\Push-Pull\ model of lifelong learning in Perak and Selangor

Emilda Hashim

Abstract

Adapting to the needs of students, working adult learners at local, public and private, universities in Malaysia enjoy greater autonomy in pursuing their education. Therefore, this study aims to identify ‘push-pull’ factors that determine working adult learners' choice to pursue their studies. Additionally, this study also figures out the relationship between ‘push-pull’ factors in motivating students to further their academic studies. 200 questionnaires were distributed to working adult students pursuing part-time programs in public and private universities around Selangor and Perak. The ‘push-pull’ model was used in this study to identify which factors were the most influential in determining adult students enrolling in the study. Multiple regression analysis will also be used in this study to see the relationship between push-pull model and the tendency of students to choose to pursue their studies. For these purposes, statistical and econometrics analyses were used in this study. The results claimed that both push and pull factors were considered to be important when making decision to return to learning environment among working adults. Education and human resource development are closely intertwined and key to increase national competitiveness and enhance the country's economy

References

1. Ahmed, U., Majid, A. H. A., & Zin, M. L. M. (2016). HR Moderating HR: Critical link between Developmental HR Practices and work engagement in a Moderated Model. Management Review: An International Journal, 11(2), 4-22.

2. Ahmed, U., Umrani, W. A., Qureshi, M. A., & Samad, A. (2018). Examining the links between teachers support, academic efficacy, academic resilience, and student engagement in Bahrain. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 5(9), 39-46.

3. Ahmed, U., Isa, N. M., Majid, A. H. A., Zin, M. L. M., & Amin, B. M. (2017). Towards understanding work engagement: can HR really buffer HR? Test of a moderated model. International Journal of Economic Research, 14(20), 1-18.

4. Firat, M. (2017). Turkish Students’ Preferences for Distance Education Depending on Financial Circumstances: A large-scale CHAID Analysis, International Review Education, 63:197– 212.

5. Holmberg, B. (1995). The evolution of the character and practice of distance education. Open Learning, 10(2), 47-52.

6. Jevons, F. (1990). Blurring the Boundaries: Parity and Convergence. In R. Garrison & D. Shale (Eds.), Education at a distance: From issues to practice. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Kreiger.

7. Laal, M. (2011). Lifelong Learning: What does it mean?. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 28. 470-474

8. Leach, R., & Webb, R. (1993). Opportunities through open learning. In J. Calder (Ed.), Disaffection and diversity: Overcoming barriers for adult learners (pp. 91-109). London: The Falmer Press.

9. Malaysia (2015). Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2015-2025 (Pendidikan Tinggi). Putrajaya: KPT.

10. Mohamad, Mohaffyza, M., Razali, C., Munira, C. (2009). Keperluan Pembelajaran Sepanjang Hayat bagi Tenaga Pengajar di Institut Latihan Kemahiran di Malaysia. The 3rd Malaysian Technical Universities Conference on Engineering and Technology (MUCEET2009), 20-22 June 2009, Kuantan, Pahang, 613-623

11. Siivonen, P. (2016). Becoming an Educable Lifelong Learning Subject: Adult Graduates Transition in Education and Working LIfe. International Journal of lifelong Education. Vol 35, Issue 1, 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2015.1129365

12. Wallace, L. (2007). " Changes in the Demographics and Motivations of Distance Education Students". International Journal of E-Learning and Distance Education.Vol 11, No. ,1-31. World Education Forum (2015). Final Report 2015. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000243724

13. Yogish, S. N. (2006). Education and Economic Development. Indian Journal of Social Development, Vol. 6, No.2, pp. 255-270