022 assessment framework. In International association for the evaluation of educational achievement (IEA).

30.

Singh

(2015). Global perspective on recognizing non-formal and informal learning: Why recognition matters. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.

31.

Torres

R. M.

(2011). Lifelong learning: Moving beyond Education for All (EFA). In Yang

Cotera

R. V.

(Eds.), Conceptual evolution and policy developments in lifelong learning (pp. 40–50). UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.

32.

UIL (UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning) . (2022). Making lifelong learning a reality: A handbook.

33.

UIL (UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning) and APCEIU (UNESCO Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding) . (2019). Global citizenship and adult literacy. Paper commissioned for the 2019 UIL/APCEIU publication, addressing global citizenship education in adult learning and education: Summary report.

34.

UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics) . (2012). International standard classification of education ISCED 2011.

35.

UNESCO . (2012). Regional handbook on life skills programmes for non-formal education. UNESCO Bangkok.

36.

UNESCO . (2015). Education for all 2000 – 2015: Achievements and challenges.

37.

UNESCO and UIL . (2016). Recommendation on adult learning and education, 2015. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245179

38.

UNICEF . (2000). Defining quality in education. https://www.right-to-education.org/resource/defining-quality-education

39.

Victor

(2004). Full time adult credential students’ instructional preferences at California State University. Long Beach: Pedagogy or Andragogy? Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE, 5(3), 365–370. https://doi.org/10.1631/bf02841024

40.

Yang

(2015). Recognizing, validation and accreditation of non-formal and informal learning in UNESCO member states. UIL.

41.

Zhao

Yang

(2022). Examining the relationship between perceived teacher support and students’ academic engagement in foreign language learning: Enjoyment and boredom as mediators. Frontiers in Psychol, 13, 1–15, Article 987554. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.987554