Analyzing Lifelong Learning Tendency in Language Classrooms,Thailand

Abstract

Being able to use a foreign language to communicate will increase an individual's opportunities of employment and personal growth, which implies the significance of adopting a lifelong learning approach to language learning. This study was conducted to explore language learners’ lifelong learning tendency in general and the key factors affecting this tendency in a humanities and language division in an international college in Thailand. By using stratified random sampling strategies, 383 full-time language learners participated in this study. The survey questionnaire was designed based upon the Lifelong Learning Tendency Scale developed by Coskun and Demirel (2010). The scale contained four dimensions with 27 statements: motivation (6), perseverance (6), self-regulation (6), and curiosity (9) with Cronbach alpha of 0.89 from the pilot study results (n = 50). After performing statistical analyses (T-test, analysis of variance, and multiple linear regression) to the data, it was found that students in the Thai context held a comparatively high level of inclination for lifelong learning. Among the selected demographic variables, only the year of learning at college was found to correlate with the lifelong learning tendency.

Keywords

lifelong learning motivation perseverance self-regulation curiosity language teaching and learning

Introduction

Globalization has radically changed both the economic system and people's personal lives in post-industrial nations. To survive the hyper competitiveness and volatile nature of today's labor market, everyone has to lead a life spent in the never-ending pursuit of learning (Glastra & Hake, 2008) to be able to progressively acquire, fine-tune, and transfer knowledge over long time spans while retaining previously learned experiences, known as lifelong learning (LLL) (Parisi et al., 2019). With the forces emerging from the employment market driven by investment in human capitals, and association with the commodification of learning and skills (Vargas, 2017), LLL could also refer to the opportunities to engage with educational provisions (Poquest & Laat, 2021), in which the university has become the important entity for students to develop graduate qualifications to contribute to their profession and society (Bowden et al., 2000; Cheng et al., 2021)

LLL is an increasingly relevant concept that has been studied by the educational community in recent decades. It has been recognized by educators, governing bodies, employers, and the general public as one of the most important competencies that people must possess. The existing body of literature argues that LLL is an educational paradigm through which education is conceived as an indispensable and continuous element in an individual's lifespan that functions as a means to achieve stable and evolutionary training in competencies, knowledge and attitudes with the multiple benefits of dealing with and managing the rapid changes in society, capitalizing on better job opportunities and obtaining personal enrichment (Arthur, 2009; Glastra & Hake, 2008; Laal, 2012; Rubenson, 2006; Teunissen & Dornan, 2008). From an individual perspective, LLL refers to an individual needs to continue his or her learning by searching for personal and/or professional development with self-motivation (Molina & Schettini, 2021).

However, there are many challenges as regards the need for LLL and what it entails in a language classroom, in which the primary focus is recognized as achieving linguistic proficiency and communicative competence (Legenhausen, 2001). Even though LLL qualities have been emphasized and put in curricular guidelines around the world, the reality is different. Educational stakeholders, such as government, administrators, school boards, teachers, parents, and including students themselves focus on good results of the linguistic competences in all kinds of examinations, which leads to an overall approach of rote and surfacing learning (Amhed & Ahamad, 2017; Hasnoor et al., 2013; Veloo et al., 2015). This is rather common in the local Thai context as well. Students need to take proficiency exams in English to determine their level of English in both state and private universities. Their other course selections are also affected by their language proficiency, which might result in demotivation and love for learning if students perceive foreign language learning as an imposition on them. In addition, there is no motivation for universities to be responsible for promoting lifelong language learning. Moreover, along with students’ graduation, the good quality of the linguistic skills and competences acquired at college might not remain at the same level unless they are actively maintained and consolidated.

The existing challenges require the development of deep learning skills in students to help them to become lifelong learners across disciplines at all level of education (Hasnoor et al., 2013), including the language learning. As argued by Deveci (2015), being able to use a foreign language to communicate will increase an individual's opportunities of employment and cultural growth. In a language classroom, learners are expected to have a better understanding of himself or herself, gain an awareness of the environment and its workings, and to learn how to learn with continuous learning skills (Helyer, 2015). Teachers should take on a more facilitative role and learners take more responsibilities for setting goals, identifying resources for learning, and reflecting on and evaluating their learning (Collins, 2009).

To have a better understanding of the status quo of the teaching and learning in a language classroom in higher education and to determine if today's language classroom environment caters for LLL, this study was conducted to explore students’ LLL tendency in a humanities and language division of an international college, Thailand. The study tends to address the following research questions:

What is the level of students’ lifelong learning tendency in language classrooms, Thailand?

What are the differences of students’ lifelong learning tendency according to number of languages being studied besides English, year of learning at college, and gender?

To what degree are the key factors impacting on students’ lifelong learning tendency?

It is hoped that all stakeholders, especially learners, understand that good quality of linguistic competences acquired at school might not remain if they are not actively maintained and consolidated. And the languages learnt at school may not suit your need for your job or for other purposes later in life. These mean that language learners cannot stop learning at the end of formal education. They need continuous motivation and guidance to pursue a LLL process before they graduate, which makes this study significant by exploring the language learners’ readiness for LLL in order to benefit their current language development and future career pursuit. This study also aims to increase the awareness of educational administrators and practitioners the importance of incorporating the LLL approach into language teaching and learning. Last but not least, the selected international college in this study is one of the most prestigious international colleges, Thailand. The results therefore could provide meaningful references as regards language teaching and learning situation in Thailand.

Literature Review

LLL in Education

As early as the 1920s, it was argued by Dewey, Lindeman, and Yeaxle that learning was a lifelong process, and that as learning was life itself, it therefore needed to be seen as an intrinsic part of life (Ayhan, 2006). As learning can take place in formal, informal, and non-formal settings throughout life (Coombs & Ahmed, 1974), so LLL was defined as a process of both deliberate and unintentional opportunities influencing learning throughout one's life span (Iqbal, 2009, p. 1).

With the pressure from the forces of globalization and the information and technological revolution, the concept of LLL has been given increased attention. UNESCO's Institutions of Education also attempted to define LLL as a process that should continue throughout life, in which a learner should keep abreast of technical and social change to equip himself or herself for changes in his or her own circumstances (Titmus, 1979, cited in Deveci, 2015), which implies that education is diverse, adapted to the individual and available throughout our lives. Schooling is not only a simple starting point, but to create awareness in pupils, provide the foundations and orientation for continuous LLL, rather than prescription (Knapper & Cropley, 2000). LLL is also considered as one of the characteristics of flexibility, one of the most important soft skills needed in today's workplace. According to Robles (2012), schools should do a better job of teaching students to gain more soft skills, as it is often said that hard skills will get you an interview but you need soft skills to get (and keep) the job.

Lifelong Learners

The purpose of LLL in educational institutions is to create individuals who are capable of learning not only during their time as students, but, more importantly, are able to continue learning beyond their formal schooling environment throughout their lives (Mwaikokesya et al., 2014).

To be lifelong learners, a few attributes must be fulfilled. Knapper and Cropley (2000) portrayed the lifelong learner as the one who:

Is strongly aware of the relationships between learning and real life;

Is aware of the need for LLL;

Is highly motivated to pursue LLL;

Possesses a self-concept conducting to LLL;

Has the necessary skills for LLL as follows:

The capacity to set personal objectives in a realistic way;

Effectiveness in applying knowledge already possessed;

Skills at locating information;

Skills in using aids such as libraries or the media;

Ability to use and interpret materials from different subject areas (Knapper & Cropley, 2000).

Dimensions of LLL

Coskun and Demirel (2010) developed four dimensions of LLL skills that an LLL learner should possess: motivation, self-regulation, perseverance, and curiosity. Motivation, originated from psychology, is being studied to explain human behavior. It has become an inevitable component of education in general as the aim of education is to change human behavior towards the desired direction (Yilmaz & Kaygin, 2018). Motivation can be intrinsic (doing something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable) or extrinsic (doing something because it leads to a separable outcome) (Lin et al., 2003; McCombs, 2010), in which intrinsic motivation is important for maintaining LLL (Deveci, 2015). Especially in a language classroom, learners’ intrinsic motivation increases when they are interested in the people whose language they are learning and keen on integrating into their culture (Holt, 2001). Moreover, learners’ motivation exhibits a dynamic attribute over time (Shoaib & Dornyei, 2005).

Self-regulation, in this study, can be used interchangeably with self-instruction, or learner autonomy. It refers to the degree to which individuals are the active participants in their own learning (Dornyei, 2005). Besides, it is similar to the skill of learning-to-learn (Rawson, 2000). To develop such skills in a school setting, students should be encouraged to self-reflect through a conscious examination of their learning processes and build awareness of themselves as learners by identifying their learning needs, developing action plans and evaluating the whole learning process, adapting learning strategies according to new contexts, and making links between knowledge from different disciplines (Grenfell & Harris, 2017; Mizumoto, 2012; Mizumoto & Takeuchi, 2012; Ranalli, 2012).

Perseverance, as defined by Rovai (2003, p. 1), refers to “the behavior of continuing action despite the presence of obstacles.” In terms of learning, the definition suggests that an individual who is persistent can endure when facing difficulties and failure (Deveci, 2015). People who possess this attribute usually have high self-esteem in terms of their learning capacities and therefore tend to become lifelong learners compared with those who are doubtful of being able to achieve their targets (Pajares, 2002). Language learners therefore have stronger desire for persuasion, reinforcement, and positive evaluations by their teachers, peers, and parents to help them to develop a stronger sense of efficacy to reduce the negative impact of experiences of failure (Dornyei, 1994).

Curiosity is inseparable from motivation as an innate attribute of desiring to know, to see, and to experience that motivates exploratory behavior directed towards the acquisition of new information (Litman, 2005). It not only welcomes openness to new experiences, but also needs to be nurtured via both learning and social opportunities and resources (Lamb et al., 2009). Although lifelong learners need to be able to form their own questions, teachers play an important role by arousing students’ curiosity by Socratic questioning to train them to think critically (Deveci, 2015).

Methodology

Context

With a decade long trend of a lower number of newborns and a constant budget cut from the government, the higher educational market in Thailand has experienced a downward trend of new student enrollment. The prevailing situation could lead many universities, public/government-funded and private HEIs alike, to close down as they are not able to operate with a small number of students. Coping with a high pressure to stay attractive, Thai universities are now trying to find ways to differentiate themselves from others. Leading public universities are competing both on a local and a global scale, mainly through the university ranking such as Times Higher Education's. In 2021, 17 Thai universities, including Mahidol University, have been listed in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (The World University Rankings, 2020). The selected Mahidol University International College is a self-funded college situated in a public/government-funded university, Mahidol University. Since its inception 34 years ago, the college was the first to offer an undergraduate level international program in a public university. Being regarded as one of the top international programs in the country, the college enjoys decades long of an increase in enrollment both locally and internationally.

Participants

The participants involved were all full-time students who were learning at a humanities and language division in the above-mentioned Mahidol University International College in Term 1 of the academic year 2019–2020. The total number of students of the division is 1,047 during the study period. The languages available for students to study included and ranked according to the number of students were Chinese, Spanish, Japanese, French, German, and Thai. Having used stratified random sampling, a total of 400 students were approached collectively in class time by their language teachers, and 384 questionnaires were returned. The response rate was 96%.

Data Collection and Analysis

The survey questionnaire was employed as the tool to collect data in this study. As all of the participants had achieved an intermediate level of English language proficiency, therefore, the questions in the survey questionnaires were in English. The questionnaire consists of two sections. The first section aimed to collect participants’ demographics: gender, number of languages studied besides English, and year of learning at college. The second section was developed based on Coskun and Demirel’s (2010) Lifelong Learning Tendency Scale (LLLTS) with four dimensions: (a) motivation (six statements); (b) perseverance (six statements); (c) self-regulation (six statements), and (d) curiosity (nine statements).

The validity and reliability of the original LLLTS were tested by the developers with the Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient of 0.89 (Coskun & Demirel, 2010), which indicates that the instrument is reliable. LLLTS's reliability has been confirmed by other researchers as well (Deveci, 2015; Garipoglu, 2013). The questionnaire was also tested in a pilot study (n = 50) in this research with the values of Cronbach Alpha 0.84 to detect possible shortcomings such as clarity of instructions and questions, time to complete the questionnaire, and the meaningfulness of the study results. SPSS (IBM Statistics 22) was used to analyze the quantitative data. A p-value at .05 was used in determining statistically significant differences. T-test, analysis of variance, multiple liner regression were run to analyze the data.

The statements in the LLLTS are both positive and negative, such as

I can learn any kind of knowledge if I believe it will contribute to my personal development (positive statement).

I do not like to spend my time doing research unless I have to because of a project, an exam etc. (negative statement).

The respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with the given statements on a 6-point Likert scale with response choices ranging from 6 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). The negative statements were reversely scored.

Findings

Findings of Background Information

Table 1 presents the respondents’ background information. It shows that 50.4% of respondents were bilingual (English and one of other foreign languages provided by the language division being studied), and another almost half were multilingual (49.6%). The majority of them were first- or second-year students at college (79.6%), and the rest were Junior and seniors (21.4%). More than two-thirds (69.2%) were females.

Table 1.

Background Information.

Background information	Population (no.) n = 383
Number of language studied besides English
1 language	193	50.4%
2 languages	150	39.2%
3 languages	40	10.4%
Year of learning at college
1st year	149	38.9%
2nd year	156	40.7%
3rd year	44	11.5%
4th year	34	8.9%
Gender
Male	118	30.8%
Female	265	69.2%

Results of Research Question 1

The means of each dimension of LLL and the LLL tendency in general are demonstrated in Table 2. The respondents had rather high levels of the motivation (4.66) and perseverance (4.35) compared with those of curiosity (3.97) and self-regulation (3.79). The LLL frequency level of the respondents was comparatively high at 4.19.

Table 2.

Summary of Means.

	Mean	Std. deviation
Motivation (M)	4.66	0.56
Perseverance (P)	4.35	0.62
Curiosity (C)	3.97	0.82
Self-regulation (S)	3.79	0.60
LLL	4.19	0.47

Findings of Research Question 2

A multiple regression was run to investigate whether number of languages being studied besides English, year of learning at college, and gender could significantly impact LLL. As shown in Tables 3 and 4, the results of the regression indicated that the model explained 49% of the variance and the model was a significant predictor of LLL, F (3, 379) = 6.73, p = .00. However, only the year of learning is significantly related to LLL, as shown Table 5 (p < .05).

Table 3.

Model Summary.

Model summary
Model	R	R square	Adjusted R square	Std. error of the estimate
1	0.222^a	0.049	0.042	0.46487

Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Year of Learning, Number of Language.

Table 4.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)^a.

Model		Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	4.354	3	1.451	6.726	0.000 ^b
	Residual	81.783	379	0.216
	Total	86.137	382

Dependent variable: LLL.

Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Year of Learning, Number of Language.

Table 5.

Correlations.

		LLL	Number of Lg	Year of learning	Gender
Pearson correlation	LLL	1.000	0.101	0.201	−0.051
	Number of languages	0.101	1.000	0.090	0.032
	Year of learning	0.201	0.090	1.000	0.021
	Gender	−0.051	0.032	0.021	1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)	LLL	–	0.025	0.000	0.162
	Number of language	0.025	–	0.040	0.269
	Year of learning	0.000	0.040	–	0.344
	Gender	0.162	0.269	0.344	–

Figure 1 depicts the year of learning's influence on LLL tendency. As shown in Figure 1, the frequency of the LLL dimensions (Motivation, Perseverance, Self-regulation, and Curiosity) increased along with the number of year of learning at college and reached the highest at 4.45 for the third-year students. The frequency tended to decrease a little bit with those respondents who were approaching graduation, finalizing eventually at 4.38. It is worth pointing out that in the fourth year, apart from the perseverance level, the participants’ motivation, self-regulation, and curiosity tended to decline compared with those in the third year.

Figure 1.

LLL and subcategories by year of learning.

As indicated in Figure 2, the respondents who studied three languages besides English were highly motivated (4.79) and possessed stronger level of curiosity (4.24) compared with other groups. Female respondents were more curious (4.04) than males (3.84), whereas there were no significant differences among other dimensions, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2.

Comparison of subcategories by number of languages.

Figure 3.

Comparison of subcategories by gender.

Findings of Research Question 3

Tables 6 and 7, and Figure 4 summarize the correlations and contributions of each dimension with and to LLL tendency. All four dimensions had a strong positive correlation with LLL tendency, with curiosity having the strongest correlation with LLL at 0.78, followed by Perseverance (0.73), Motivation (0.71), and Self-regulation (0.67) respectively. Self-regulation had less correlation with LLL compared with other factors. All factors were positively correlated with each other, especially Curiosity and Perseverance (0.47), Motivation and Self-regulation (0.44), and Motivation and Perseverance (0.43). Table 7 shows that the largest beta coefficient is curiosity (0.43), which means that curiosity makes the strongest contribution to explain LLL tendency. It is followed by perseverance (0.33), self-regulation (0.32), and motivation (0.30).

Figure 4.

Summary of correlations with LLL.

Table 6.

Summary of Correlation Matrix.

	LLL	Curiosity	Self-regulation	Motivation	Perseverance
LLL	1
Curiosity (C)	0.783**	1
Self-regulation (S)	0.674**	0.337**	1
Motivation (M)	0.713**	0.317**	0.442**	1
Perseverance (P)	0.733**	0.467**	0.249**	0.433**	1

**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Table 7.

Coefficients^a.

Model		Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	t	Sig.
Model		B	Std. error	Beta	t	Sig.
1	(Constant)	1.332 × 10⁻¹⁵	0.000		0.000	1.000
	Motivation	0.250	0.000	0.295	738,531,214.571	0.000
	Perseverance	0.250	0.000	0.325	813,789,940.295	0.000
	Self-regulation	0.250	0.000	0.317	834,225,257.021	0.000
	Curiosity	0.250	0.000	0.431	1,108,643,304.119	0.000

Dependent variable: LLL.

Conclusion and Discussion

This study aims to explore the college students’ LLL tendency in language classrooms in local Thai context. The findings show that college students hold a comparatively high level of inclination for LLL. The similar results were found by Deveci (2015), in which the students being studied showed a moderate level of propensity for LLL as well. These findings are, however, slightly different from Pesen and Epcacan’s (2017) study results that were based upon the high school students. Such a difference may indicate that age is one of the factors that might affect learners’ LLL tendency. Moreover, this study indicates that the year of learning at college affects LLL tendency along with time. Karakus (2013, cited in Pesen & Epcacan, 2017) also conducted a study on college students and concluded that sophomores showed a greater LLL tendency level than that of freshman students. It is worth pointing out that seniors’ LLL tendency level declines compared with that of the juniors. Except for perseverance, students’ motivation, self-regulation, and curiosity also decrease in the fourth year, which might be caused by graduation pressure among seniors. There was no significant correlation between the number of languages studied with LLL tendency. It was found, however, that they influence the subdimensions of LLL tendency. The more languages being studied, the greater level in each dimension. From a LLL perspective, multilingual competency will greatly help learners to gain a better sense of belongingness to their communities and reduce barriers to participate in any LLL activities (Rubenson & Desjardins, 2009).

The research findings also reveal that curiosity has a very strong positive correlation with LLL tendency as a factor that contributes more to the LLL tendency compared with other factors. Curiosity has been discussed over for a long time and it is argued even more important than people's intelligence (Friedman, 2007). As an aspect of intrinsic motivation, curiosity could have great potential to enhance student learning in educational achievement based on the existing literature regarding motivation and achievement (Curwin, 2014; Martin, 2012; Schunk, 2012; Semerci & Duman, 2013; Steinmayr & Spinath, 2009). However, college learners’ level of curiosity is only ranked in the third position in this study. In addition, female learners tend to be more curious towards language studies compared with males, which is consistent with some studies in current literature (Pesen & Epcacan, 2017). Considering the presence of women is quite limited in higher education before 1970, female learners might care more about educational opportunities (Scott-Metcalfe & Slaughter, 2007) in order to close the gaps in basic training and activities related to education. Based upon the findings, it is strongly suggested that language practitioners should adopt effective teaching approaches to help language learners to evoke their curiosity level, especially during the timing when students are approaching graduation. Language teachers could adopt the information gaps, task-based learning, and problem-based learning to invoke learners’ curiosity (Graham & Helen, 2011); besides, language teachers should also encourage learners to be more curious about the culture of the people whose language being studied (Ozturk & Gurbuz, 2013) to maintain their LLL tendency after graduation.

Self-regulation or self-directed learning has been argued as an important educational goal and it has played an important role in learning throughout life (Bolhuis, 2003; Luftenegger et al., 2012). However, this study shows that the college students are very weak at self-regulating themselves in the language learning context, regardless number of languages being studied and gender. In Sad and Gurbuzturk’s (2009) study, students were also found having low self-regulatory orientations due to their motivation being triggered only extrinsic motivation created by external factors, such as all kinds of tests and examinations that need to be taken. The rather strong correlation between self-regulation and motivation in this study could also explain that the language learners’ high motivation in this study is mainly influenced by external factors as well due to the low level of curiosity that is often argued as “almost a prototype of the intrinsic motive” (Bruner, 1968, p. 114) and intrinsic motivation (Ozturk & Gurbuz, 2013). Thai language learners’ low self-regulation skills might be due to its collectivist culture, in which students are encouraged to seek help from each other and be more group-oriented. This can be evidenced by Al-Harthi (2010) study, in which Arabian students with collectivist cultural background were less self-regulated than those from American culture.

The results have brought challenges to language teachers how to cultivate learners to be more self-regulated in order to maintain a LLL spirit in both classroom and outside the classroom as well. Deveci (2015) suggested that language learners’ self-regulation skills could be promoted by increasing learners’ involvement in all stages of instructional design, such as conducting needs analysis in planning stage, and providing assistance in evaluating stage. Germeroth and Day-Hess (2013) also recommended a three-phase process to develop students’ self-regulation skills: in forethought phase, students focus on the expectations and expected outcomes of a new task; in performance phases, students apply their chosen strategy to do the actual work by identifying internal troubleshooting; and during the self-reflection phase, students respond to and reflect on the task and its outcomes.

The findings of this research offer both theoretical and practical implications for language teaching and learning. Theoretically, this study enriches the current literature by incorporating LLL spirit to a language classroom, in which its primary focus is recognized as achieving linguistic proficiency and communicative competence. At practical level, the study has demonstrated the status quo of language learners in terms of their LLL qualities and it is hoped to offer practical suggestions to language teachers how to educate language learners to become lifelong learners.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

This study had several limitations. First, it was limited to the language learning experience. Second, it only focused on language learners in formal studies at one college. Therefore, it is suggested that future research could study learners’ LLL tendency in different disciplines and types of institution. In addition, this current study was primarily descriptive, future studies could also research how to train students to be more curious and self-regulated by involving them in all stages of instructional design in order to develop their LLL spirit. Moreover, this study only examines the motivation factor in general, but it is worthwhile for future researchers exploring how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation influence on LLL tendency. Last but not the least, it is also suggested all the educational practitioners could study the new skills and techniques to become lifelong learners as well. Teachers’ experience in seeking greater knowledge through research would allow students to benefit as well.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support of Editing Service, Mahidol University International College, Thailand.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Xiaoxia Wei

Author Biographies

Xiaoxia Wei is a senior lecturer in Mahidol University International College, Thailand. She has been working in Business Administration Division since 2011. She is interested in research areas of business communication, cross-cultural communication, leadership, and language teaching and learning.

Aeksing Weerasawainon (Bo Zhang) is a lecturer in Mahidol University International College, Thailand. He has been working as Chinese language Lecturer in Humanities and Language Division since 2002. He is interested in research areas of Teaching Chinese as the Second Language and Applied linguistics.

References

Al-Harthi

A. S.

(2010). Learner self-relation in distance education: A cross-cultural study. American Journal of Distance Education, 24(3), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2010.498232

Amhed

Ahamad

(2017). Comparative analysis of rote learning on high and low achievers in graduate and undergraduate programs. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 4(1), 111–129. https://10.22555/joeed.v4i1.982

Arthur

(2009). Foucault and lifelong learning: Governing the subject. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 39(6), 819–820. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920903264872

Ayhan

(2006). Lifelong learning in the past and today. In Sayilan

Yildiz

(Eds.), Lifelong learning (pp. 2–23). Educational Sciences Institute and Pegem A.

Bolhuis

(2003). Towards process-oriented teaching for self-directed lifelong learning: A multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 13(3), 327–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00008-7

Bowden

Hart

King

Trigwell

Watts

(2000). Generic capacities of ATN university graduates . Canberra: Australian Government Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. www.clt.uts.edu.au/atn.grad.cap.project.index.html/

Bruner

J. S.

(1968). Toward a theory of instruction. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Cheng

Adekola

Albia

Cai

(2021). Employability in higher education: A review of key stakeholders’ perspectives. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, Vol. ahead-of-print, No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-03-2021-0025

Collins

(2009). Lifelong learning in the 21st century and beyond. Radio Graphics, 29(2), 613–622. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.292085179

10.

Coombs

P. H.

Ahmed

(1974). Attacking rural poverty: How non-formal education can help. John Hopkins University Press.

11.

Coskun

Y. D.

Demirel

(2010). Lifelong learning tendency scale: The study of validity and reliability. Proccdia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 2343–2350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.461

12.

Curwin

R. L.

(2014). Can assessments motivate? Educational Leadership, 72(1), 38–40. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/can-assessments-motivate.

13.

Deveci

(2015). A comparative study of the lifelong learning propensities of English language learners: Nationality, gender and length of study. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspective, 12(1), 2–25. https://doi.org/10.18538/lthe.v12.n1.185

14.

Dornyei

(1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.2307/330107

15.

Dornyei

(2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613349

16.

Friedman

T. L.

(2007). The world is flat: A brief history of the 21st century. Farrar Straus Giroux.

17.

Garipoglu

B. C.

(2013). The effects of self-efficacy on the lifelong learning tendencies of computer education and instructional technologies pre-service teachers: A case study. International Journal of Human Sciences, 10(1), 224–236. https://www.j-humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/view/2490/1049

18.

Germeroth

Day-Hess

(2013). Self-regulated learning for academic success: How do I help students manage their thoughts, behaviors, and emotions? ASCD ARIAS.

19.

Glastra

F. J.

Hake

B. J.

(2008). Lifelong learning as transitional learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 54(4), 291–307. https://10.1177/0741713604266143

20.

Graham

Helen

(2011). Stimulating curiosity to enhancing learning. Education Science and Psychology, 2(19), 24–31. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292088477_Stimulating_curiosity_to_enhance_learning

21.

Grenfell

Harris

(2017). Language learner strategies: Contexts, issues and applications in second language learning and teaching. Bloomsbury.

22.

Hasnoor

H. N.

Ahmad

Nordin

(2013). The relationship between learning approaches and academic achievement among Intec students, Uitm Shah Alam. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 178–186. https://10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.080

23.

Helyer

(2015). Learning through reflection: The critical role of reflection in work-based learning (WBL). Journal of Work-Applied Management, 7(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-10-2015-003

24.

Holt

(2001). Motivation as a contributing factor in second language acquisition. The Internet TESL Journal, 7(6), 1–6. http://iteslj.org/Articles/Norris-Motivation.html

25.

Iqbal

M. J.

(2009). Lifelong education: A conceptual debate. International Journal of Media, Technology and Lifelong Learning, 5(1), 1–8. http://iteslj.org/Articles/Norris-Motivation.html

26.

Knapper

Cropley

(2000). Lifelong learning in higher education (3rd ed.). Kogan Page.

27.

Laal

(2012). Benefits of lifelong learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Science, 46, 4268–4272. https://10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.239

28.

Lamb

F. F.

Brady

E. M.

Lohman

(2009). Lifelong resiliency learning: A strength-based synergy for gerontological social work. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 52(7), 713–728. Https://10.1080/01634370802716216

29.

Legenhausen

(2001). Case studies of individual learners in an autonomous language classroom—beginners’ level. In Karlsson

Kjisik

Nordlund

(Eds.), All together now: papers from the 7th Nordic conference and workshop on autonomous language learning, Helsinki, September 2000 . University of Helsinki, Language Center.

30.

Lin

Y. G.

McKeachie

W. J.

Kim

Y. C.

(2003). College student intrinsic and/or extrinsic motivation and learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 13(3), 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(02)00092-4

31.

Litman

J. A.

(2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition and Emotion, 19(6), 793–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930541000101

32.

Luftenegger

Schober

Schoot

R. V. D.

Wagner

Finsterwald

Spiel

(2012). Lifelong learning as a goal--do autonomy and self-regulation in school result in well prepared pupils? Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.06.001

33.

Martin

(2012). Motivation for lifelong learning: A biographical account of efficacy and control. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 31(6), 669–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2012.723048

34.

McCombs

B. L.

(2010). Motivation and lifelong learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(2), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2602_4

35.

Mizumoto

(2012). Exploring the effects of self-efficacy on vocabulary learning strategies. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(4), 423–437. https://sisaljournal.org/archives/dec12/mizumoto/ https://doi.org/10.37237/030407

36.

Mizumoto

Takeuchi

(2012). Adaptation and validation of self-regulating capacity in vocabulary learning scale. Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr044

37.

Molina

M. Á.

Schettini

(2021). Lifelong learning and quality of life. In Rojo-Pérez

Fernández-Mayoralas

(Eds.), Handbook of active ageing and quality of life. International handbooks of quality-of-life. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58031-5_6

38.

Mwaikokesya

M. J. D.

Osborne

Houston

(2014). Mapping lifelong learning attributes in the context of higher education institutions. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 20(2), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.7227/JACE.20.2.3

39.

Ozturk

Gurbuz

(2013). Motivational orientations of Turkish EFL students: The case at a state university. Journal of Language and Literature Education, 8, 62–77. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292991729_Motivational_Orientations_of_Turkish_EFL_Students_The_Case_at_a_State_University

40.

Pajares

(2002). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic contexts: An outline . http://des.emory.edu/mfp/efftalk.html on December 5, 2021.

41.

Parisi

G. I.

Kember

Part

J. L.

Kanan

Wermter

(2019). Continual lifelong learning with neural networks: A review. Neural Networks, 113, 54–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2019.01.012

42.

Pesen

Epcacan

(2017). The analysis of high school students’ tendencies about lifelong learning. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(12A), 26–31. https://10.13189/ujer.2017.051305

43.

Poquest

Laat

M. d.

(2021). Developing capabilities: Lifelong learning in the age of AI. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1695–1708. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13123

44.

Ranalli

(2012). Alternative models of self-regulation and implications for L2 strategy research. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(4), 357–376. https://sisaljournal.org/archives/dec12/ranalli/ https://doi.org/10.37237/030403

45.

Rawson

(2000). Learning-to-learn: More than a skill set. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696137

46.

Robles

M. M.

(2012). Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today’s workplace. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 453–465. https://10.1177/1080569 912460400

47.

Rovai

A. P.

(2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00158-6

48.

Rubenson

(2006). The Nordic model of lifelong learning. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 36, 327–341. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/96509/ https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920600872472

49.

Rubenson

Desjardins

(2009). The impact of welfare state regimes on barriers to participation in adult education: A bounded agency model. Adult Education Quarterly, 59(3), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713609331548

50.

Sad

S. N.

Gurbuzturk

(2009). Analyzing the self-determination levels of English prep student by some variables (Inonu University case). Education Administration: Theory and Practice, 15(59), 421–450. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273898954_Ingilizce_Hazirlik_Ogrencilerinin_Ozbelirleyicilik_Duzeylerinin_Cesitli_Degiskenlere_Gore_Incelenmesi_Inonu_Universitesi_Ornegi

51.

Schunk

D. H.

(2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Pearson Education.

52.

Scott-Metcalfe

Slaughter

(2007). Academic capitalism. In Bank

J. B.

(Ed.), Gender and education, an encyclopedia (pp. 7–15). Westport Connecticut.

53.

Semerci

Duman

(2013). Achievement motivations of the students studying at computer and instructional technologies teaching department. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 3(1), 134–142. https://doi.org/10.13054/mije.13.17.3.1

54.

Shoaib

Dornyei

(2005). Affect in lifelong learning: Exploring L2 motivation as a dynamic process. In Benson

Nunan

(Eds.), Learners’ stories: Difference and diversity in language learning (pp. 22–41). Cambridge University Press.

55.

Steinmayr

Spinath

(2009). The importance of motivation as a predictor of school achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.05.004

56.

Teunissen

P. W.

Dornan

(2008). Lifelong learning at work. British Medical Journal, 336, 667–669. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39434.601690.AD

57.

The World University Rankings. (2022). https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2022/worldranking#!/ page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats.

58.

Vargas

(2017). Lifelong learning from a social justice perspective. Education research and foresight working paper, 21. Paris, UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/node/268820

59.

Veloo

Krishnasamy

H. N.

Harun

H. M.

(2015). What are the learning approaches applied by undergraduate students in English process writing based on gender? International Education Studies, 8(6), 46–55. https://10.5539/ies.v8n6p46

60.

Yilmaz

. & Kaygin

.( (2018). The relation between lifelong learning tendency and achievement motivation. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(3a), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i3a.3141