Conference Program

This abstract addresses the issue of adult learners with limited digital skills applying online for courses with Adult Education Services (AESs). AESs meet the educational needs and goals of a highly diverse student body (Grover and Miller, 2016). This diversity is reflected in AES course provision, including but not limited to:

• professionally accredited courses,

• English language courses,

• literacy courses,

• and community education courses.

In the Republic of Ireland (ROI), adults are directed to a website called Further Education and Training Course Hub (FETCH) to apply for lifelong learning courses. FETCH was launched in 2016 with the intention of making adult education more accessible (Mitchell, 2016) and is aligned with governmental pledges to make lifelong learning inclusive of all adults (DFHERIS, 2020).

This digitisation of the course application process epitomises how digital systems are rapidly replacing their analogue predecessors (Pihlainen et al., 2021). However, these digital systems place adults at risk of social exclusion if they do not possess the requisite skills to use them fully (Enright, 2023). Some adults require an alternative to digital forms (Anrijs et al., 2023). Almost 50% of respondents to a literacy survey in the ROI know an acquaintance who requires digital device support (DFHERIS, 2021). Notably, some adult learners attending digital literacy classes can still require support when using apps or the internet outside of the classroom (AONTAS, 2025).

Furthermore, AESs have a responsibility to respond to learner needs at the local level (DES, 2000) and an ability to develop appropriate procedures for current and prospective students (Ross-Gordon et al., 2017). Yet, policy-compliance issues can hamper initiatives to broaden participation in lifelong learning (Clain, 2016). Moreover, neoliberal policies and practices have taken root in European education (Schmoelz, 2023). Notably, equity through the neoliberal lens has been reconstructed in economic, efficiency, and performance-measurement terms, while it does not address the causal factors of inequality, thus further alienating marginalised learners (Mikelatou and Arvanitis, 2021).

Consequently, digitally vulnerable adult learners are expected to use a ‘top-down’, neoliberal-esque course application process that is not informed by their needs, which can in turn become an institutional barrier (Sualehi, 2023) for those adults who cannot complete the form. The impact of using such systems on said adults includes privacy concerns (Mesa, 2023; Tokovska et al., 2023), disempowerment (Hill et al., 2015), exclusion (Seifert et al., 2018), and stress (Nimrod, 2017). However, digital services have the capacity to be ‘bottom-up’ and designed around the needs of end users via consultation with them (Savoldelli et al., 2014; Tokovska et al., 2023).

I advocate that the Learner Voice should be meaningfully heard in discussions and decisions about course applications systems. Not listening to adult learners who have difficulty in navigating, or concerns with, digital application processes risks excluding them from lifelong learning altogether. This could potentially create a Matthew Effect wherein those who successfully completed courses before will continue to do so, and those who experience challenges with course applications will not reap the benefit of lifelong learning (Van Nieuwenhove and de Wever, 2021).