Article

The International Journal of Aging

A Comprehensive and Human Development

2016, Vol. 84(1) 88–106
! The Author(s) 2016
Evaluation of a Lifelong Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Learning Program: DOI: 10.1177/0091415016668352
ahd.sagepub.com
Program 60

Jee Hoon Park1,y, KyongWeon Lee1,

and Holly Dabelko-Schoeny1

Abstract
Lifelong learning programs meet older adults’ educational needs and further support
their health and well-being leading to more successful aging. In particular, university-
based lifelong learning programs have provided older adults with opportunities to
not only develop skills and knowledge but also expand new social networks with
people of different ages. This study evaluated a university-based lifelong learning
program, Program 60, to identify the relationships between participants’ experiences
in the program and their quality of life. An online survey was employed, and 107
participants completed the self-report survey. The participants reported that classes
helped increase their emotional satisfaction and that they enjoyed taking classes with
younger students. Their experiences in the program reliably predicted psychological
and social elements of their quality of life (p ¼ .004 and p ¼ .019, respectively). Study
results provide helpful information for the development of lifelong learning programs
that are responsive to the increasing demands of older adults.

Keywords
lifelong learning, continuing education, university-based lifelong learning, Program
60, senior adult program

1
The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
KyongWeon Lee, College of Social Work, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Email: lee.6454@osu.edu
Park et al. 89

Introduction
As an increasing number of people want to achieve successful aging and improve
quality of life during retirement, lifelong learning has received a great amount
of attention in research as well as practice (Crimmins & Cambois, 2003; Findsen,
2006; Hammond, 2004a, 2004b; Narushima, 2008; Williamson, 1997). Previous
studies have demonstrated several benefits of participants in lifelong learning,
such as effective social engagement in later life, improved quality of life, and
physical and emotional health and well-being (Everard, Lach, Fisher, & Baum,
2000; Gallegos-Carrillo et al., 2009; Isherwood, King, & Luszcz, 2012; Park,
2009; Sertoz et al., 2009; Thomas, 2011).
Lifelong learning for older adults occurs mostly at nonprofit organizations
and libraries. This trend has continued over the past 10 years domestically and
internationally (Butcher & Street, 2009). Lifelong learning programs offered by
organizations aim to meet older adults’ learning needs and address the import-
ance of staying active and engaged during retirement (Metlife Foundation,
2007). Not only that, public libraries support older adults to access library
resources for their independent learning opportunities (Butcher & Street,
2009). Unlike other educational opportunities for older adults, university-
based lifelong learning programs have unique benefits for the participants.
The participants can experience not only a quality education but also engage
in various programs and services provided on campus. Also, university-based
lifelong learning programs can play an important role as an intergenerational
experience where older students can interact with younger students and
faculty members.
This study evaluated a university-based lifelong learning program, Program
60, at The Ohio State University. Program 60 provides older adults who are
60 and older and reside in Ohio with free education opportunities through the
University. Using an online survey, the study examined participants’ motivation
to participate in the program and their perceived benefits of the program.
Data were also collected on participants’ program experiences including class
satisfaction, relationships with classmates and instructors, and self-rated quality
of life measures. In addition to descriptions of the program and participants, the
study focused on the unique contribution of participants’ program experiences
to their quality of life including physical, psychological, social, and environmen-
tal elements.

Literature Review
Lifelong Learning for Older Adults
The number of older adults aged 65 and older has rapidly increased, comprising
more than 20% of the total population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). The older
population is projected to grow up to 84 million by 2050. As baby boomers have
90 The International Journal of Aging and Human Development 84(1)

reached their retirement age, it is crucial to pay attention to baby boomers’

distinct characteristics (Hooyman & Kiyak, 2011). Hooyman and Kiyak
(2011) argued that baby boomers are more physically active and healthier
and not afraid of challenging restrictions on their roles and activities in their
later life.
Lifelong learning has become an essential part to support older adults’ suc-
cessful and active aging. Lifelong learning was first propounded in the 1919
Report of the Adult Education Committee, Ministry of Recommendation in
Great Britain (Ireland & Spezia, 2014). This report stressed the importance of
education throughout the entire lifetime. Since then, lifelong learning has been
deliberated in international conferences such as the United Nationals
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)’s general meet-
ings. In 1964, the UNESCO conference highlighted the theory of lifelong learn-
ing that knowledge and skills acquired earlier in individuals’ lives deteriorate as
they age (Parkyn, 1973). Because of this perception, education opportunities for
older adults have been advocated, and the 1971 White House Conference on
Aging discussed lifelong learning to support aging populations. During the
White House Conference on Aging, lifelong education as the basic human
rights was underscored. Efforts to support lifelong learning for older adults
have continued. The 2015 White House Conference on Aging recognized the
need for societal attention and public investment in lifelong learning because
lifelong learning had been developed predominantly in an individual level
(Moody, 2015).
Learning does not only refer to meeting individuals’ intellectual needs.
McClusky (1974) conceptualized older adults’ learning needs as coping, expres-
sive, contributive, and influential (Tam, 2012). Coping needs refer to engaging in
physical health and pursuing economic self-sufficiency. Expressive needs reflect
participation in activities based on personal motivations. Contributive needs are
individuals’ desires to contribute to the society. Finally, influential needs speak to
an individual’s need to become an agent for social change (Findsen, 2006).
Therefore, lifelong learning for older adults should be developed based on an
understanding of culture and supporting social participation through leisure or
productive engagement activities (Knapp, 1976; Merriam & Lumsden, 1985).

Benefits of Lifelong Learning for Older Adults

Lifelong learning offers a wide range of benefits to older adults as well as the
community as a whole (Hammond, 2004a, 2004b; Narushima, 2008; Schuller,
2004). Through lifelong learning opportunities, people expand their capacity and
interests. Moreover, participants experience improved physical and emotional
well-being (Beck, 1992; Findsen & Formosa, 2010). Learning stimulates older
adults’ psychological or emotional functions and further improves memory cap-
abilities (Fielding, 1999; Weinstein, 2004). Previous researchers have also found
Park et al. 91

that lifelong education increased cognitive function and prevented symptoms of

depression and anxiety among participants (Findsen & Formosa, 2010;
Withnall, 2010).
Social engagement in lifelong learning positively impacts participants’ health
(Umberson & Montez, 2010; Williamson, 1997). Lifelong learning programs
enable the participants to meet new people and form new relationships with
others. Given that social engagement has a positive relationship with physical
and mental health for older adults (Herzog, Ofstedal, & Wheeler, 2002; Merriam
& Kee, 2014; Park, 2009; Parker, Strath, & Swartz, 2008; Tomaka, Thompson,
& Palacios, 2006), older adults utilizing lifelong learning opportunities are likely
to be healthier and have higher quality of life (Crimmins & Cambois, 2003;
Findsen, 2006; Hammond, 2004a, 2004b; Mitchell, 2007; Narushima, 2008;
Williamson, 1997). These positive consequences are not only resulted from edu-
cational attainment but also from intermediate resources that people gain
through schooling, which can be influenced by societal and personal life stages
(Narushima, 2008).

University-Based Lifelong Learning Programs

A number of studies have indicated that a university-based lifelong learning pro-
gram can be viewed as a community-based program for older adults to improve
their quality of life and satisfy the diverse needs of older adults (Crimmins &
Cambois, 2003; Findsen, 2006; Hammond, 2004a, 2004b; Mitchell, 2007;
Narushima, 2008; Williamson, 1997). While allowing older adults to take
classes, attend events, and utilize various resources provided on campus (Carle,
2006), university-based lifelong programs can promote older adults’ overall quality
of life.
Compared with other lifelong learning programs provided at local commu-
nity centers, a university is a great place for intergenerational engagement. Older
adults have an opportunity to interact with younger students and faculty mem-
bers. Older adults can share their knowledge and life experience with younger
students in class. Not only that, older adults can receive positive energy from
younger students and others that may keep them more active and engaged to the
community. Furthermore, university-based lifelong learning programs benefit
younger students. Romack (2004) found that younger students’ perception on
aging was positively influenced by interaction with older adults. By working with
one another, younger students can recognize and value older adults as useful and
contributing members in society.

Program 60. Program 60 is a university-based educational program for older

adults living in Ohio. As a tuition-free, noncredit, and nondegree program,
older adults take classes, including online courses, offered at The Ohio State
University. The Office of Distance Education and eLearning (2016a) explained
92 The International Journal of Aging and Human Development 84(1)

that Program 60 was launched in January 1974. Anyone who are older than 60
and live in Ohio can register for Program 60. Their previous education back-
ground nor income does not matter for enrollment. The participants are able to
take an unlimited number of classes and utilize other resources as other college
students do. In the first year of the program, the total number of the participants
was 185 in more than 200 different classes (Office of Distance Education and
eLearning, 2016a).
Although Program 60 has been operating for the last 40 years, an evaluation
of this program has not been conducted. This study examined Program 60 by
identifying participants’ motivation to participate in the program and their
perceived benefits of the program. The purpose of the study was to investigate
the association between physical, psychological, social, and environmental elem-
ents of the participants’ quality of life and program experiences including class
satisfaction and relationships with classmates and instructors. The authors
hypothesized that participants’ quality of life can be predicted by their experi-
ences in the program.

Method
Study Design and Sampling
The study used a cross-sectional design that employed a self-report survey using
online survey software, Qualtrics. The survey invited 289 older students who
were registered with Program 60 at the time of data collection. The data were
collected for a two-week period in early April 2015. The survey took the par-
ticipants approximately 15 minutes to complete. The survey asked demographic
information, general questions about participants, program experiences, and
self-rated quality of life using the WHO Quality of Life-Brief (WHOQOL-
BREF) field trial version (World Health Organization [WHO], 1996). A con-
venience sample consisting of 107 participants completed the survey, yielding a
response rate of 37.02%. The achieved response rate is considered adequate
considering that the common response rate for online surveys is approximately
33% (Nulty, 2008).

Study Procedure
This study was supported by the Office of Distance Education and eLearning at
The Ohio State University. Prior to data collection, the office director sent an e-
mail explaining the purpose of the study and the survey process to the program
participants. Also, flyers were posted in the office and on its website. Program 60
requires all of the participants to have a personal e-mail account and encourages
them to be familiar with the Internet because all of the participants have to
register classes online. The e-mail recruitment strategy as well as the online
Park et al. 93

survey was considered appropriate. The study was introduced via group e-mails
including a link to the consent form and the survey.
The survey was anonymous, and participation in this study was completely
voluntary. Respondents were able to refuse to participate in this study without
penalty or loss of benefits to which they were otherwise entitled. Moreover, the
participants were informed that their decision on whether or not to participate in
the survey would not affect their academic results. The first author mainly
responded to questions from the participants during the survey process.
Confidentiality was given full consideration during that time. The Ohio State
University Office of Responsible Research Practices has reviewed and deter-
mined that this study is exempted from institutional review board.

Participants
As noted in Table 1, Out of 107 people who participated in the study, 51.4%
were male and 46.7% were female. The mean age of the participants was 67.97
years (SD ¼ 5.711). The oldest participant was 89 years old. The majority of the
participants were non-Hispanic white (90.7%), compared with Hispanic or
Latino (2.8%) and African American (1.9%). While 69% of the participants
were married or lived with others, 15.9% of them were divorced and 7.5% had
never been married. Among the participants, 75.7% reported a religious affili-
ation, such as Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish. Also, 46.7% had a master’s
degree, 22.4% had a bachelor’s degree, and 12.1% had a doctoral degree.
Less than 10% of the participants had some college, high school, or equivalent
education. Finally, 49.5% of the participants identified their annual income
more than $80,000 and 22.4% identified between $50,000 and $79,999. Less
than 8% of them had below $29,000 of annual income. Around 68% of the
participants expressed that they were satisfied with their income, but 8.4% were
not satisfied with their income.

Measures
Demographic information including age, gender, race, religion, marital status,
education background, and financial status were collected. Survey questions
focused on three constructs: participants’ perspectives about the program,
participants’ experiences during the program, and their quality of life.
To gather participants’ perspectives about the program, questions included
how the participant learned about the program, motivation to participate in
the program, perceived benefits of the program, the number of years involved
in the program, the number of classes taken, and membership in the Program 60
Association which is a nonprofit organization that supports new participants to
adjust to a new school life (The Office of Distance and eLearning, 2016b).
Finally, participants were asked about their class satisfaction and relationships
94 The International Journal of Aging and Human Development 84(1)

Table 1. Demographics of the Survey Participants.

Number of
participants
Category (n ¼ 107) Percentage

Age (m ¼ 67.97)
60–64 37 34.6
65–69 33 30.8
70–74 23 21.5
75–79 5 4.7
80 and older 5 4.7
Gender
Male 55 51.4
Female 50 46.7
Race
White or non-Hispanic 97 90.7
Hispanic or Latino 3 2.8
African American 2 1.9
Others 2 1.9
Religion
Yes 78 72.9
No 25 23.4
Marital status
Married or living with others 74 69.2
Divorced 17 15.9
Single or never been married 8 7.5
Widowed or separated 5 4.7
Education
High school or some college 9 8.4
Bachelors 24 22.4
Masters 50 46.7
PhD 13 12.1
Professional degree 9 8.4
Annual income
Below $29,999 8 7.5
$30,000–$49,999 7 6.5
$50,000–$79,999 24 22.4
$80,000 or more 53 49.5
Park et al. 95

with classmates and instructors. These questions were asked separately based on
each class that participants were taking with response options ranging from 1
(extremely negative) to 5 (extremely positive).
The WHOQOL-BREF final trial version was employed to measure partici-
pants’ quality of life. The items were also rated on a five-point Likert scale with
the lowest score of 1 to the highest score of 5. This measure has been shown to be
reliable and performed well on tests of validity (Skevington, Lotfy, & O’Connell,
2004). The WHOQOL-BREF is considered to be suitable for assessing quality of
life of individuals with various demographic characteristics and social and health
conditions (Skevington et al., 2004). The WHOQOL-BREF contains 26 items
based on four elements: physical health (activities of daily living, mobility, etc.),
psychological health (negative and positive feelings, self-esteem, etc.), social
relationships (personal relationship, social network, etc.), and environment
(financial resources, opportunities for acquiring new information and skills,
etc.), including two items directly asking the overall quality of life and general
health condition. According to the WHOQOL-BREF guideline, scores on each
element were computed and converted to transformed scores of 4 to 20. Scores
less than or equal to 9 are considered as low level of quality of life, scores between
10 and 14 as mid level of quality of life, and scores more than 15 were regarded as
high level of quality of life.
Using SPSS Statistics 22, descriptive statistics were utilized to present
collected data on general information about participants. Then, univariate ana-
lysis was employed to examine the relationship between participants’ experiences
in the program and their quality of life. Multiple regression was separately used
to examine if participants’ class satisfaction and relationships with classmates
and instructors can partially explain each element (physical, psychological,
social, and environmental) of quality of life.

Results
The survey participants have engaged in Program 60 for almost 3 years on average
(M ¼ 2.9, SD ¼ 1.64). Approximately one third of the participants have enrolled
in the program for shorter than one year and 40.2% have been participating in the
program for longer than 3 years. The average number of classes that the partici-
pants have taken for the entire academic year(s) with the program was 5.48
(SD ¼ 3.517). A little bit more than 40% of the participants have taken less
than three classes, while another 40% of them have taken more than 10 classes
since first joining Program 60. The average number of classes taken during one
semester was 1.43 (SD ¼ 0.839). At the time of the survey, nearly 70% of the
participants were taking one class, 18.7% of them were taking two classes, and
8.5% of them were taking more than three classes. Finally, 42 survey participants
(39.3%) were involved in Program 60 Association. Among those 42 members,
83.3% said they were satisfied with the Program 60 Association.
96 The International Journal of Aging and Human Development 84(1)

Table 2. Participants’ Motivation and Perceived Benefits of the Program.

Category Percentage

Motivation to participate in the program

I wanted to develop my knowledge 86.9
The program is provided in university 51.4
It is a free learning program 47.7
I wanted to enjoy my life 42.1
I wanted to make friends 6.5
Others 13.1
Perceived benefits of the program
I can learn new knowledge 94.4
The program improves my emotional satisfaction 61.7
The program improves my physical satisfaction 38.3
I can expand social network with younger generations 38.3
I can expand social network with other participants in the program 20.6
Others 12.1

Motivation to Participate in the Program

When asked about how participants first learned about Program 60, the partici-
pants were invited to select all responses that applied to their situations. More
than half of the participants (53.3%) first learned about the program from people
that they know, such as family members, friends, or neighbors. Others said that
they received information about the program via various media methods includ-
ing newspaper, radio, and Internet advertisement. The participants identified
knowledge building (86.9%) as the biggest motivation to participate in the pro-
gram. They also indicated that they decided to participate in the program because
they can take classes offered at the university (51.4%), they can have free learning
opportunities (47.7%), they wanted to enjoy their life (42.1%), and they wanted to
make friends (6.5%) (See Table 2). Additionally, some people mentioned that they
wanted to build a professional network, stimulate their intellectual and mental
functioning, and stay active. The participants also discussed that the program
allows them to review subjects that they have studied before or helps them
make a successful transition into retirement.

Perceived Benefits of the Program

As identified in Table 2, Participants (94.4%) indicated new learning opportu-
nities were the most useful aspect of the program. Also 61.7% said that taking
Park et al. 97

classes helped them improve emotional satisfaction, whereas 38.3% said that it
was helpful for improving physical satisfaction. The participants thought that
the program was more useful to expand social network with younger generations
(38.3%) than with other older participants in the program (20.6%). Among
those who agreed that the program helped them build social network with
other participants, 59.1% were members of the Program 60 Association,
(1) ¼ 4.571, p ¼ .033. Other perceived benefits included receiving formal train-
ing on campus and having the opportunity to have educational opportunities
that they have missed earlier in their life. Also, some people indicated that the
program helped them achieve their goals such as traveling abroad or applying
for a Master’s program.

Participants’ Program Experiences and Their Quality of Life

The scores to examine participants’ program experiences and quality of life are
presented in Table 3 and were ranged from 1 (negative) to 5 (positive). The
average score of the class satisfaction was 4.45 (SD ¼ 0.96). The level of rela-
tionship with classmates appeared to be weaker than that with instructors. The
average score of the relationship with classmates was 2.91 (SD ¼ 0.99) compared
with 3.62 (SD ¼ 0.91) with instructors.
The WHOQOL-BREF guideline requires removing cases where the total
number of items completed is less than 21. After deleting cases that lacked the
required number of responses, 88 people remained for univariate analysis.
Among the survey participants, all mean scores of the four elements were iden-
tified the high level of quality of life (Physical: 17.53, SD ¼ 1.88; Psychological:
16.70, SD ¼ 1.79; Social: 15.45, SD ¼ 2.33; and Environmental: 18.22,
SD ¼ 1.80). Pearson’s correlation indicated that the level of relationship with
classmates and social elements of quality of life was slightly positively correlated
to each other r ¼ .293, p ¼ .006.
For multiple regression, 86 people were included in the analysis due to miss-
ing cases in participants’ program experiences. According to the histograms and
normal p-p plots of the regression standardized residual, each element was pre-
sented to be relatively close to the normal distribution. Multicollinearity was
also tested. The values for tolerance (higher than .60), variance inflation factors
(less than 2.0), and correlations between predictors (less than .70) supported that
there was little to no multicollinearity in this data.
The Omnibus Test failed to reject the null hypothesis for two elements: phys-
ical (p ¼ .087) and environmental (p ¼ .103), indicating that participants’ class
satisfaction and relationships with classmates and instructors do not explain
variation in each of those dependent variables. However, 14.7% of the variance
in the psychological element can be explained by the predictors and the
model was statistically significant, F(3, 82) ¼ 4.704, p ¼ .004. Among the pre-
dictors, deeper relationships with classmates were positively associated with
98 The International Journal of Aging and Human Development 84(1)

Table 3. Multiple Regression Testing Relationships Between Participants’

Program Experiences and Quality of Life.

SE of the
R2 estimates  SE

Psychological .147** 1.69 16.274*** 1.028

Class satisfaction .090 .195
Relationships with classmates .857*** .231
Relationships with instructors .679** .280
Social .114** 2.22 15.265*** 1.349
Class satisfaction .257 .256
Relationships with classmates .891** .303
Relationships with instructors .965** .367
**p < .05. ***p < .001.

the psychological element of quality of life (p < .001), but relationships

with instructors were negatively associated with the psychological element
of quality of life (p ¼ .018). Likely, the predictors reliably predict their social
elements of quality of life and 11.4% of the variance in the social element
scores has been explained by those three predictors, F(3, 82) ¼ 3.513, p ¼ .019.
While relationships with classmates and the social element of quality of life
were positive (p ¼ .004), relationships with instructors and the social elem-
ent of quality of life were negative (p ¼ .010). The overall class satisfaction
was positively associated with both psychological and social elements of quality
of life, but that was not statistically significant (p ¼ .648 and p ¼ .319,
respectively).

Discussion
University-Based Lifelong Learning as an Intergenerational Activity
The study results suggest that a university-based lifelong learning program can
provide a good environment for intergenerational activities. More than half of
the participants said they decided to participate in the program because classes
are offered at the university, and almost twice as many participants found the
benefits of the program in building social networks with younger students, com-
pared with expanding social networks with other participants in Program 60.
Given that the majority of students are younger adults in the university commu-
nity, the older participants are likely to interact with younger students.
Potential benefit from the intergenerational involvement includes active aging
that optimizes opportunities and improved health and well-being (Butts &
Park et al. 99

Chana, 2007; Strand; 2012). Although the participants’ relationships with class-
mates appeared to be weaker than that with instructors, the study findings indi-
cated that the level of relationships that the participants had with classmates was
positively related to social and psychological elements of their quality of life.
Therefore, it is critical to find ways to intensify the interrelation between older
participants and younger students. One of the intergenerational activities
that university-based learning programs could highlight is intergenerational
discussions. Through the intergenerational discussions, older adults have an
opportunity to share their knowledge and wisdom with younger students.
Their life experiences from previous employment or reflection on events from
early childhood or adulthood are good examples that older participants can
contribute to the discussion. This intergenerational discussion could motivate
older and younger students to solidify meaningful connections with one another.
The frequent intergenerational engagement in university-based lifelong learn-
ing programs can also benefit younger populations. According to Allan and
Johnson (2009), younger populations tend to have limited knowledge about
older adults and have concerns about the aging process. Their misconceptions
often result from the assumptions of older adults’ lack of independence or poor
health conditions. Previous research has discussed that class activities with older
adults can reduce stigma and discrimination against older adults as a result of
intergenerational engagements. Cichy and Smith (2011) explained that college
students who participated in intergenerational discussion groups as part of class
activities presented positive changes in their perceptions about older adults.
Furthermore, instructors’ roles should be considered in order to enhance
various aspects of intergenerational activities in the program. Although the
study results surprisingly did not support the assumption that relationships
with instructors are positively associated with psychological and social elements
of quality of life, the average score of relationships with instructors was rela-
tively high at 3.65 (SD ¼ 0.84) out of 5.00. The participants discussed that their
instructors were willing to help with schoolwork and they made them feel com-
fortable sharing academic concerns.
Instructors should be educated about normative changes that occur with
aging and how these impact the classroom experience of older students.
Instructors having older students should understand their unique backgrounds
or needs prior to the class and engage them in class discussions and other appro-
priate activities. Developing relationships with older students might be helpful in
supporting the emotional and social needs of them. Older students should be
encouraged to discuss their experiences and skills with instructors so that they
can contribute to class contents. Finally, social workers working at universities
can support older adults’ unique experience during the program and provide
community resources that help their continuing education and independent
living. When school is equipped to provide the support system for older stu-
dents, their experience in the program will be improved as a whole.
100 The International Journal of Aging and Human Development 84(1)

Psychological and Social Benefits of the Program

Lifelong learning programs promote older adults’ successful and healthy aging.
As the study results showed, participants’ experiences in the program were
associated with their psychological and social elements in quality of life.
While older adults are learning, they may work out a way to deal with late-
life difficulties and develop late-life adjustments (Roberson, 2005). Moreover,
participants can identify their own strengths and interests when they learn some-
thing in the participant’s desired way (Hammond, 2004b).
Program 60 allows participants to select classes that meet their learning needs
and suit their interests. Therefore, Program 60 not only satisfies older adults’
learning needs but also supports the development of new knowledge and skills
that they can utilize in their life. Lifelong educational opportunities allow older
adults to develop themselves in a rapidly changing society, to promote resilience
influenced by social networks in later life, and to enhance their ability to manage
life events (Biggs, Carstensen, & Hogan, 2002; Merriam & Kee, 2014; Smith &
Hayslip Jr, 2012).
According to Meeks and Murrel (2001), higher educational achievement leads
to lower levels of negative traits and higher life satisfaction. Also, some studies
suggest that older adults’ ongoing social engagement results in increased life
satisfaction and quality of life and decreased depression rates (Cacioppo,
Hughes, Waite, Hawkley, & Thisted, 2006; Thompson & Heller, 1990; Victor,
Scrambler, Bond, & Bowling, 2000). Furthermore, participation in lifelong
learning programs enables older adults to increase the sense of belonging and
social contacts that could prevent them from being socially isolated later in their
life (Nicholson Jr., 2009). Particularly through the university-based lifelong
learning program, older adults have the opportunity to increase their social
network by meeting people from different age groups and accessing diverse
community information.

Marginalized Older Adults

Older adults who are non-Hispanic white, those who have higher educational
background and higher annual income, and those who living with others were
overrepresented among the survey participants. University-based lifelong learning
programs should engage in outreach to marginalized older adults, who may experi-
ence more significant benefits from such programs. In spite of the growing number
of institutes for lifelong learning in the United States, those programs have tended
to be irregular across the regions or individuals (Young & Rosenberg, 2006). In
other countries, like Japan, efforts to develop lifelong learning are initiated from
the government and their policies focus on the development of lifelong learning
opportunities to the wide range of people (Young & Rosenberg, 2006). Taking it as
a lesson, the U.S. government should draw societal awareness and invest public
dollars to open and inclusive learning opportunities for older adults.
Park et al. 101

The program should regularly identify gaps in participation and ensure equal
access to this useful and meaningful program. With a partnership with commu-
nity organizations, universities may be able to understand barriers among non-
participant older adults who may want to participate in the lifelong learning
program. Using partnership, community organizations could help provide trans-
portation for older adults who lack mobility. Conversely, some classes can be
offered in the community, off from campus, in locations like a retirement center.
In this way, marginalized older adults can have better opportunities to partici-
pate in the lifelong learning program. Students will also learn more about prac-
tical knowledge by interacting with older adults.

Limitations
Participants’ quality of life was measured in four elements. The predictive relations
of participants’ program experiences with physical and environmental elements were
not examined because the study results did not reject the null. Also, the proportion
of variance in psychosocial and social elements accounted for was relatively small. It
is recommended that researchers utilize other measures such as Educational
Motivation and Educational Barriers as a part of the Active Aging Measurement
(Caro, Caspi, Burr, & Mutchler, 2005). Evaluating the program with other measures
may identify the benefits of the university-based lifelong learning program that more
closely align with older adults’ successful and productive aging. Furthermore, a
longitudinal assessment of the participants will be helpful to learn about long-
term changes in the relationships between a university-based lifelong program and
older adults’ quality of life over the time they participate in the program.
The results were based on data collected from a small number of participants
in Program 60. Therefore, generalization of these findings should be carefully
considered. The survey participation rate was around 37%, although the par-
ticipants had access to the Internet and the study was advertised beforehand.
Nulty (2008) reviewed previous research to compare the response rates between
paper-based and online-based course and teaching evaluation surveys. Nulty
found that paper-based surveys resulted in higher response rates. For future
research, therefore, it is encouraged to take face-to-face administration to collect
a large sample size. Additionally, a qualitative approach using in-depth individ-
ual interviews should be used to develop a deeper understanding of older adults’
experiences in the university-based lifelong learning program and explore chal-
lenges and opportunities of their engagement.

Conclusion
The number of older adults is projected to grow significantly in the future.
This demographic shift has produced some challenges for service providers
and policy makers as well as individuals and family members. Therefore,
102 The International Journal of Aging and Human Development 84(1)

community organizations have developed various programs to meet the increas-

ing needs of older adults. Their unique needs include learning needs, and lifelong
learning programs play an important role to satisfy their needs and improve
their quality of life and health and well-being (Crimmins & Cambois, 2003;
Findsen, 2006; Hammond, 2004a, 2004b; Mitchell, 2007; Narushima, 2008;
Williamson, 1997). For these reasons, the Ohio Department of Aging has sup-
ported 22 lifelong institutes that are community-based and 46 university- or
college-based lifelong learning programs (Ohio Department on Aging, 2016).
This study evaluated Program 60, one university-based lifelong learning pro-
gram. This evaluation provided program development information and added
evidence that the university-based lifelong learning program helps participants
enhance psychological well-being and social networks, particularly with younger
generations. University-based lifelong learning programs offer unique benefits for
older adults because they can interact with younger students and utilize commu-
nity resources provided on campus. Furthermore, community as well as individual
well-being can be improved as older adults focus on their interests and actively
engage in learning activities (Merriam & Kee, 2014).
Lifelong learning for older adults should not be separated from other sup-
port programs for older adults. Lifelong learning programs should highlight
older adults’ capabilities and consider how to continue their engagement in
community, while utilizing them. Finally, the program should target outreach
to older adults who are underserved in community. While realizing the equal
opportunity to education in later life, older adults will age more successfully
and productively.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Office of Distance Education and eLearning at The
Ohio State University for its cooperation and those who participated in the study. The
authors also give special thanks to Dr. Denise Bronson, Dr. Mo Yee Lee, Dr. Randi
Love, and Dr. Jerry Bean for their support and encouragement on this study.

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.

References
Allan, L. J., & Johnson, J. A. (2009). Undergraduate attitudes toward the elderly: The
role of knowledge, contact and aging anxiety. Educational Gerontology, 35(1), 1–14.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London, England: Sage.
Park et al. 103

Biggs, S., Carstensen, L., & Hogan, P. (2002). Social capital, lifelong learning and social
innovation. In World Economic Forum (Eds.), Global Population Ageing: Peril or
Promise? (pp. 39–41). Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GAC_
GlobalPopulationAgeing_Report_2012.pdf
Butcher, W., & Street, P. (2009). Lifelong learning with older adults. Aplis, 22(2), 64–70.
Butts, D. M., & Chana, K. (2007). Intergenerational programs promote active aging.
Journal on Active Aging, 6(4), 34.
Cacioppo, J. T., Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Thisted, R. A. (2006).
Loneliness as a specific risk factor for depressive symptoms: Cross-sectional and lon-
gitudinal analyses. Psychology and Aging, 21(1), 140–151.
Carle, A. (2006). University-based retirement communities: Criteria for success. Nursing
Homes: Long Term Care Management, 55(9), 48–51.
Caro, F. G., Caspi, E., Burr, J., & Mutchler, J. (2005). Active aging: Motives and barriers.
Boston, MA: Gerontology Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston. Retrieved
from http://www.umb.edu/editor_uploads/images/centers_institutes/institute_geron-
tology/Lifestyles3Rev.pdf
Cichy, K. E., & Smith, G. C. (2011). Closing the generation gap: Using discussion groups
to benefit older adults and college students. In P. E. Hartman-Stein & A. LaRue
(Eds.), Enhancing cognitive fitness in adults (pp. 137–154). New York, NY: Springer
New York.
Crimmins, E., & Cambois, E. (2003). Social inequalities in health expectancy.
In J. M. Robine, C. Jagger, C. Mathers, E. Crimmins & R. Suzman (Eds.),
Determining health expectancies determining health expectancies (pp. 111–125). West
Sussex, England: Wiley.
Everard, K. M., Lach, H. W., Fisher, E. B., & Baum, M. C. (2000). Relationship
of activity and social support to the functional health of older adults. The
Journals of Gerontology Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55(4),
208–212.
Fielding, B. (1999). The memory manual: 10 Simple things you can do to improve your
memory after 50. Clovis, CA: Quill Driver Books, Word Dancer Press, Inc.
Findsen, B. (2006). Social institutions as sites of learning for older adults: Differential
opportunities. Journal of Transformative Education, 4(1), 65–81.
Findsen, B., & Formosa, M. (2010). Lifelong learning in later life a handbook on older
adult learning. International Issues in Adult Education. Retrieved from https://
www.sensepublishers.com/media/611-lifelong-learning-in-later-life.pdf
Gallegos-Carrillo, K., Mudgal, J., Sánchez-Garcı́a, S., Wagner, F. A., Gallo, J. J.,
Salmerón, J., . . . Garcı́a-Peña, C. (2009). Social networks and health-related quality
of life: A population based study among older adults. Salud Pública De Me´xico, 51(1),
6–13.
Hammond, C. (2004a). Impacts of lifelong upon emotional resilience, psycho-
logical and mental health; Fieldwork evidence. Oxford Review of Education, 30(4),
551–568.
Hammond, C. (2004b). The impacts of learning on well-being, mental health and effective
coping. In T. Schuller, J. Preston, C. Hammond, A. Brassett-Grundy & J. Bynner
(Eds.), The benefit of learning; The impact of education on health, family life and social
capital (pp. 37–56). London, England: RoutledgeFalmer.
104 The International Journal of Aging and Human Development 84(1)

Herzog, A. R., Ofstedal, M. B., & Wheeler, L. M. (2002). Social engagement and its
relationship to health. Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, 18(3), 593–609.
Hooyman, N., & Kyak, H. (2011). Social gerontology: Multidisciplinary perspective.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Ireland, T. D., & Spezia, C. H. (2014). Adult education in retrospective: 60 years of
CONFINTEA. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization
[UNESCO]. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002276/227635E.pdf
Isherwood, L. M., King, D. S., & Luszcz, M. A. (2012). A longitudinal analysis of social
engagement in late-life widowhood. International Journal of Aging & Human
Development, 74(3), 211–229.
Knapp, M. R. J. (1976). Predicting the dimension of life satisfaction. Journal of
Gerontology, 31(5), 595–604.
McClusky, H. Y. (1974). Education for aging: The scope of the field and perspectives for
the future. In S. Grabowski & W. D. Mason (eds.) Learning for aging. Washington,
DC: Adult Education Association of the USA and ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult
Education.
Meeks, S., & Murrell, S. (2001). Contribution of education to health and life satisfaction
in older adults mediated by negative affect. Journal of Aging and Health, 13(1), 92–119.
Merriam, S. B., & Kee, Y. (2014). Promoting community wellbeing: The case for lifelong
learning for older adults. Adult Education Quarterly, 64(2), 128–144. doi:10.1177/
0741713613513633
Merriam, S., & Lumsden, D. B. (1985). Educational needs and interests of older learners.
In D. B. Lumsden (Ed.), The older adult as learner: Aspects of educational gerontology
(pp. 51–72). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Metlife Foundation. (2007). Framing new terrain: Older adults & higher education.
Retrieved from http://plus50.aacc.nche.edu/documents/older_adults_and_higher_edu
cation.pdf
Mitchell, M. R. (2007). Participation in adult education activities logistic regression ana-
lysis of baby boomers in the United States (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/304855209
Moody, H. R. (2015). The white house conference on aging in 2015: The shape of things to
come. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.424.
7462&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Narushima, M. (2008). More than nickels and dimes: The health benefits of a commu-
nity-based lifelong learning programme for older adults. International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 27(6), 673–692.
Nicholson, N. R. Jr. (2009). Social isolation in older adults: An evolutionary concept
analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(6), 1342–1352.
Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What
can be done? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314.
Office of Distance Education and eLearning. (2016a). Welcome to Program 60. Retrieved
from https://odee.osu.edu/program-60
Office of Distance Education and eLearning. (2016b). Program 60 Association. Retrieved
from https://odee.osu.edu/program-60/association
Ohio Department of Aging. (2016). Lifelong learning. Retrieved from https://aging.ohio.
gov/information/learning/
Park et al. 105

Park, N. S. (2009). The relationship of social engagement to psychological well-being of

older adults in assisted living facilities. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 28(4), 461–481.
Parker, S. J., Strath, S. J., & Swartz, A. M. (2008). Physical activity measurement in older
adults: Relationships with mental health. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 16(4),
369–380.
Parkyn, G. W. (1973). Towards a conceptual model of life-long education. Paris, France:
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0000/000059/005902eo.pdf
Roberson, D. N. (2005). Masters of adaptation: Learning in late life adjustments.
International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 61(4), 265–291.
Romack, J. (2004). Increasing physical activity in nursing home residents using student
power, not dollars. Educational Gerontology, 30(1), 21–38.
Schuller, T. (2004). Three capitals: A framework. In T. Schuller, J. Preston,
C. Hammond, A. Brassett-Grundy & J. Bynner (Eds.), The benefit of learning: The
impact of education on health, family life and social capital (pp. 12–33). London,
England: RoutledgeFalmer.
Sertoz, O. O., Asci, G., Toz, F., Duman, S., Elbi, H., & Ok, E. (2009). Planning a social
activity to improve psychological well-being and quality of life of hemodialysis
patients: A pilot study. Therapeutic Apheresis and Dialysis, 13(4), 366–372.
Skevington, S. M., Lotfy, M., & O’Connell, K. A. (2004). The World Health
Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric properties
and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL group. Quality
of Life Research, 13(2), 299–310.
Smith, G. C., & Hayslip, B. Jr. (2012). Resilience in adulthood and later life: What does it
mean and where are we heading? Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 32(1),
1–28.
Strand, K. A. (2012). Promoting older adult wellness through an intergenerational physical
activity exergaming program (Graduate Theses and Dissertation). Paper 12477.
Retrieved from http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3484&context=etd
Tam, M. (2012). Active ageing, active learning: Elder learning in Hong Kong.
In G. Boulton-Lewis & M. Tam (Eds.), Active ageing, active learning: Issues and
challenges (pp. 163–174). New York, NY: Springer.
Thomas, P. A. (2011). Trajectories of social engagement and limitations in late life.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(4), 430–443.
Thompson, M. G., & Heller, K. (1990). Facets of support related to well-being:
Quantitative social isolation and perceived family support in a sample of elderly
women. Psychology and Aging, 5(4), 535–544.
Tomaka, J., Thompson, S., & Palacios, R. (2006). The relation of social isolation, lone-
liness, and social support to disease outcomes among the elderly. Journal of Aging and
Health, 18(3), 359–384.
Umberson, D., & Montez, J. K. (2010). Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for
health policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(1), S54–S66.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). An aging nation: The older population in the United States.
Washington, DC: Author.
Victor, C., Scambler, S., Bond, J., & Bowling, A. (2000). Being alone in later life: Loneliness,
social isolation and living alone. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 10(4), 407–417.
106 The International Journal of Aging and Human Development 84(1)

Weinstein, L. (2004). Lifelong learning benefits older adults. Activities, Adaptation &
Aging, 28(4), 1–12.
Williamson, A. (1997). ‘‘You’re never too old to learn!’’: Third-age perspectives on life-
long learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 16(3), 173–184.
Withnall, A. (2010). Improving learning in later life. London, England: Routledge.
World Health Organization. (1996). The Heidelberg guidelines for promoting physical
activity among older persons. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactiv
ity/factsheet_olderadults/en/
Young, K., & Rosenberg, E. (2006). Lifelong learning in the United States and Japan.
The Lifelong Learning Institute Review, 1(1), 69–85. Retrieved from https://libres.unc-
g.edu/ir/asu/f/Rosenberg_Ed_2006_Lifelong_Learning_ORIG.pdf

Author Biographies
Jee Hoon Park (deceased) was a doctoral candidate at The Ohio State University
where he studied and had a passion for life long learning. Jee Hoon was a leader
in the doctoral program, facilitating the SEM study group and community
gatherings.

KyongWeon Lee is a doctoral student at The Ohio State University. She received
her MSW from Washington University in St. Louis. Her research focuses on
productive aging among older adults with poor health, low socioeconomic
status, and few social interactions.

Holly Dabelko-Schoeny received her MSW from the University of Maryland at

Baltimore and PhD from The Ohio State University, where she is now an
Associate Professor. Dr. Dabelko-Schoeny is an applied community-based
researcher seeking to improve the delivery of home and community-based ser-
vices for older adults and their caregivers through collaboration with community
agencies, interdisciplinary faculty, and students.