Indicator A7. To what extent do adults participate equally in education and learning?

Highlights

The most common form of participation in adult learning is non-formal education, and most of the time it is job-related and employer-sponsored. On average across OECD countries taking part in the Adult Education Survey (AES), 44% of working adults had participated in at least one job-related and employer-sponsored non-formal training activity, but only 9% had taken part in one that was neither job-related nor sponsored by their employer.
Large enterprises provide more training than small ones. On average across OECD countries taking part in AES, 30% of adults employed in enterprises with fewer than 10 employed persons participated in at least one non-formal job-related and employer-sponsored education and training activity. This share is twice as high (60%) among adults working in firms with over 249 employed persons.
Large enterprises invest more of their total labour costs in training than smaller ones. On average across OECD countries participating in the Continuing Vocational Training Survey (CVTS), training costs in the form of courses represent 2.1% of total labour costs in enterprises with over 249 employed persons, 1.5% in enterprises with 50-249 employed persons, and 1.3% in enterprises with 10-49 employed persons.

Figure A7.1. Share of employed 25-64 year-olds participating in non-formal education and training, by job relatedness, employer sponsorship and size of enterprise (2016)

Context

Adult learning can play an important role in helping adults to develop and maintain key information-processing skills and acquire other knowledge and skills throughout their lives. It is crucial to provide and ensure access to organised learning opportunities for adults beyond initial formal education, especially for workers who need to adapt to changes throughout their careers (OECD, 2013[1]).

The adults already in the workforce may have to continue to fill a significant share of the jobs of the future, requiring them to learn new skills and update existing ones. With the recent COVID-19 crisis, workers in some areas have had to change their working habits, relying more than ever on technology and teleworking and requiring them to be flexible and adaptable, which in some cases has had to be accompanied by additional training.

Adult learning can also contribute to non-economic goals, such as personal fulfilment, improved health, civic participation and social inclusion. For example, during the COVID-19 lockdown, learning to use new technology may help people to stay in contact with friends and family. However, the wide variation in adult learning activities and participation among OECD countries at similar levels of economic development suggests that there are significant differences in learning cultures, in learning opportunities at work and in adult education systems (Borkowsky, 2013[2]).

Other findings

Enterprise size has a large impact on employees’ participation in job-related education and training, but when the training is not sponsored by the employer, then the size of the enterprise no longer affects participation.
Adults are less likely to participate in formal than in non-formal education and training, but if they do, then the intensity is much higher than for non-formal education. On average across the OECD countries participating in AES, those taking part in formal education and training spend 406 hours per year on average, against only 73 hours for non-formal education and training.
Working in the public sector is associated with greater participation than in the private sector. On average across OECD countries participating in AES, 57% of adults working in the public sector participated in at least one non-formal job-related and employer-sponsored education and training activity, compared to 40% of adults working in the private sector.
Adults with higher educational attainment are more likely to participate. On average across OECD countries taking part in AES, 24% of 25-64 year-olds with below upper secondary education participated in at least one non-formal education and training activity in the 12 months preceding the survey. This rose to 41% for those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education and 62% for those with a tertiary degree.

Analysis

Participation in adult learning is often motivated by the social context. People choose to invest in what they value and devote energy towards becoming more effective in what they find relevant (Wlodkowski and Ginsberg, 2017[3]). Research show that adults participate in educational and learning activities for both intellectual reasons and for the usefulness of what they learn (Dench and Regan, 2000[4]). Intellectual reasons include wanting to keep the brain active, the enjoyment of the challenge of learning new things and an interest in acquiring knowledge, while the practical reasons are more related to enhancing employment prospects and remaining competitive in the labour market. Participation in high-quality formal and non-formal professional development enables employees to update their skills to be effective workers in the 21st century global economy.

Data from the Adult Education Survey (AES) and from the Survey of Adult Skills, a product of the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), show that non-formal education and training is the most common type of adult learning. On average across OECD countries taking part in AES, 44% of 25-64 year-olds participated in at least one non-formal education and training activity in the 12 months preceding the survey, compared to only 7% taking part in formal education and training. Among these countries, participation in non-formal education ranges from less than 30% in Greece, Lithuania, Poland and Turkey to more than 60% in the Netherlands and Switzerland. Among countries that only participated in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), participation in non-formal education ranges from less than 30% in Mexico and the Russian Federation to 63% in New Zealand (Table A7.5, available on line).

The data also show that most non-formal education and training is job-related and sponsored by the employer. Among employed adults, only 9% participated in any non-formal education activity that was not job-related and not sponsored by the employer while 44% participated in at least one job-related and employer-sponsored training activity (Table A7.1 and Table A7.5, available on line).

Participation of employed adults in non-formal education and training

Participation by size of enterprise

Equity in access to adult learning is a policy concern across OECD countries (OECD, 2019[5]; European Commission, 2019[6]). Low-educated and economically inactive adults are less likely to participate in education and training because they are less exposed to learning opportunities than highly educated and employed adults. But inequalities are not limited to educational attainment and employment status. They arise even among employed adults depending of the size of their enterprise. For example, there is a common pattern across OECD countries: large enterprises provide more training to their employees than small ones (Figure A7.1).

Employers have a key role to play in providing and financing job-related adult learning, but many small and medium-sized enterprises lack the capacity to offer training opportunities to their employees. These employers may therefore benefit less from training effects such as increased productivity, higher employee retention, better engagement and improved management-worker interactions. For their employees this translates into fewer opportunities to participate in adult learning and, in turn, fewer possibilities to benefit from its positive outcomes. They could be missing out on higher incomes and improved employability, improved general well-being and health, and improved engagement in community and civic activities (OECD, 2019[5]; European Commission, 2015[7]).

Figure A7.1 shows that, on average across the 26 OECD countries taking part in AES, 30% of adults employed in enterprises with under 10 employed persons participated in at least one non-formal job-related and employer-sponsored education and training activity. This share is twice as high (60%) among adults working in firms with over 249 employed persons. The largest differences are observed in Ireland, Lithuania and Turkey where the gap is more than 35 percentage points between the participation rates of adults employed in the smallest enterprises and those in enterprises with over 249 employed persons. In contrast, the gap is below 25 percentage points in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Norway and Slovenia. Across the OECD member and partner countries that only participated in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), the gap is at least 40 percentage points in Chile, Korea and Mexico and is below 30 percentage points in Japan, New Zealand and the Russian Federation ( Table A7.1).

In all OECD countries, those employed in larger enterprises are more likely than those in smaller ones to participate in job-related adult learning sponsored by their employer. In contrast, when training is not sponsored by the employer, participation is much lower, regardless of the size of the enterprise. On average across the 26 OECD countries taking part in AES, about 10% of employed 25-64 year-olds participated in at least one non-job related education or training activity that was not sponsored by their employers, regardless of the size of the enterprise they work in. This implies that the size of the enterprise has a large impact on training opportunities available to employees, but when training is not sponsored, whether it is job-related or not, then the size of the company makes almost no difference (Figure A7.1).

There is a positive relationship between the size of the enterprise (in terms of number of employees) and participation in job-related employer-sponsored non-formal education and training in all the OECD member and partner countries that participated in AES and the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC). However, the extent of participation varies significantly across countries. For example, adults in Switzerland working for firms with under 10 employed persons are more likely to take part in such training than those working for enterprises with over 249 employed persons in Lithuania and Poland. This also holds true in the non-European countries that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC): the participation among employed persons even of the smallest enterprises in New Zealand (47%) is higher than for those in the Russian Federation, even among those working for large firms (28%) (Figure A7.2).

Figure A7.2. Share of employed 25-64 year-olds participating in non-formal job-related and employer-sponsored education and training, by size of enterprise (2016)

In all countries participating in AES and the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), except for Estonia, Lithuania, the Russian Federation and Slovenia, the largest difference in participation in job-related and employer-sponsored non-formal education and training occurs between adults working in enterprises with 1-9 employed persons and those working in enterprises with 10-49 employed persons (the categories in the Survey of Adult Skills [PIAAC] are 1-10 and 11-50 employed persons). On average, across OECD countries participating in AES, 30% of adults employed in enterprises with fewer than 10 employed persons took part in such activities, but the rate jumped to 45% for enterprises with 10-49 employed persons, 53% for enterprises with 50-249 employed persons, and 60% for those working in enterprises with over 249 employed persons (Figure A7.2).

A similar pattern emerges when enterprises are asked if they provide training to their staff, large firms tend to report providing training more widely than small firms. On average across OECD countries taking part in the Continuing Vocational Training Survey (CVTS), 74% of enterprises with 10-49 employed persons provide training, compared with 96% of enterprises with over 249 employed persons. There are also large differences between countries on this measure, with almost every enterprise in Latvia and Norway providing training but less than 30% of enterprises in Greece doing so (Table A7.4, available on line).

Enterprise size seems to play a more prominent role in the countries where a lower share of firms provide training. For example, in Greece, Hungary and Poland, less than 40% of enterprises with 10-49 employed persons provide training, but the share is at least 40 percentage points higher among enterprises with over 249 employed persons. In contrast, in Latvia, Norway and Sweden, the share of enterprises providing training is very high, regardless of size. In these three countries, even the smallest firms consistently provide training: over 90% of the enterprises with 10-49 employed persons provide training (Table A7.4, available on line).

Figure A7.3. Share of employed 25-64 year-olds participating in non-formal job-related and employer-sponsored education and training, by public / private sector (2016)

Participation in the public and private sector

Working in the public sector is associated with greater participation in non-formal training than in the private sector. This could be related to different culture and governance structures in the two sectors. It could also be associated with the size of enterprises in the private sector compared with public sector employers. In all countries, the public sector employs large numbers of staff while private firms can vary in size. On average across OECD countries participating in AES, 57% of adults working in the public sector took part at least one non-formal job-related and employer-sponsored education and training activity, compared to 40% of adults working in the private sector. This trend is observed across all OECD and member countries participating in AES and the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), with the exception of the Slovak Republic where 51% of adults participated in such training, regardless of the economic sector (Figure A7.3).

The largest difference across OECD countries participating in AES are observed in Estonia and Slovenia where the participation rate of those working in the public sector is at least 29 percentage points higher than those working in the private sector. In contrast, in Greece, Hungary and the Slovak Republic, the difference is below 10 percentage points (Figure A7.3).

Participation by all adults in non-formal education and training activities by level of education

Adults with higher educational attainment are more likely to participate in non-formal education and training activities. On average across OECD countries taking part in AES, 24% of all 25-64 year-olds – regardless of whether they are working or not – with below upper secondary education participated in at least one non-formal education and training activity in the 12 months preceding the survey. The rate is 41% for those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education and reaches 62% for those with a tertiary degree (Table A7.5, available on line).

In Austria, the Czech Republic and Switzerland the difference between adults with and without upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education is at least 25 percentage points. The difference between those with a tertiary degree and those with below upper secondary education is over 20 percentage points in all OECD countries participating in AES, and reaches 50 percentage points or more in Slovenia and Switzerland (Table A7.5, available on line).

Relationship between participation rates and intensity for all adults

Non-formal education and training

Figure A7.4 depicts the association between the participation rate in non-formal education and training and the average number of instruction hours per year, for the OECD countries that participated in AES. On average, 44% of 25-64 year-olds participated in non-formal education and training, and those who did so spent an average of 73 hours on these activities. Both participation rates and the average number of hours devoted to training vary widely across countries. These differences point to different policy choices, which may explain the low correlation between the two variables. Austria is the only country where more than 55% of 25-64 year-olds participate in non-formal education and training and do so for over 80 hours per year on average. In contrast, in Lithuania, less than 30% of adults participate in non-formal education and training and for an annual average of only 42 hours (Figure A7.4).

The distribution of countries in the four quadrants in Figure A7.4 shows that there is no clear correlation between participation rates and intensity. Countries with similar participation rates exhibit large differences in average hours of participation per year. For example, the participation rates in the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic are similar to Slovenia’s, but their intensity of participation is much lower, with both countries averaging around 35 hours compared to 142 hours in Slovenia. This shows that even when countries succeed in engaging a similar share of the population in adult education and training, the amount of training undertaken could be very different (Figure A7.4).

The participation gap according to educational attainment narrows when intensity of participation, in terms of hours of instruction, is considered, rather than the overall participation rate. The longest hours are not always associated with the highest educational attainment. For example, in 9 of the 26 OECD countries participating in AES, it is the adults with below upper secondary education who have the longest average instruction hours in non-formal education and training. In Denmark, the highest intensity is among those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, while in 15 countries the intensity is the highest among tertiary-educated adults. Therefore, for some countries, educational attainment is positively associated with participation in adult learning, but not its intensity (Table A7.2).

It should also be noted that the average number of instruction hours per year is generally much higher among OECD member and partner countries that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) than among those participating in AES. For countries that participated in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), the lowest average number of instruction hours per year in non-formal education is found in Australia with 103 hours, while it reaches over 225 hours per year in Korea and Mexico (Table A7.2). In comparison, the lowest value for OECD countries participating in AES is 35 hours in the Czech Republic, while the highest is 142 hours in Slovenia. The important differences between the two surveys is probably associated with the survey design.

Figure A7.4. Relationship between the intensity of participation (in hours) and the share of 25-64 year-olds participating in non-formal education and training (2016)

Formal education and training

Participation in formal education and training is less widespread among 25-64 year-olds, but when they do participate in formal education, the intensity is much higher than for non-formal education. On average across OECD countries participating in AES, participants in formal education and training devote 406 hours per year to it, against only 73 hours for non-formal education and training (Table A7.2).

Among participating countries, adults in Germany spend the largest number of hours on formal education and training (872 hours per year). Portugal has the second highest intensity at 653 hours per year. In contrast, in Luxembourg, Norway, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom, adults spend less than 300 hours on formal learning; the United Kingdom ranks lowest on this measure, at only 169 hours per year (Table A7.2).

Training costs

According to a recent report of the European Commission Working Group on Adult Learning (2019[6]), adult learning has not benefited from the increased financial investment in education over the last decade, despite covering the largest group of learners. During this period, countries have increased their spending in education (see Indicators C2 and C4), but public expenditure on adult education has lagged behind and it remains the least well-funded sector of education. This implies that providers of adult learning are forced to work with limited financial resources despite the growing need to train adults and provide them with the skills they need to remain employable and competitive in the context of the digitalisation of the economy and the fast-changing labour market.

Employers are the main provider of non-formal education and therefore contribute a substantial share of the financial resources invested in adult learning (Eurostat, 2020[8]; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2015[9]). Providers of adult education can also face barriers in delivering training if they lack the resources. Employers may also be reluctant to invest in their staff if they do not see immediate benefits, or they may not be aware of funding available to train their staff. For example, in some countries, employers can receive financial support to provide training opportunities to staff who usually do not take part in company-funded activities. This could take the form of a reduction in tuition fees when enrolling employees in training courses or they can be reimbursed for education and training costs. Financial support is more widespread when it comes to training low-qualified or low-skilled staff or people who have been out of the labour market (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2015[9]).

The size of the enterprise plays an important role in the amount devoted to the provision of training. Larger enterprises will be able to spread the costs of training over a greater number of employees. Large firms are more likely to have several workers performing the same job, triggering the need to provide group training (Black, Noel and Wang, 1999[10]). In contrast, smaller enterprises have greater unit costs that may discourage this investment.

Data from the CVTS show a clear trend across European countries: large enterprises with over 249 employed persons invest a greater share of their total labour costs in training than either enterprises with 10-49 employed persons or with 50-249 employed persons. On average across the OECD countries participating in the CVTS, training costs in the form of courses made up 2.1% of the total labour costs of enterprises with over 249 employed persons, 1.5% of costs in enterprises with 50-249 employed persons, and 1.3% in enterprises with 10-49 employed persons (Figure A7.5).

Figure A7.5. Training costs as a share of total labour costs, by size of enterprise (2015)

The largest difference by size of enterprise is in Denmark where enterprises with over 249 employed persons invest 4.1% of their total labour costs in training courses, compared to only 1.1% for enterprises with 10-49 employed persons. In contrast, in Finland, Norway and Sweden, training costs as a share of labour costs are almost identical, regardless of the size of the firm. The only country where the pattern is reversed is the United Kingdom where firms with fewer than 250 employed persons invest a greater percentage of their total labour costs in training courses than large enterprises (Figure A7.5).

Across most of the OECD countries participating in the CVTS, the largest difference in the share of labour costs invested in courses is between enterprises with 50-249 employed persons and those with over 249 employed persons. Out of the 24 OECD countries taking part, only 8 countries have a larger difference between enterprises with 10-49 employed persons and those with 50-249 employed persons. This supports the idea that larger firms benefit from lower costs associated with the scale of their training activities and are therefore willing to invest a larger share of their labour costs in courses (Figure A7.1).

Box A7.1. Teachers’ training and preparedness to support digital learning

Teachers, even more than in many professions, need to renew their skills regularly in order to be able to innovate their teaching practices and adapt to the ultra-rapid transformations inherent in the 21st century. This is even more important in the current context, where the health crisis we are experiencing has led to the closure of schools and the extensive use of online learning to ensure pedagogical continuity. This unprecedented situation has pushed teachers to adapt very quickly, especially in countries where they do not necessarily have the pedagogical and technical skills to integrate digital tools into learning.

Data from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) provide an interesting perspective on the training undertaken by teachers before the outbreak. They provide some measure of the frequency and intensity of teachers’ continued professional development. The data show that, on average, teachers attended about four different types of continuous professional development activity in the 12 months prior to the survey, and 82% of teachers report that the professional development activities they participated in had an impact on their teaching practices (Reimers and Schleicher, 2020[11]; OECD, 2019[12]).

Most teachers participate in professional development, but not necessary in the most impactful programmes. According to teachers, the professional development programmes that have the most impact are those based on strong subject and curriculum content and which involve collaborative approaches to instruction, as well as the incorporation of active learning (OECD, 2019[12]). Perhaps because of the lack of supply, teachers do not participate that much in training which includes these elements. Teachers are most likely to participate in courses or seminars attended in person, with 76% of lower secondary teachers reporting taking part in such activity on average across OECD countries. Participation is lower for more collaborative forms of professional development, with only 44% of teachers participating in peer and/or self-observation and coaching as part of a formal school arrangement (Figure A7.6).

Teachers also report a high need for training in the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) for teaching, with 18% on average across OECD countries identifying this as a high training need (OECD, 2019[12]). This is the second commonest training need teachers identified, just after teaching special needs students. ICT skills are particularly important given the radical shift towards online teaching during the COVID-19 lockdown in many OECD countries. Data on professional development show that on average across OECD countries, 36% of lower secondary teachers reported participating in online courses or seminars, less than half the share participating in courses or seminars in person. This shows that not only are teachers reporting a need for ICT training, but also that they are not relying heavily on distance learning for their own professional development. Although this is the case in most countries, there are some exceptions such as Korea and Shanghai (People’s Republic of China) where over 90% of teachers reported undertaking online professional development in the past year. This practice is also widespread in Australia, Chinese Taipei, England (United Kingdom), Israel, Mexico, the Russian Federation and the United States, where the share is over 50% (Figure A7.6).

The frequency with which teachers have students use ICT for projects or class work has risen in almost all countries since 2013, to the point where 53% of teachers across the OECD now report frequently or always using this practice (OECD, 2019[12]). This reflects the broader trend of digitalisation and the spread of ICT across all spheres of society. Younger teachers may be more familiar with new technologies but, surprisingly, they do not report much greater use of ICT for students’ projects than older teachers. This implies that while younger teachers may be more familiar with these tools, more experienced ones may be more at ease with other teaching practices and therefore be more willing to innovate using ICT. Across the OECD, only 56% of teachers had participated in training in the use of ICT for teaching as part of their initial education or training, and only 43% of teachers felt well or very well prepared for this element when they began teaching (Reimers and Schleicher, 2020[11]).

Figure A7.6. Percentage of lower secondary teachers who participated in selected types of professional development (2018)

Of all the stages of a teacher’s career, their first working years are those that merit the greatest support and attention. TALIS data show that teachers in their early careers tend to work in more challenging schools, and 22% of them report that they would like to change to another school if that were possible (OECD, 2019[12]). Novice teachers also have less confidence in their ability to teach, particularly in their classroom management skills and their capacity to use a wide range of effective instructional practices. Induction to teaching and mentoring can support teachers who are new to a school or the profession. But despite empirical evidence showing that teachers’ participation in induction and mentoring is beneficial to student learning, and the fact that school principals generally consider mentoring to be important for supporting less experienced teachers, induction and mentoring are not yet commonplace. On average, 51% of novice teachers report not having participated in any formal or informal induction at their current school, and only 22% have an assigned mentor (Reimers and Schleicher, 2020[11]).

Definitions

Adults refer to 25-64 year-olds.

Adult education and learning: Formal education is planned education provided in the system of schools, colleges, universities and other formal educational institutions that normally constitutes a continuous “ladder” of full-time education for children and young people. The providers may be public or private. Non-formal education is sustained educational activity that does not correspond exactly to the definition of formal education. Non-formal education may take place both within and outside educational institutions and cater to individuals of all ages. Depending on country contexts, it may cover education programmes in adult literacy, basic education for out-of-school children, life skills, work skills and general culture.

Economic sector refers to the distinction between public and private sector. Public sector is a constructed measure in Adult Education Survey (AES) while the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) uses three categories in its questionnaire: public sector, private sector and non-profit organisation. The public sector for AES data refer to NACE sectors O, P and Q. The non-profit organisation category was merged with the public sector category for the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC). The private sector is also a constructed measure in AES while the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) uses this specific term. The private sector for AES data refer to NACE sectors B to N, R and S (for a description of NACE sectors, see https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon).

Employer-sponsored education: Employer support can be offered in the form of time (i.e. educational activities that take place fully or partly during paid working hours), or financial support (giving grants to employees to participate in educational activities).

Job-related education and training: Taking part in training activity in order to obtain knowledge and/or learn new skills needed for a current or future job, to increase earnings, to improve job and/or career opportunities in a current or another field and generally to improve opportunities for advancement and promotion.

Levels of education: See the Reader’s Guide at the beginning of this publication for a presentation of all ISCED 2011 levels.

The previous classification, ISCED-97, is used for the analyses based on the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC): Below upper secondary corresponds to ISCED-97 levels 0, 1, 2 and 3C short programmes; upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary corresponds to ISCED-97 levels 3A, 3B, 3C long programmes and level 4; and tertiary corresponds to ISCED-97 levels 5A, 5B and 6.

Methodology

Calculations for data based Adult Education Survey (AES) can be found at: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/d14c857a-601d-438a-b878-4b4cebd0e10f/library/c28a2e5b-ecdf-4b07-ac2f-f3811d032295/details.

For data from the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), the observations based on a numerator with fewer than 5 observations or on a denominator with fewer than 30 observations times the number of categories have been replaced by "c" in the tables.

Source

Tables A7.1, A7.2 and A7.5 on adult education and training are based on:

Adult Education Survey (AES) for European OECD member countries.
The OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (the Survey of Adult Skills [PIAAC]) for: Australia, Canada, Chile, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, the Russian Federation and the United States.

Table A7.3 and Table A7.4 are based on the Continuing Vocational Training Survey (CVTS) for European countries.

Note regarding data from the Russian Federation in the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)

The sample for the Russian Federation does not include the population of the Moscow municipal area. The data published, therefore, do not represent the entire resident population aged 16-65 in the Russian Federation but rather the population of the Russian Federation excluding the population residing in the Moscow municipal area. More detailed information regarding the data from the Russian Federation as well as that of other countries can be found in the Technical Report of the Survey of Adult Skills, Second Edition (OECD, 2016[13]).

References

[10] Black, D., B. Noel and Z. Wang (1999), “On-the-job training, establishment size, and firm size: Evidence for economies of scale in the production of human capital”, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 66/1, p. 82, https://doi.org/10.2307/1060836.

[2] Borkowsky, A. (2013), “Monitoring adult learning policies: A theoretical framework and indicators”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 88, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k4c0vxjlkzt-en.

[4] Dench, S. and J. Regan (2000), “Learning in later life: Motivation and impact.”, Research Brief, No. 183, Department for Education and Employment, https://lemosandcrane.co.uk/resources/DfEE%20-%20Learning%20in%20later%20life.pdf.

[6] European Commission (2019), Achievements under the Renewed European Agenda for Adult Learning: Report of the ET 2020 Working Group on Adult Learning (2018-2020), European Commission, https://doi.org/10.2767/583401.

[7] European Commission (2015), An In-Depth Analysis of Adult Learning Policies and their Effectiveness in Europe, European Commission, https://doi.org/10.2767/076649.

[9] European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2015), Adult Education and Training in Europe: Widening Access to Learning Opportunities, Publications Office of the European Union, https://doi.org/10.2797/8002.

[8] Eurostat (2020), Adult Education Survey, online codes: trng_aes_170 and trng_aes_190, Eurostat website, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat (accessed on 4 February 2020).

[5] OECD (2019), Getting Skills Right: Future-Ready Adult Learning Systems, Getting Skills Right, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264311756-en.

[12] OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.

[13] OECD (2016), Technical Report of the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), 2nd Edition, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/PIAAC_Technical_Report_2nd_Edition_Full_Report.pdf.

[1] OECD (2013), OECD Skills Outlook 2013: First results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264204256-en.

[11] Reimers, F. and A. Schleicher (2020), A Framework to Guide an Education Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of 2020, OECD, https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=126_126988-t63lxosohs&title=A-framework-to-guide-an-education-response-to-the-Covid-19-Pandemic-of-2020.

[3] Wlodkowski, R. and M. Ginsberg (2017), Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn: A Comprehensive Guide for Teaching All Adults, Jossey-Bass.

Indicator A7 Tables

Table A7.1 Share of employed adults participating in non-formal education and training, by size and sector of enterprise, job-relatedness and employer sponsorship (2016)

Table A7.2 Annual hours of participation in formal and/or non-formal education and training, by educational attainment (2016)

Table A7.3 Annual training costs, by size of enterprise (2015)

WEB Table A7.4 Share of enterprises providing continuing vocational training, by size of enterprise and type of training (2015)

WEB Table A7.5 Share of adults participating in formal and/or non-formal education and training, by educational attainment (2016)

Cut-off date for the data: 19 July 2020. Any updates on data can be found on line at https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en. More breakdowns can also be found at http://stats.oecd.org/, Education at a Glance Database.

StatLink: https://doi.org/10.1787/888934162926

Table A7.1. Share of employed adults participating in non-formal education and training, by size and sector of enterprise, job-relatedness and employer sponsorship (2016)
Adult Education Survey (AES) or Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), employed 25-64 year-olds

Note: Participation in non-formal education and training during previous 12 months. Additional columns showing data for participation in "job-related non-formal education and training sponsored by the employer", "job-related non-formal education and training not sponsored by the employer", "not job-related non-formal education and training sponsored by the employer", and "not job-related non-formal education and training not sponsored by the employer" are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below). The average differs from the one published by Eurostat as this is an unweighted average and the country coverage is different. For data from AES, total participation is not equal to the sum of the disaggregated categories because the same person can be included in more than one category. This is not the case for data from the Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC).
1. The category "50-249 employed persons" should be interpreted as "over 50 employed persons". The category "over 249 employed persons" is therefore missing for the Netherlands.
2. Includes non-profit organisations.
3. Year of reference 2012.
4. Year of reference 2015.
5. Year of reference 2017.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Source section.
Source: OECD (2020). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en). Please refer to the Reader's Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888934162945

Table A7.2. Annual hours of participation in formal and/or non-formal education and training, by educational attainment (2016)
Adult Education Survey (AES) or Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), 25-64 year-olds who participated in formal and/or non-formal education and training activities

Note: Participation in formal and/or non-formal education and training during previous 12 months. Note that the average differs from the one published by Eurostat as this is an unweighted average and the country coverage is different.
1. Year of reference 2012.
2. Year of reference 2015.
3. Year of reference 2017.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Source section.
Source: OECD (2020). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en). Please refer to the Reader's Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888934162964

Table A7.3. Annual training costs, by size of enterprise (2015)
Continuing Vocational Training Survey (CVTS) or national surveys, costs as reported by enterprises

Note: Training costs during previous 12 months. Note that the average differs from the one published by Eurostat as this is an unweighted average and the country coverage is different.
1. Data were mainly collected on line and via interactive PDF forms, only small part of questionnaires was distributed in a paper form. See metadata for more information at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/EN/trng_cvt_esqrs_cz.htm.
* See note on data for the Russian Federation in the Source section.
Source: OECD (2020). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en). Please refer to the Reader's Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888934162983

╳

Metadata, Legal and Rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at http://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.