Barry Golding | Learning through life



Men learning later in life: Floating the idea of shedagogyKeynote Conference Paper by Barry Goldingto ‘Innovations in lifelong learning’ESREA Older learners network conference, MaltaThursday 23 October 2014From: Professor Barry Golding Federation University AustraliaPO Box 663 Ballarat 3353, Victoria, Australia+61 3 53279733b.golding@federation.edu.au Target 5000 word max including referencesThis version beyond the cover sheet, approx. 4997 wordsBrief Bionotes:Barry GoldingProfessor Barry Golding is an experienced and widely published researcher in adult and community education at Federation University Australia, in Ballarat, Victoria. He is also President of Adult Learning Australia and a Patron of the Australian Men’s Sheds Association. He is the lead editor of Men learning through life, published in Feb 2014 by NIACE.To:Marvin Formosa marvin.formosa@um.edu.mt (University of Malta, Conference organiser) & Bernhard Schmidt-Hertha bernhard.schmidt-hertha@uni-tuebingen.de (Discussant) Men learning later in lifeFloating the theory of shedagogyBarry Golding Federation University AustraliaAbstractMen learning later in life is a theme that has begun to receive research attention in recent years in several world nations, leading to the recent publication of Men learning through life (Golding, Mark & Foley, 2014) with contributed chapters from researchers in seven different countries. The research focused particularly on older men’s informal learning through community contexts. It is men not in paid work, including the increasing proportion of older men in most nations who are retired from paid work, who are of particular interest here. The paper will summarise what is known about the field, and also include a synopsis of what is know about older men, learning and later life from the men’s shed movement, currently spreading rapidly in several European nations beyond its original development site in Australia. For the first time it introduces the term shedagogy, to playfully but purposefully summarise a new way of thinking about learning for many older men. Shedagogy is seen as a cheeky but useful rhetorical device to make a claim about the distinctive nature of men’s shed-based learning. Its most important element of is that learning for many older men should be neither fore-grounded not named, but created collaboratively and ‘hands-on’ in communities of informal men’s practice. Other essential elements are that participants bring and share what they know and can do, rather than being problematised and patronised from ageist and deficit models and learners, customers, patients, clients or students.AcknowledgementsI am indebted to former Ballarat colleague, Dr Steven Hodge, now of Griffith University, Queensland, Australia for playfully and skilfully sharing early conversations about shedagogy other elusive and exciting ‘gogies’ related to older men’s lifelong and lifewide learning in late 2013. My sincere thanks also to the members ESREA Older Learners Research Network for making this antipodean wanderer so at home in Europe and taking up some similar challenges in their own, very exciting research.IntroductionThis paper explores the learning theories which apply to what happens in the field of community men’s sheds practice, an Australian grassroots invention where mainly older men do diverse’ stuff’ together in workshop type settings for mutual and community benefit and support (Golding, Brown, Foley et al., 2007). I have chosen this very new, hands-on, grassroots, community sector as a field of inquiry for several reasons, aside from my own identification as a 64-year-old man in the same demographic. What interests me is that is a field of practice whose accessible resources and pedagogies, that I later describe as shedagogies, lies well beyond the reach of the conventional, expensively packaged formal education system, but well within reach of older men interested in self-directed, practical learning as envisaged by Illich (1971, pp. 82-3). I contend that this informal community practice neatly and powerfully illustrates that the sorts of learning that ICAE (2013) envisions, can and does occur in the total absence of teachers, programs, curriculum, or assessment, without presupposing that the adult men who co-participate will be treated as students, clients, customers or patients. Finally, men’s sheds embody some of the best aspirations for learning that promotes human agency, mutual cooperation and active citizenship, in this case for an unlikely, older, male demographic (in Australia, median age 69 years: Flood & Blair, 2013) who would rarely do ‘a course’ of learning and would not even enter the shed door if any of the normal trappings of formal learning were in evidence.Towards shedagogyIn this section of the paper I briefly introduce ‘shedagogy’ and tease out what its principles are or might be as illustrated by the men’s shed movement. Effectively, this is about learning through community and mutual self-enrichment, as well as learning by doing, belonging and being in the Delors (1996) sense. Since the shed movement is new and has never been teacher-centred or theory driven, the field of study offers a relatively ‘clean’ focus for critical inquiry. It is also refreshing to find such an emancipatory, decentred, grassroots movement driven by older men ‘in an increasingly barren [formal, educational] landscape dominated by the dead hand of curriculum, assessment, quality and compliance’ (Golding 2014, forthcoming). In what follows I seek to reconcile some of these adult learning principles in the context of shed-based learning, and speculate about the potential contribution of shedagogy to understanding learning more as a lifelong and lifewide phenomenon (ALA, 2013). In order to approach men’s sheds as a topic of theoretical inquiry it is important to briefly define what is a community men’s shed is (shortened in this paper to ‘men’s shed’ or ‘shed’). While personal men’s sheds have been important and culturally iconic for men in Australia much earlier, the first named ‘Men’s Shed’ in a community organisation started in Australia as recently as the late 1990s. Golding, Mark and Foley (2014) observe that backyard, house and garden sheds have been important for individual men, and that shed or workshop-type places in workplaces, gardens and farms have been acknowledged in many other nations as places in which much hands-on, public and private workshop activity takes place, typically by men. The term ‘shed’ had also been used for many decades to describe some important community places in Australia in which men have traditionally gathered. These include the fire brigade shed, football and rugby sheds. Many nations have had shed or workshop-based community organisations dedicated to keeping men’s trade skills, traditions, tools and engines alive, such as in mining, agriculture and forestry museums. Hands-on activities and skills have been practiced and passed down from father to son in sheds. Woodcrafts have been traditional men’s pursuits in most traditional cultures including for the Maori in New Zealand. In Papua New Guinea, men’s ‘houses’ formed an important part of community life religion and ritual.The global growth and influence of feminism from the 1960s has led to many men’s places and spaces being seen as generally anachronistic, unnecessary and unhelpful to gender equality, and to women’s equal participation as a desirable general principle in all aspects of society in particular. Most male-only community organisations and workplaces in developed nations have since been ‘opened up’ to women. These changes have met resistance in traditional and Indigenous cultures as well as by older men socialised and educated in a pre-feminist era. In some ways, men’s sheds organisations in the Western nations in which they have recently been established have something to do with some men ‘answering back’ that some places for men are not necessarily out dated, and indeed that for some men, families and communities, they are invaluable. While men’s sheds are not attractive or necessary for all men, they have proven to be extremely positive and salutogenic (health giving) for most men who participate, with positive flow-on effects for other men, women, families and communities (Flood & Blair, 2013).The men’s shed movementThe men’s shed movement, as it has evolved in the past decade from 2005 is comprised of a large but loose association of shed-based community organisations, mainly for and by older men. The movement has very quickly become the largest community association in Australia, Ireland, the UK and New Zealand focused on the needs, interests, health and wellbeing of older men. Men’s sheds provide a safe, regular, social space for informal voluntary activity and programmes with very diverse possibilities and outcomes matching the men and communities in which they are embedded. As Sunderland (2013, p. 220) recently concluded, ‘Men’s Sheds work because of the meaning realised through purposeful, constructive work. They attract men who want to be in the company of others, supporting one another and working towards common goals’. Unlike personal sheds, they are available to groups of men, organised independently or with auspice arrangements through a wide variety of other community organisations (including learning and health organisations). In Australia ninety per cent of all sheds employ no paid staff. The activity usually (but not always) takes place informally in groups in workshop-type space with tools and equipment in a public, shed-type setting. Because of these diverse settings, sheds are also as diverse as the men and communities they involve and spring from.There are some important basics. Golding, Mark and Foley (2013) show that sheds work because the men involved typically and actively participate, belong to and identify with the shed. Men enjoy and benefit from gathering socially, regularly, voluntarily, happily and safely to do hands-on ‘stuff’ together. What that ‘stuff’ is, is less important than the principles (‘shedagogies’) embedded in the men’s shed concept. It works best when it’s grassroots, local, by, for and about the local men. It is more about men helping each other and the community than men being ‘serviced’. ‘Shedders’, as they call themselves, are active and equal participants in the activity. The irony is that not naming the activity provides freedom and agency for older men to talk informally, ‘shoulder to shoulder’ (AMSA, 2013) about other important things going on in their lives that would not otherwise be acknowledged or shared if women were involved in the activity.Beyond the diversity, Golding (2012, p. 129) has identified some key, common attributes of men’s sheds that are consistent and coherent enough to begin to define a new ‘gogy’. They tend not to patronise participants as clients, customers or patients. They do not describe the activity or the participants in the shed (other than mostly being men). They provide places for men to exercise agency over the shed activity as well as over their lives beyond work. They are radical in that they promote holistic learning in communities (without the need for teachers, curriculum, teaching and assessment, and health and wellbeing without health workers). They are safe, health and wellbeing-promoting spaces deliberately inclusive of all men. Importantly and interestingly, they are successful because neither learning nor health are formalised or fore grounded in the name of the organisation. They are achieved precisely because they are approached informally. From individual origins in several southern Australian States, men’s sheds organisations have grown from around ten sheds (all in Australia) in 2002 to over 1,300 in five nations by mid 2014. It is now an international movement with national associations in Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and the UK. Aside from this rapid spread and phenomenal numeric growth, several things are of interest here in the context this paper about men learning later in life. Men’s sheds in community settings provide a radically different, and arguably, very effective model of learning, without the need to invoke any existing learning pedagogy, perhaps with the exception of Lave and Wenger’s (1991) learning in communities of practice. Men’s sheds challenge many conventional ways of doing, being and knowing in education. Simultaneously, they provide a neat fit between both older men’s learning and wellbeing. The specific intention here is to acknowledge that the learning associated with men’s sheds in community settings, whatever it might be called, has the capacity to improve and radically change older men’s involvement in learning and promote their wellbeing, paradoxically and counter-intuitively without foregrounding either.What underpins this thinking is that research into those returning to adult education from nations such as Australia and Canada (Myers & Myles, 2005) highlights that while the least educated are least likely to participate in formal learning, when they do learn they are most likely to benefit (Blundell, Dearden, Meghir & Sianesi, 1999). Formal vocational training, despite being the mantra of governments in times of elevated unemployment may, on its own, represent an inefficient investment policy for the less skilled (Lefebvre & Merrigan, 2003). While this particularly applies to older men excluded because of one or more non-vocational dimensions (disability, health, economic, social, spatial or institutional: Phillipson, 2011), it is important to note that sheds can and do accommodate the engagement of men of all ages in learning and that some sheds also focus on involving some young men in their intergenerational activities.In summary, community men’s sheds are a good example of an international, community-based, grassroots movement, particularly as it relates to men of any ages not in the paid workforce. Both learning and wellbeing in community settings are advanced informally by the collective action (agency) of men without a formal, programmatic, institutional or educational intervention. While the shed movement started slowly and from small beginnings in parts of Australia, its recent and rapid spread is evidence of what can and does happen when men exercise human agency in social contexts (Bandura, 1989), and when governments listen to and work with men rather than problematize or patronize them. Men’s sheds in community settings provide insights into how new theories can and do emerge ‘bottom up’ by research, which actively link theory to practice. In that sense, shedagogy is postulated below for the first time as an important, new way of thinking about learning, to inject into an already busy theoretical metagogical field.The timeliness of ‘shedagogy’Personal men’s sheds and similar workshop and garden shed-type spaces have been recognized by men for many decades as important and culturally iconic places for men to potter about, to fix things and develop friendships in diverse situations. The development of men’s sheds in community settings was an idea that began in Australia almost 20 years ago. Earle (1996), a gerontologist researching in South Australia, linked participation in personal sheds as a compensatory strategy used by older men as they age. From 2005 Mark Thomson (Thomson, 2005) began to extrapolate the idea from personal sheds to community sheds. Work by William Thomas in the field of gerontology from 1991 on the ‘Eden Alternative’ (EA: Eden Alternative, 2009) is also of relevance here. Like some men’s sheds, EA addressed three perceived ‘plagues’ then evident in nursing homes (Brune, 2011, p. 508): loneliness, helplessness and boredom, by focusing instead of on deficit, by considering and positively working with older people’s individual needs, desires, life patterns, accomplishments, growth, contributions and connections to families and to the community (Brune, 2011, p. 509). These principles have since begun to influence cultural change in long-term, aged care settings. As with the men’s sheds movement, ‘the culture-change movement [spread] in advance of a solid research base to support its quality of life improvement claims’ (Brune, 2011, p. 514).This transformation of the shed from an individual, mainly private place for men to make and fix things, typically in their own backyards, to a collective, community space mainly for men with underlying and powerful wellbeing, group participation and social learning purposes and outcomes is worthy of closer examination for three main reasons. Firstly, it demonstrates the multiple social benefits of learning, including connecting with individuals who have similar interests (MacKean, 2009) through the creation of social networks outside of the workplace (Englebrecht & Skladzien, 2010). Secondly, it provides pointers to new ways of positively connecting learning with health and wellbeing. Thirdly, men’s sheds incorporate alternative ways of perceiving of and working with men as agents actively involved in transformation that goes well beyond themselves to include other men and communities, rather than seeking them as patients, clients, customers or students from deficit models of provision. The serious mistake here would be to perceive shed-based research, or discuss sheds on the assumption that they have only one primary function premised on addressing deficit, namely targeting men’s perceived need for learning, education, training or employment, during issues with health, retirement, unemployment, depression or dementia; for seeing them as a convenient place for ‘tacking on’ top-down services and professionals to address men’s perceived need for socialisation, psychological support or nutrition; for addressing some men’s issues with drugs and alcohol or suicide, or as an alternative to community corrections. While all of these things are possible through sheds, there are many more obvious, positive intentions and outcomes including activity, fun, relationships, friendship, and giving back to the community. These other ‘soft outcomes’ are not premised on deficit and are not as amenable to efficient, standardised, cost-driven and regulation-compliant, hierarchical, departmentalised, top-down, management provision of services typically found in hospitals, nursing homes and retirement communities (Brune, 2011). Nor are sheds amenable to meeting the associated expectations of meeting hard, outcomes-based targets that increasingly go with government funding and performativity agendas.These shedagogical principles presumably extend into other informal cultural learning spaces. Men in most nations gather and benefit in terms of learning and wellbeing through voluntary involvement in sporting, fire and emergency services organizations. In some other nations such as Samoa, men’s participation was traditionally around the ‘kava bowl’, involving men’s ritualized group drinking of the mild intoxicant, kava. In Scandinavia, men tend to continue the tradition of gathering around fishing and hunting, that in some Nordic nations also extends to men’s saunas. In Portugal pigeon racing and fishing clubs have been important sites for men gathering. In the Maldives it tends to be the place near the beach where men fix their fishing nets. In many Mediterranean nations the custom has been for men to meet and drink coffee, a tradition that is followed by older, culturally diasporic migrant men in some Australian cities, which also goes on in the USA, as summarized by this recent, first hand account from the internet.You know the guys who sit around and talk shit all morning in a designated location, while drinking coffee? If you go to a gas station or a diner that opens early enough in the morning you've probably seen them. ... about 4-5 grizzled old guys that just hang out there all morning. There's no designated meeting time - it's sort of an unspoken thing that everyone just shows up around the same time, like they drive by looking for each other's cars in the parking lot. (Neogaf, 2013)This idea of men ‘talking shit’ and ‘playing’ in sheds is not unimportant as a starting point to learning through deeper and more meaningful conversations and shared activities. Tse (2005) extracted three main themes through research into older people’s needs for activity and companionship through adult day activity groups in Australia. The importance of companionship, including being and talking with others was one of the themes, as was keeping occupied and ‘getting out of the house’. Other research confirms the importance also to women of having places, spaces and conversation to ‘natter’ (known as ‘chinwag’: in England; and a ‘bit of craic’ in Ireland). Talking socially without exchanging too much information is an important way of people making contact, an activity that now extends to internet enhanced conversations on the internet including for men, in ‘virtual sheds’ (ShedOnLine, 2013).Men’s sheds and learningGolding et al.’s suite of research (see Golding et al., 2007; Golding, 2012) tends to analyze men’s sheds from an ontological learning and wellbeing perspective. Because this paper is fundamentally about men’s learning and wellbeing and authored by a learning-oriented researcher, the main emphasis here is about learning. What is learned through men’s sheds, often from and by previously poorly connected men, is far from unimportant. Men learn hands on skills through practical, productive activity. They learn the positive value of leisure activity and friendships with other men. They gain new insights into the importance and ways to enhance fitness, relationships, healthy eating, identities as men and emotional wellbeing. In the context of considerable life changes, men learn to cope with changes associated with not being in paid work, ageing, disability and retirement. Most importantly, men develop, share and enjoy lives and new identities in a third place beyond paid work and home bestowed through and by association with the shed.The learning works through men’s sheds largely because they positively accommodate particular groups of men of all ages with a sometimes long-standing aversion to formal education and provision that is organized top-down. As Cully (2004, p. 227) notes, in Australia ‘the formal VET system remains strongly biased towards provision of training for people aged 15 to 25’. Unlike U3A (University of the Third Age), that tends to provide programs for already committed learners (Neilsen, 2003, p. 56), and OM: NI (Older Men: New Ideas), that is based around men sharing stories, in supportive, men-only contexts, men’s sheds were recognized as early as 2004 by Morrison (2004) as providing something quite different for men. Morrison particularly picked out men whose ‘identity and culture have been shaped in the unique and highly gendered experiences of war and post-war Australia’ (p. 2), and accurately predicted their capacity of ‘multiplying across Australia’ (p. 5). They encourage mentoring and sharing of leisure, trade, craft, health and safety skills, teaching men that they have as much to give back to other men and the community at any age as they have to learn. The absence of training, teachers and assessment match the specific informal learning needs of the men who participate in sheds, making them feel at home, valued and valuable. Men learn through communities of practice in a way that does not involve ‘shame’ associated with failure. Men’s sheds develop and share what they know rather than emphasizing what men cannot do or do not know. The focus is on the needs of men as equal and joint participants in the activity, using and expanding on the (sometimes limited) formal literacies, skills and interests they do have. Men’s sheds provide positive role models for other men. In some cases where young people including school resisters are involved in men’s shed activity, men provide critically important but informal cross-age mentoring.In the process, men of any age learn many new things, without ‘enrolling’ in any ‘course’. Some men learn how to break social, family or work isolation and depression that can often be associated with it. For men at home with a partner for the rest of the week sheds can relieve ‘underfoot syndrome’ for both parties. This phenomenon has been described also in Japan (Faiola, 2005). From a workplace and skills perspective, sheds are very much about transition to ‘a third place’ (aside from work and home) during the third age and well into the fourth age postulated by Soulsby (2000). Men’s sheds also tick most boxes for many older men from a productive ageing perspective. Where and how the learning takes place is also important. Hands-on learning is typically enjoyable where the tasks are real, with obvious, practical and transferable benefits. For some men, working with an open door or with views to the outside is also important.Men’s sheds and the learning associated with participation for the types of men who participate in them can perhaps be best understood from a sociological perspective in terms of cohort experiences (McNair, 2009). While much research and government policy effort goes into postulated, smooth transitions or pathways for young people through education and training to adulthood and work, ‘the current pattern is of a much more complex and unpredictable phase of life, for young people entering it, as for older people leaving it’ (McNair, 2009, p. 38). As McNair (2009, p. 38) presciently stressed in 2009 as the Global Financial Crisis began to unfold in the UK, ‘Qualifications do not provide protection against this turbulence, although social class and networks do.’ Learning, as McNair (2009, p. 41) stresses, has three broad purposes in relation to three forms of capital: identity, human and social. It helps people ‘to find meaning in their lives; to support themselves and their dependents; to engage in a wider society; and to manage and adapt to change’ (p. 41). Each of these purposes are arguably achieved through men’s sheds, driven by a more mobile male population subject to new circumstances, less predictable labor market entry and exit, a much longer third age in healthy and active retirement and a longer fourth age living in some kind of dependency (McNair, 2009, p. 51). In the bigger picture and using Sen’s (1980) capability framework, men’s sheds accommodate for affiliation with other men; play, through working enjoyably ‘shoulder to shoulder’; bodily health (Golding, 2011), as well as senses, imagination and thought.ConclusionThis inquiry suggests that an emergent theory of shedagogy offers a form of learning that is intrinsically averse to external control. The ‘grassroots’ shed model positively challenges general preconceptions about many aspects of adult learning, in this case the specific difficulty of enabling men’s agency and learning in community settings, including for and by older men. This analysis of the men’s shed movement concludes the ability of diverse men, particularly those beyond the paid workforce, to take responsibility for several of the key social determinants of health, including their learning and wellbeing. Sheds are also flexible and diverse as a bottom up, ‘grassroots’ movement to work in very diverse cultural and community contexts, and informally connect otherwise very disconnected men (unemployed, retired, with a disability, withdrawn from the paid workforce) to a range of services without problematizing and patronizing them.This includes some men with ambivalence and significant negativity towards learning. On one hand, shedagogy as postulated, is conservative, in that it reinforces and celebrates some traditional ways of being a man and doing things together, ‘shoulder to shoulder’. On the other hand, it is radical in that it is based on models of community involvement that is democratic and inclusive, which eschews negative and hegemonic masculinities, is respectful of women, encourages salutogenic (health promoting) behavior and learner autonomy. Forty-five years after Freire’s (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed, it is timely to identify ‘forms of critical practice that interrogate, destabilize, and disorganise dominant power/knowledge relations, and at the same time, develop alternative pedagogies’ (Schugurensky, 2011). It is in this spirit and context that I am invoking shedagogy as a project for older men’s learning, amongst other similarly radical transformative projects, through the men’s sheds movement.ReferencesALA (2013) Lifelong and lifewide: Stories of adult learning. Melbourne: Adult Learning Australia.AMSA: Australian Men’s Sheds Association (2013) Accessed 28 Aug 2014 from Bandura, A. (1989) Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, Sept 1989, pp. 1174-84.Blundell, R., Dearden, C., Meghir, C. & Sianesi, B. (1999). Human capital investment: The returns from education and training to the individual, the firm and the economy. Fiscal Studies 20, pp. 1-23.Brune, K. (2011). Culture change in long term care services: Eden-greenhouse-aging in the communit’. Educational Gerontology, 37 (6), pp. 506-25.Cully, M. (2004). Older Workers, in K. Bowman (Ed.), Equity in vocational education and training: Research readings. Adelaide: NCVER, pp. 206-24.Delors, J. (1996). Learning: The treasure within, Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the 21st Century. Paris: UNESCO.Earle, L. (1996) Successful ageing in Australian society: A community development challenge. Adelaide: Recreation for Older Adults Inc.Eden Alternative: EA (2009). The Eden Alternative: Improving the lives of elders and their care partners, Accessed 21 March 2013 from . Englebrecht, C. & Skladzien, E. (2010). Later life learning: Unlocking the potential for productive ageing. Canberra: National Seniors Australia Productive Ageing Centre.Faiola, A. (2005). A painful homecoming, The Age, Review, Oct 29, p. 4 (originally in the Washington Post).Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Flood, P. & Blair, S. (2013). Men’s sheds in Australia: Effects on physical health and mental well-being, Report for beyondblue. Melbourne: Ultrafeedback.Golding, B. (2012). Men’s sheds, community learning and public policy’ in M. Bowl, R. Tobias, J. Leahy, G. Ferguson & J. Gage, Gender, masculinities and lifelong learning. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 122-33.Golding, B. (2014, forthcoming) Older men’s learning and conviviality, in B. Schmidt-Hertha, S. J. Krasovek & M. Formosa (Eds.) Learning across the generations in Europe.Golding, B. (2011). Older men’s wellbeing through community participation in Australia. International Journal of Men’s Health, 10 (1), pp. 26-44.Golding, B., Brown, M., Foley, A., Harvey, J. & Gleeson, L. (2007). Men’s sheds in Australia: Learning through community contexts. Adelaide: NCVER.Golding, B., Mark, R. & Foley, A. (Eds.)(2014). Men learning through life. Leicester: NIACE.ICAE: International Council of Adult Education (2013a) Post 2015 education: The right to education and lifelong learning: Supporting materials for advocacy in the post-2015 process, Part II: Where are we now and where are we going? Montevideo: ICAE.Illich, I. (1971) Deschooling society. Harmondworth: Penguin Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lefebvre, P. & Merrigan, P. (2003). Assessing family policy in Canada: A new deal for families and children, Choices, 9.MacKean, R. (2009). Ageing well: An inquiry into older people’s experiences of community-based learning, Unpublished Masters Thesis. Hobart: University of Tasmania.McNair, S. (2009). Demography and adult learning: A discussion paper for the NIACE Commission of Inquiry. Leicester: NIACE.Morrison, R. (2004). The wellbeing of older men, Submission No. 189 to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Ageing, 31 March 2004, Canberra.Myers, K. & Miles, J. (2005). Self-assessed returns to adult education: Life-long learning and the educationally disadvantaged, Research Network W35.Neilsen (2003). AC Neilsen Research, National evaluation of adult learners’ week 2001 and 2002. Adelaide: NCVER.Neogaf (2013). ‘Indoctrinated by an old men’s coffee club’, Accessed 28 Aug 2014 from , C. (2011). Challenging social exclusion in old age: National policies and global pressures, Presentation 11 Feb 2011, Keele University, Keele. Accessed 28 Aug 2014 from crsi.mq.edu.au/public/download.jsp?id=10628.Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what? in M. Sterling (Ed.), The Tanner lectures on human value. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, pp. 195-220.Schugurensky, D. (2011) Paolo Freire. London: Continuum.ShedOnLine (2013). Accessed 28 Aug 2014 from , J. (2000). 4th Age Learning Report. Leicester: NIACE.Strohschen, G. & Elazier, K. (2009). The blended shore concept of international/intercultural adult education program development and delivery: A discourse in progress, Accessed 28 August 2014 from , J. (2013). The Taieri Blokes Shed: An ethnographic study. Master of Occupational Therapy Thesis. Dunedin: Otago Polytechnic.Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophical Papers Book 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Thomson, M. (1995). Blokes and sheds. Sydney: HarperCollins.Tse, T. (2005). Adult day groups: Addressing older people’s need for activity and companionshi’, Australasian Journal of Ageing, 24 (3), pp. 134-40. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download