To Örebro University

The guiding principles of the education of older adults have been stated in three landmark publications. In their statements of principles, the authors of those publications affiliated themselves with one of two older-adult learning philosophies: a humanist or a critical one. Thirty years since the first statement, the field of educational gerontology is now weighted with theoretical ambiguities that are sustained by the polarised learning philosophies that govern the three statements of principles. In this paper, by adopting a middle-ground approach, I analyse these statements in order to answer three questions: (1) What do the three statements of educational gerontology principles have in common? (2) How do they conflict? (3) What tensions exist within and across the three statements? I conclude that the current dominant learning philosophies are sometimes hegemonic, exclusive and reductive. I suggest a fourth restatement that matches the contemporary advances in the field of educational gerontology.

Many critical educational philosophies assume that learners are naive and unable to critically read their social reality. Critical educational gerontology (CEG) aims to emancipate learners from oppression, to which they are oblivious . This strand of older adult education charges teachers with the task of raising learners' naive consciousness, by leading them on the (Freirean) path of critical reflection and critical action. Literature employing CEG concludes that this path often ends with learners being reluctant to engage in critical action because of their ongoing (internalised) oppression. In this paper, we adopt a critical stance towards CEG's logic of emancipation guided by Anthony Giddens' structuration theory. As such, we question the inability of older learners to understand, and act on, their social reality independently from teachers. Starting from Giddens' theory, we apply a reflexive thematic analysis to interview data tackling the socio-economic reality of 11 older learners at a university for the third age in Lebanon. The results support the conclusion that older learners at the U3A can decode their social reality and reflexively engage in social change, but their efforts or reluctance are influenced by constraints, not necessarily naive consciousness. Consequently, we recommend a revisit of CEG's logic of emancipation.

Older adults continue learning for intrinsic and extrinsic reasons. Literature has often portrayed the reasons for learning in older age as either intentional or as predetermined by socialisation. This emphasis on either agency or social structures is found, not least, in the humanist and critical principles of older adult education. This article addresses the question 'why do older adults learn?' Using the concepts of ontological security (Giddens) and habitus (Bourdieu), it provides a sociological interpretation of the motivational reasons to learn in terms of their individual and social nature. A reflexive thematic analysis was conducted on 11 interview transcripts from current and previous older learners at a university for the third age (U3A) in Lebanon. I categorise the motivational reasons for learning as contextual, intrinsic, educational and conducive. I conclude that the reasons for joining the U3A are complex - both individual and social - as they include reflexive and socially determined elements. As a result, I recommend that a restatement of the principles of educational gerontology would further our understanding of how the reasons for learning in older age are shaped by both the agency of individuals as well as socialisation.

The humanist and critical principles of educational gerontology attribute different goals to education in later life. Self-Actualization is the goal of humanist educational gerontology, while empowerment, emancipation, and social change are the goals of critical educational gerontology. Liberal arts education is dominant in later-life learning. Both the humanist and the critical philosophies of learning in older age claim that this type of education is not empowering. Empowerment is a contested concept that has been defined through a set of constructs ranging from psychological capacities to attitudes and behaviors. In terms of capital, empowerment translates into gains in identity and social capital, operationalized in the variablesagencyandsocial and civic participation, respectively. The present study investigated the empowering potential of liberal arts courses using the BeLL survey data of 7,338 adult learners. Through a series of ANOVAs and a regression model, we found that age, gender, educational attainment, the number of courses, and changes in agency are significantly associated with changes in social and civic participation. We concluded that liberal arts education does empower adult learners, especially older adults, women, and individuals with lower educational attainment. Given that goal-related claims in the principles of educational gerontology have been empirically challenged, we recommend a new statement of principles that takes into account the latest developments in the field, as well as learners' agential capacities and the structural inequalities they face.