An Indicator System for Adult Lifelong Learning Literacy

An Indicator System for Adult Lifelong Learning Literacy Ai-Tzu Li, Assistant professor, National Chung Cheng University Chia-Chi Tsai, graduate student, National Chung Cheng University ABSTRACT The purpose of the study was to construct an indicator system to evaluate adults lifelong learning literacy. The indicator system was based on the IPO(input-process-output) model and covered the skills/abilities, knowledge, and attitudes. The study defined adult lifelong learning literacy as having the skills/abilities to continue learning throughout the lifespan knowledge, skills and attitudes adults need to be developing from childhood. The system contained 3 domains and 11 dimensions of learning literacy. Delphi method and analytical hierarchy process were employed to establish the indicators. Several conclusions were obtained. Keywords: lifelong learning literacy, indicator, Delphi method, AHP INTRODUCTION Facing the fast rate of knowledge evolvement in recent years, all the advanced countries have appealed to the strategy of promoting lifelong learning and establishing a learning society as the solution. The knowledge and skill levels of citizens as well as the ability of self-learning are not only key elements for sustainable development of the society but also important indicators of national competitiveness. For example, a European Union policy paper argued that the aims of lifelong learning are dependent on citizens having adequate and up-to-date knowledge and skills to take part in and make a contribution to economic and social life (Commission of the European Communities, 2000, p.5). In Taiwan, the Ministry of Education has listed the ability of lifelong learning as one of the ten fundamental abilities to equip the students with. Besides, some research shows that lifelong learning encourages active citizenship (Schuller et al, 2004). It is clear that the lifelong learning ability has become one of the requirements for future citizens. However, most of the past discussion about lifelong learning is limited to the conceptual level while scholars also have different interpretations about the contents of lifelong learning. Even though there are some theses focusing on different professionals lifelong learning ability, such as elementary school teachers, soldiers, the measurement of lifelong learning ability does not reach a consensus (Fan, 2003; Ting, 2001; Tsui, 1999; Wu, 2002). It is urgent priority in the field of education research to find out what kind of abilities a lifelong learner should acquire and how to evaluate the lifelong learning ability of each individual. The study especially focused on the competencies that adults should possess. To realize this goal, this study is therefore intended mainly to: first, discuss the meanings and components of adult lifelong learning; second, establish an indicator system of adult lifelong learning literacy; and third, establish a weighted indicator system of adult lifelong learning literacy. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Lifelong learning literacy in this study is defined as the adults who have the skills/abilities to The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 3, Num. 1, July 2007 61

continue learning throughout the lifespan knowledge, skills and attitudes. It seldom finds the term lifelong learning literacy in the literature. However, being aware of lifelong learning and possessing the competence of lifelong learning are keys to future success. The study would build up the framework from learning theory, lifelong learning competencies, and the characteristics of lifelong learners. Learning Theory Since lifelong learners include children, youngsters, and adults, learning theories that can apply to lifelong learning literacy should be comprehensive to include all related learning theories. Merriam & Caffarella (1999) claimed learning can divide into five orientations, behaviorist, cognitivist, humanist, social learning, and constructivist. Among the five orientations, humanist, cognitivist, and constructivist are closely related to the characteristics of lifelong learners. In terms of humanistic approach, Roger s humanity learning theory is conducive to building up the contents of lifelong learning literacy (Lai, 1998). That is, the learners are the masters of learning. When the learners are in charge of the learning goals, process, there will be better learning effects. Based on cognitivist approach, the autonomy of the learner and higher order learning ability are important. Basically, there are four essential abilities, including self-awareness of learning contents and learning context, self-monitoring the learning process, critical thinking and creative thinking, and improving learning style. As for the constructivist approach, it quite resonates to adult learning theory. There are several kinds of adult learning theories can apply to this study. One is focusing on the characteristics of learners, such as Knowles andragogy; another, learning process theory, such as self-directed learning, experiential learning models. Knowles (1975) proposed andragogy and developed two propositions for adult learning: adults are aware of their own learning needs and adults are self-directed. Therefore, it can be concluded that adults should have self-awareness ability and self-directed learning ability. Based on the learning process theory, self-directed learning is closely related to learning competencies. Knowles (1975) defined self-directed learning as a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies and evaluating learning outcomes (p.18). However, self-directed learning is not only a process. Tough (1979) said that being self-directed should possess four kinds of abilities, in other words, the learner is able to select and perform well in preparation, diagnose what of support he or she needs, select and apply useful resources, and analyze the whole learning plan. As for Kolb experiential learning model, the learner has to be equipped with four kind of basic abilities. That is, receiving information ability, reflection, abstract thinking, and action. Later Brockett and Hiemstra (1991) advanced the Personal Responsibility Orientation (PRO) model. This model recognized both differences and similarities between self-directed learning as an instructional method and learner self-directed as a set of personality characteristics. From general learning theory and adult learning theory, it is found that in addition to the basic abilities, such as conceptualization, memory, learning transfer, metacognition, the ability to reflect and action are also important. Lifelong Learning Competences In addition to the above learning theories, many international institution and scholars had defined 62 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 3, Num. 1, July 2007

learning competences in many ways. In UNESCO, Faure report (Faure, et al, 1972), Learning to Be: the World of Education Today and Tomorrow mentioned learning competences include learn to live, learn to learn, learn to think critically and freely, and learn to love the world. Also, the report, Learning: The Treasure Within announcing a learning agenda for the new century (Delors et al, 1996 ) mentioned four pillars as the foundations of education, including learning to live together, learning to know, learning to do, and learning to be. In addition, the report, Nurturing the treasure: Vision and Strategy 2002-2007 (2003) mentioned it s necessary to add the fifth pillar, that is, learning to change. In sum, there are four kinds of abilities to equip with: learning how to learn; critical thinking ability; interpersonal skills; and creativity. In the same vein, the goals of the seamless education system designed by Australia also put an emphasis on cultivating individual s eight key competences, including (1) collecting, analyzing and organizing information; (2) expression and analyzing information; (3) planning and organizing activity; (4) team work competence; (5) math ability; (6) problem solving; (7) operating information technology; (8) understanding different cultures. Longworth(2003)pointed out that in a changing and lifelong learning society, everyone should posses several core skills and competencies, such as learning to learn, questioning, reasoning and critical judgment, thinking skills and creativity, and lifelong learning. Knapper & Cropley (2000) pointed out that promotion of lifelong learning should include cognitive aspects as well as non-cognitive aspects, such as motivation, attitudes, values, self-image and similar non-cognitive factors. These define willingness and readiness to learn. Therefore, an idealized lifelong learner should possess knowledge, skills, and readiness for lifelong learning. In addition, the Nine-year Integrated Curriculum Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Education in Taiwan has listed the ability of lifelong learning as one of the ten fundamental abilities to equip the students with. It defines lifelong learning as i. understanding the concept of lifelong learning; ii. being able to conduct self-directed learning; iii. having the traits of self-directedness; iv. attending various forms of learning activities automatically (Ministry of Education, 1998). The Characteristics of Lifelong Learners Another approach to look at lifelong learning literacy is from the perspective of the characteristics of lifelong learners. Wu (2004) defined lifelong learning from attitude, action, ability and habit. According to him, the characteristics of a lifelong learner include: developing lifelong learning abilities, doing well in learning plan and time management, being able to use various learning methods and strategies, enjoying in team learning, conducting self-directed learning, evaluating lifelong learning, etc. In 2001, UNESCO Institution of Education proposed Revisiting lifelong learning for 21st Century to elaborate a different constellation of characteristics of the lifelong learner (Medel-Aňonuevo, Ohsako, & Mauch, 2001). The learner is an active and creative explorer of the world, a reflexive agent, a self-actualizing agent, and an integrator of learning. Different from the four aspects proposed by UNESCO, Australia also provided a framework about the lifelong learners. Therefore, Education Queensland proposed seven valued attributes of a lifelong learner. A lifelong learner is a knowledgeable person with deep understanding, a complex thinker, a creative person, an active investigator, an effective communicator, a participant in an interdependent world, a reflective and self-directed learner. Chiang(1998) defined the characteristics of lifelong learners from the perspective of self-directed learning. Therefore, a lifelong learner should love to try any learning opportunities, be able to employ The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 3, Num. 1, July 2007 63

learning strategies and skills, learn independently, take responsibility, enjoy learning, be creative, be able to make a future plan, and have the ability and skills of problem solving. To sum up, most of the lifelong learners possess basic cognitive ability and are capable of reflection, creativity, and information literacy. Moreover, they are curious and self-directed, such as learning independently, using a variety of learning methods and approaches, and relocating learning resources. The Development of the Indicator System (1) The Conceptual Framework According to the above discussion, the components of lifelong learning literacy are developed on the basis of general learning theory, adult learning theory, learners characteristics, and learning competences. General learning theory provides an understanding of general learning competences, such as memory, basic cognitive ability, learning transfer ability, etc. Adult learning theory focuses on adults critical thinking, reflection, creativity, self-direction, and learning to learn. Meanwhile, the discussion of learners characteristics also provides us an understanding of the essential attributes or traits that lifelong learners should have. All of these formed the conceptual framework of this study. Besides, the study looked at learning as a process and the learners wanted to have control over their learning process. Swanson (1996) proposed a framework that adult learning is a planning process that includes four phases: need, create, implement, and evaluate. The study borrowed and revised this framework and looked at learning as a process (input, process, and output) with components of the traits and competencies of the individual. (2) The Preposition (i) The literacy indicator system is for people in the 21st century. (ii) The indictor system includes competencies in cognitive, skills, and affective aspects. (iii) The indicator system implies a dynamic learning process. (iv) The indictor system puts emphasis on process rather than result. (3) The Planning Structure of the Indicator System The structure of the indicator system is composed of three tiers: domains, dimensions and indicators. The first tier includes three domains: learning input, learning process and learning output. The second tier includes nine dimensions: self-awareness, learning awareness, basic concepts, learning strategies and methods, pursuit and integration of learning resources, planning and management of learning time, team learning, learning evaluation and learning transfer. The third tier provides further descriptions of each specific indicator in each dimension. RESEARCH DESIGN There were two stages in the research. In the first stage, which was intended to find out the contents of lifelong learning, the Delphi Method was used with 24 distinguished scholars and adult educators. In the second stage, the Analysis Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to find out the ratio of each aspect and to establish an indicator system of lifelong learning ability. Each method is described as the follows. Delphi Method According to the literature review, the researchers developed the questionnaire Adult Lifelong Learning Literacy and sent it to the experts to collect the professional opinions. There were total three round questionnaires, which were sent out on January, February, and mid-march of 2006 respectively. After the questionnaire was returned, mean, standard deviation, mode, and interquartile range were 64 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 3, Num. 1, July 2007

1. learning Input 2. Learning Process calculated. The dimensions and indicators were revised according to the suggestions provided by the experts. After three rounds data collection, it came out the final indicator system. Analysis Hierarchy Process The second stage of this research uses AHP to collect opinions from Delphi experts so as to establish a feasible and practical relatively weighted indicator system of lifelong learning literacy. Expert Choice 2000 was used to analyze the results. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Analysis Results of Delphi Method After the data compilation and analysis, in the production of the third-round questionnaire, there were three domains, 11 dimensions and 49 indicators. From the answers of the experts filling in the third-round questionnaire, it was found the average importance value (AIV) of each dimension and indicator is higher than 6.5 with a standard variance of less than 0.6 while the number of experts opinions and suggestions decreased drastically. The findings indicated the experts had reached a strong consensus on the indicators of adults lifelong learning competences. Based on the results of the three rounds of questionnaires, this study constructed an indicator system of three domains, 11 dimensions and 49 indicators as illustrated in the following Table 1: Table 1. Indicators of Adults Lifelong Learning Literacy Domain Dimension Indicator 1-1 Self-awareness 1-2 Learning awareness 1-3 Cognitive ability 1-4 Information retrieval ability 2-1 Framing learning plan 2-2 Capabilities of using learning strategies 1-1-1 awareness of the development directions based on self-interests 1-1-2 looking for self-recognition and self-achievement 1-1-3 awareness of the self-potential to accomplish learning plan/process 1-1-4 understanding personal advantages and drawbacks on the learning process 1-1-5 understanding the learning needs concerning self-improvement 1-2-1 understanding the necessity of participating in learning 1-2-2 having high persistence of learning 1-2-3 understanding the needed learning information 1-2-4 strong awareness of the connections between lifelong learning and personal life development 1-2-5 having curiosity to learning new things 1-2-6 strong awareness of doing lifelong learning in different ways 1-2-7 understanding the need of or the attraction to learning activities 1-3-1 having basic proficiencies of listening, speaking, reading and writing 1-3-2 having the abilities to apply mathematic concepts and skills 1-3-3 having the abilities of concept formation and abstract thinking 1-4-1 able to use IT tools 1-4-2 able to search learning information through different kinds of electronic media 1-4-3 able to search needed information from libraries 2-1-1 able to make leaning plans based on self-needs 2-1-2 able to set self-learning goals clearly 2-1-3 able to organize learning activities based on past learning experience 2-2-1 able to use the varied learning goals depending on different development stages to guide learning 2-2-2 able to organize ideas through reading guideline, drawing charts, taking notes, etc. 2-2-3 able to question frequently what had learned 2-2-4 able to use learning skills flexibly in different conditions to improve learning efficiency 2-2-5 able to use the learning experience to solve problem 2-2-6 able to use different ways to memorize, such as keywords, highlight, taking notes average importance value 6.57 6.63 6.51 6.64 6.81 6.67 6.67 6.62 6.71 6.53 6.62 6.51 6.79 6.87 6.56 6.69 6.75 6.64 6.53 6.66 6.85 6.74 6.63 6.58 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 3, Num. 1, July 2007 65

3.Learning Output 2-3 Integrating of learning resources 2-4 planning and management of learning time 2-5 Collaborative learning 3-1 Learning evaluation and reflection 3-2 Learning transfer 2-3-1 able to effectively use all kinds of resources to make learning plans 2-3-2 able to select suitable information 2-3-3 able to use resources to make analysis and judgment and to integration learning information 2-3-4 able to use kinds of ways to integrate the information of learning 2-3-5 able to look for help from different resources when facing learning problem 2-4-1 able to do arrange free time to participate learning activities 2-4-2 keeping learning everyday 2-4-3 able to plan learning participation early and implement personal learning plans 2-4-4 able to design time management plan based on self-need 2-5-1 able to clearly express self-opinion in group 2-5-2 able to learn different learning experiences from others 2-5-3 able to discuss learning objectives with others 2-5-4 able to cooperate with others to complete the tasks 2-5-5 able to share learning resources with others 3-1-1 able to reflect learning methods and results through learning activities 3-1-2 able to self-evaluate learning efficiency 3-1-3 able to use learning results to examine the learning goal 3-1-4 able to use learning results to improve learning quality 3-2-1 able to use learned knowledge in different conditions 3-2-2 able to abstract the learning and transfer to useful knowledge 3-2-3 able to use learned knowledge to plan learning of future 3-2-4 able to use acquired knowledge to solve the daily problem 6.75 6.69 6.54 6.77 6.63 6.57 6.68 6.53 6.56 6.76 6.64 6.63 6.58 6.61 6.55 6.78 6.64 6.69 6.70 6.66 Analysis of the Indicator System of Adults Lifelong Learning Literacy Based on the confirmed results of the third-round Delphi questionnaire, the experts were asked to fill in a questionnaire of the relative weight of each indicator and the statistic software, Expert Choice 2000, was used to analyze the results. After the analysis, the O.I.I. and I.R. of each domain ranged from 0.01 to 0.00. The analysis results were further explained as follows: (1) The results of the relative weight analysis of the three domains According to the analysis results, the experts regarded the domain of learning process (0.641) as the most important, followed by learning input (0.235) and then learning output(0.124). In this study, the learning process domain focused on the capabilities of learning how to learn, critical thinking, using resources well and teamwork. These capabilities corresponded to the four learning abilities highlighted in the Faure report. They also corresponded to the core skills and competencies of lifelong learning proposed by Longworth (2003). In addition, it could be found that the learning output was something the experts paid relatively little attention to. It might be because, from the perspective of education, learning process was even more important than learning results. (2) The relative weight analysis results of the 11 dimensions Among the 11 dimensions, the ability of integrating of learning resources ranked the highest in the overall weight ranking (0.240), followed by the ability of using learning strategies(0.175) and framing learning plan(0.171) while the information retrieval ability(0.016) and the dimension of learning transfer(0.011) were the two lowest. The five dimensions of the learning process domain constituted a majority of the total relative weight (.641). In the three domains, the dimensions of self-awareness, integration of learning resources, and learning evaluation and reflection had higher relative weights respectively. In addition, all the dimensions of the learning process domain ranked within top six in the ranking of relative weight, indicating the importance of the process domain. (3) The relative weight analysis results of the 49 indicators were listed respectively in Tables 2, 3 and 4. 66 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 3, Num. 1, July 2007

Table 2. Relative Weight Analysis of the Indicators of the Input Domain Dimension Indicator RW Ranking OWR awareness of the development directions based on self-interests.378 1 1 looking for self-recognition and self-achievement.223 2 2 Self-awareness awareness of the self-potential to accomplish learning plan/process.166 4 3 (.604) understanding personal advantages and drawbacks on the learning process.066 5 9 understand the learning needs concerning self-improvement.167 3 3 Learning awareness (.129) Cognitive ability (.161) Information retrieval ability (.107) I.R.=.00 understanding the necessity of participating in learning.298 1 6 having high persistence of learning.129 3 13 understanding the needed learning information.080 6 17 strong awareness of the connections between lifelong learning and personal.249 2 7 life development having curiosity to learning new things.046 7 18 strong awareness of doing lifelong learning in different ways.094 5 16 understanding the need of or the attraction to learning activities.105 4 14 having basic proficiencies of listening, speaking, reading and writing.320 2 10 having the abilities to apply mathematic concepts and skills.170 3 14 having the abilities of concept formation and abstract thinking.509 1 5 Able to use IT tools.369 2 11 Able to search learning information through different kinds of electronic media.390 1 7 able to search needed information from libraries.241 3 12 RW=relative weight, TRW=total relative weight, OWR=overall weight ranking As indicated in Table 2, among the dimensions of the input domain, self-awareness was the most important. All the indicators of the self-awareness dimension ranked within top 10 in the overall weight ranking. Among them, the indicators of awareness of the development directions based on self-interests and looking for self-recognition and self-achievement had higher relative weights. In addition, the indicators of the dimensions of the cognitive ability and the information retrieval ability had lower relative weights. It was probably because the abilities were relative basic abilities. Table 3. Relative Weight Analysis of the Indicators of the Process Domain Dimension Indicator RW Ranking OWR Framing able to make leaning plans based on self-needs.440 1 4 learning plan able to set self-learning goals clearly.398 2 5 (.214) able to organize learning activities based on past learning experience.162 3 4 Capabilities of using learning strategies (.220) Integrating of learning resources (.301) Planning and management of learning time (.176) Collaborative learning (.088) I.R=.00 able to use the varied learning goals depending on different development stages to.384 1 3 guide learning able to organize ideas through reading guideline, drawing charts, taking notes, etc..070 5 21 able to question frequently what had learned.123 4 16 able to use learning skills flexibly in different conditions to improve learning efficiency.202 2 10 able to use the learning experience to solve problem.159 3 11 able to use different ways to memorize, such as keywords, highlight, taking notes.062 6 23 able to effectively use all kinds of resources to make learning plans.307 1 1 able to select suitable information.165 3 7 able to use resources to make analysis and judgment and to integration learning.274 2 2 information able to use kinds of ways to integrate the information of learning.156 4 8 able to look for help form different resources when facing learning problem.099 5 11 able to do arrange free time to participate learning activities.151 3 18 keeping learning everyday.108 4 20 able to plan learning participation early and implement personal learning plans.446 1 6 able to design time management plan based on self-need.295 2 9 Able to clearly express self-opinion in group.217 3 16 able to learn different learning experiences from others.243 2 14 Able to discuss learning objectives with others.282 1 11 able to cooperate with others to complete the tasks.142 4 19 able to share learning resources with others.116 5 22 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 3, Num. 1, July 2007 67

As indicated in Table 3, in each of the dimensions of the process domain, there was at least one indicator which ranked within top 10 in the overall weight ranking of the indicators in the process domain except collaborative learning. Therefore, it can be said that each dimension of the process domain had its own representative indicator. In addition, among the dimensions, the ability of integrating learning sources was the most important, followed by using learning strategies. In addition, the indicator of able to effectively use all kinds of resources to make learning plans accounted for more than 30% of the total relative weight of the dimension and it was also the highest in the relative weight ranking of all the indicators in the process domain. This finding corresponded to the characteristics of a lifelong learner proposed by Cindy (1994). Table 4. Relative Weight Analysis of the Indicators of the Output Domain Dimension Indicator RW Ranking OWR able to reflect learning methods and results through learning activities.339 2 2 Learning able to self-evaluate learning efficiency.157 3 3 evaluation and able to use learning results to examine the learning goal.400 1 1 reflection(0.808) able to use learning results to improve learning quality.105 4 4 Learning transfer (0.192) I.R.=.00 able to use learned knowledge in different conditions.318 2 6 able to abstract the learning and transfer to useful knowledge.323 1 5 able to use learned knowledge to plan learning of future 160 4 8 able to use acquired knowledge to solve the daily problem.198 3 7 As seen in Table 4, the dimension of learning evaluation and reflection accounted for 80% of the total relative weight of the output domain. Additionally, the indicators belonging to the dimension of learning evaluation and reflection ranked top four among all the indicators of the output domain. Among them, the indicator of able to evaluate if personal learning results meet the expectation had the highest relative weight. Compared with other studies, this study developed an indicator system with a more specific structure of domains, dimensions and indicators. The system can represent the systematic nature of learning and cover comprehensively the aspects of cognitions, contexts and skills discussed by many scholars. In addition, the indicators in the system can represent the importance of the corresponding dimensions. CONCLUSIONS (1) The contents of adults lifelong learning literacy included correct cognition of lifelong learning, possession of the abilities of lifelong learning and the willingness of lifelong learning as well as the abilities to evaluate personal learning status. Through the literature viewer, this study defined adults with lifelong learning literacy as adults who have the concepts of lifelong learning and continue to develop the cognitions, competences and attitudes of lifelong learning in his or her life. (2) The indicator system developed in this study had totally 11 dimensions and 49 indicators. After the literature review and the analysis, the study adopted the Delphi method and the AHP to construct an indicator system of adults lifelong learning literacy and the relative weights of all the indicators. The 49 indicators of the 11 dimensions in this system can be practically used to measure each individual s lifelong learning literacy and further to find out the lifelong learning literacy of all the citizens in Taiwan, providing references for lifelong learning program designers and policy makers. (3) The most important dimensions in the system developed in this study were the capabilities of using learning strategies well, integrating learning resources, planning and management of learning time, 68 The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 3, Num. 1, July 2007

collaborative learning and learning awareness. According to the experts opinions, the indicator of using learning strategies well accounts for nearly 30% of the total relative weight of all the dimensions, which further confirms the importance of this indicator. In addition, all the dimensions of the process domain ranked top positions in the ranking of relative weights. This finding indicated, in the adults lifelong learning literacy, the indicators of the learning process domain were more important than others. REFERENCES Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in Adult Learning: Perspectives in Theory, Research, and Practice. London: Routledge. Chiang, H. L. (1998). The Promotion of Lifelong Education of American. Adult Education Bimonthly, 44, 48-53. Candy, P. C., Crebert, R.G., & O Leary, J. O. (1994). Developoing Lifelong Learners through Undergraudate Education. Canberra, Australia: National Board of Employment, Education and Training. Commission of the European Communities (2000). A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning. Brussels: Directorate General for Education, Training and Youth. Delors, J., et al. (1996). Learning: The Treasure Within. UNESCO. Faure, E. et al (1972). Learnnig to be: The World of Education Today and Tomorrow. UNESCO. Fan, Y. Y. (2003). The Study of Life Long Learning and Its Impact on military Personnel Quality and Work Performance. Unpublished master s thesis, Chung Hua Universuty, HsinChu, Taiwan. Knapper, C.K. & Cropley, A.J.(2000). Lifelong Learning in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page. Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed Learning : A Guide for Learners and Tteachers. New York: Association Press. Longworth, N. (2003). Lifelong Learning in Action: Transforming Education in the 21 st Century. London: Kogan Page. Longworth, N., & Davies, W.K. (1996). Lifelong Learning: New Vision, New Implications, New Roles for People, Organizations, Nations and Communities in the 21 st Century. London: Kogan Page. Medel-Anonuevo, C., Ohsako, T., & Mauch, W. (2001). Revisiting Lifelong Learning for the 21 st Century. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education. Merriam, S., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ministry of Education. (1998). The Nine-year Integrated Curriculum Guidelines for Junior High School. Taipei: Ministry of Education. Queensland School Curriculum Council (2002). Over learning outcomes and the valued attributes of a lifelong learner. Retrieved August 20, 2005, from http://www.mackwestss.qld.edu.au/outcomes_based_education.htm Schuller, T., Preston, J., Hammond, C., Brassett-Grundy, A., & Bynner, J. (2004). The benefits of learning: The impact of education on health, family life and social capital. London: Routledge Falmer. Ting, J. W. (2001). A study of the relationship between lifelong learning literacy and professional attitude of public junior high and elementary school teachers. Unpublished master s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Tough, A. (1979). The Adult's Learning Project. (2nd ed.). Ontario: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Tsui, Y. H. (1999). A study on the lifelong learning competency of teachers in elementary school. Unpublished master s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan. Wu, M. L. (2004). Lifelong Learning: Ideas and Practices. Taipei: Wu Nan Publisher. Wu, P. R. (2002). The Study of Lifelong Learning Literacy and Professional Attitude for Special Education Teachers in Elementary Schools. Unpublished master s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning Vol. 3, Num. 1, July 2007 69