Developmental Diversity in the Academic Language–Learning Experiences of Adult English as a Second or Other Language Learners

Abstract

Academic language is a challenging yet increasingly important skill for Adult Basic Education/English as a Second or Other Language learners. Related to academic language learning is an adult’s developmental perspective. Developmental perspectives have been shown to vary in adulthood and shape qualitatively distinct ways of reasoning and learning experiences. Using Kegan’s constructive-developmental theory, which derives from Western psychology but has been implemented cross-culturally, this qualitative case study explores the academic language–learning experiences of nine Adult Basic Education/English as a Second or Other Language learners. The data include 18 semistructured qualitative interviews and class observations. Analysis includes the dual lenses of grounded theory and constructive-developmental theory. Findings suggest that developmental perspectives made a qualitative difference in how learners experienced academic language learning. Notably, “instrumental” learners described what looks like struggle, but from their developmental perspectives, represents a logical pathway toward success. Learners transitioning toward “self-authoring” brought unique learning agendas and capacities for self-monitoring.

Keywords

adult development adult learning constructive development academic language

Developing academic language skills is a challenging, high-stakes endeavor for Adult Basic Education (ABE)/English as a Second or Other Language (ESOL) learners preparing for postsecondary education (Pimentel, 2013). While ABE/ESOL learners increasingly aspire to transition into college, most of the relatively few who do so are required to take remedial reading or writing classes (Pimentel, 2013), after which fewer than 25% go on to earn a degree (Bailey & Cho, 2010).

The complexities ABE/ESOL learners bring to academic language learning are many, including a range of formal educational backgrounds and levels of English (Kruidenier, MacArthur, & Wrigley, 2010) and situational barriers to persistence (Mellard, Krieshok, Fall, & Woods, 2013). Additionally, academic language is a formidable skill for even the most well-resourced second-language learner in that it makes complex cognitive and linguistic demands (Cummins, 1979; Zwiers, 2008).

Many types of diversity affect ABE/ESOL academic language learning, including first language (Gholamain & Geva, 1999), culture, cultural traditions of academic writing (McKinley, 2015), age, and educational background (Bigelow & Watson, 2014). A more “hidden” diversity, that of adult development, has also been found to affect the reasoning employed in academic language learning (Kegan, 1982, 1994). Reasoning during summarizing, a baseline requirement of postsecondary writing and the academic language skill focused on in this study, includes constructing logical relationships between abstract ideas (Jitendra & Gajria, 2011) and recognizing how primary and subordinate ideas are organized (Leki, 1996; Zwiers, 2008). These abstract ways of reasoning are described in Kegan’s (1982, 1994) constructive-developmental theory (CDT) as developmental capacities. Kegan (1982) suggests that depending on developmental complexity, some learners will understand summarizing as relating one event after the next, rather than abstracting individual incidents into an overarching theme, not because of lack of intelligence, rather, because of a concrete way of constructing meaning.

The “match” between developmental perspective and the types of challenges learners encounter in the classroom has been found to affect learners’ experiences of learning, including among ABE/ESOL learners (Kegan et al., 2001). A study of ABE/ESOL learning experiences through a constructive-developmental lens found that depending on developmental perspective, “the very same curriculum, classroom activities, or teaching behaviours can leave some learners feeling satisfied and well attended while others feel frustrated or lost” (Drago-Severson, 2004, p. 15; Kegan et al., 2001). In the same large-scale study, Helsing, Broderick, and Hammerman (2001) describe how a learner with a complex perspective demonstrated a multilayered conception of writing, while a learner constructing meaning from an earlier perspective preferred concrete writing topics such as “sports” over abstract topics like “openness.”

If developmental perspectives shape qualitatively different ways of reasoning and experiences of learning, it stands to reason that the question of “match” between developmental perspective and learning task is important to consider in academic language learning. In focusing on academically underprepared learners, this study joins a small but growing body of research using a constructive-developmental lens to explore the learning and growth of populations who have been academically, economically, or socially disadvantaged (Bridwell, 2013; Kegan et al., 2001). Some scholars have noted the potential risk of investigating adult learners through a developmental lens, which may favor growth and higher stages of development often afforded by resource-rich environments and access to privileges such as formal education and time for reflection (Brookfield & Holst, 2011). Popp and Boes (2001) point out that a danger of looking at competence from a developmental perspective is that it can be interpreted as a deficit model, as if it were “focusing on what the adult cannot do” (p. 627). This study focuses not on what learners can do, but how they make sense of what they are asked to do, honoring that each adult makes sense of experience in a logically coherent way, and from a constructive-developmental perspective expressive of where they are on the developmental journey rather than who or how intelligent they are (Kegan et al., 2001). The purpose of this qualitative case study, therefore, was to understand the academic language–learning experiences of nine ABE/ESOL leaners, in light of their constructive-developmental perspectives, in order to help educators more effectively reach developmentally diverse learners building academic language skills.

ABE/ESOL Academic Language

While academic language has existed for hundreds of years (Zwiers, 2008), it became recognized as a linguistically distinct language variety, a form of language that develops in a community of language users, when bilingualism researcher Jim Cummins (1979) distinguished basic interpersonal communicative skills from cognitive academic language proficiency. Cummins (1979) describes basic interpersonal communicative skills as social, informal, and easier to acquire, while cognitive academic language proficiency is “strongly related to overall cognitive and academic skills” (p. 198) and includes being able to relate complex ideas and information through language. Kucer (2014) and Zwiers (2008) similarly state that in academic language, linguistic and cognitive complexities are closely intertwined.

Academic English tasks involve both cognitive and linguistic skills. Bigelow and Watson (2014) argue the importance of cognitive development in second-language acquisition, including “how the psychological circumstances of learners’ lives may have affected their cognitive and linguistic development” (p. 462). Leki (1996) emphasizes the intertwined but distinct cognitive and linguistic aspects of second-language academic language learning by pointing out that use of cognitive strategies during academic writing is not impeded by lower English levels, and that struggling writers do not gain access to more complex writing strategies by virtue of greater English proficiency alone.

ABE learners bring additional dimensions to the academic language–learning process. The Kruidenier et al. (2010) explains that foreign-born ABE English language learners (ELLs) have a wider range of educational backgrounds than U.S.-born ABE learners, that some ABE ELLs may not have had access to formal education previously, and that even higher level ELLs may struggle due to “insufficient exposure to more sophisticated language structures and from lack of practice in more cognitively demanding academic forms of English” (p. 29).

Adult Constructive Development

Adult developmental research over the past 40 years has demonstrated that contrary to the conventional notion that development flatlines in late adolescence, adults can continue to develop cognitively, emotionally, and interpersonally throughout adulthood, moving hierarchically through predicable patterns of increasingly complex ways of constructing meaning (Baxter, 1999; Kegan, 1982, 1994; Loevinger, 1976; Perry, 1970). Kegan’s CDT belongs to a family of theoretical models including Kohlberg’s (1981) and Gilligan’s (1982) models of moral development; Loevinger’s (1976) theory of ego development; Perry’s (1970) stages of ethical and intellectual development in the college years; and Belenky’s (1986) stages of women’s development. Each of these theories, based on empirical data from longitudinal developmental research, extend through adulthood the principles of Jean Piaget’s (1952) developmental stages in childhood. Kegan’s CDT takes the constructivist view that we actively construct, rather than passively receive, meaning from our experiences; also, that the ways in which we construct meaning develop in the direction of greater complexity over time. While CDT derives from Western psychology, it has been tested for cross-cultural validity (Villegas-Reimers, 1996) and has been used successfully in research with non-Western populations, including ABE/ELLs (Kegan et al., 2001; Lindsley, 2011).

In Kegan’s (1982, 1994) CDT, a concrete, or instrumental thinker makes meaning with the same black-and-white logic that characterizes Piaget’s concrete operational stage. The world is seen in terms of right and wrong with orientations toward concrete rules and consequences. The structure of this way of knowing is categorical. That is, instrumental learners think through one concrete category at a time, and cannot yet cross-reference categories. In turn, an instrumental meaning maker is “not capable of abstract thinking or making generalizations” (Drago-Severson, 2004, p. 25). Instrumental adult ELLs have been found to orient to concrete aspects of learning and to equate learning with “doing” (Kegan et al., 2001). Knowledge is seen as a possession to be acquired, or “given” by authorities (Kegan et al., 2001). One instrumental ABE/ESOL learner described his preference for writing about concrete topics, explaining that while writing about abstract concepts like “openness” is difficult, “ . . . when you can write about the sport, you can write” (Helsing et al., 2001, p. 162). Taylor (2006) describes the writing that instrumental learners are likely to produce as “a brain dump,” of disconnected and unedited thoughts (p. 207).

Kegan (1982) explains that at the next socializing stage, the underlying structure is cross-categorical, making these learners capable of cross-referencing information to make abstractions, inferences, and generalizations. The ability to look through more than one category at a time also enables these learners to take another’s perspective (Kegan, 1982, 1994). This capacity comes with a new limitation, as socializing knowers define their own success by how well they measure up to expectations set by valued others (Kegan, 1982, 1994). Socializing ABE/ESOL learners, for example, have been found to measure success by how well they meet the expectations of the teacher, a valued expert (Kegan et al., 2001).

At the next, self-authoring stage, adults think systemically and can manage contradictions (Kegan, 1982, 1994). Rather than living up to the expectations of others, these adults now rely on an internal authority, and can examine and take responsibility for their own thinking, feelings, and patterns, which Taylor, Marienau, and Fiddler (2000) describe as “the mainspring of adult development” (p. 30).

Method

Research Design and Questions

The purpose of this study was to understand experiences of academic language learning among ABE/ESOL learners through a constructive-developmental lens, in order to help educators better reach developmentally diverse learners. The following questions, therefore, guided this study:

Research Question 1: What constructive-developmental perspectives do ABE/ESOL learners bring to their academic language–learning experiences?

Research Question 2: How do they experience academic language learning in the class, especially in a recent summarizing unit?

Research Question 3: How do learners’ academic language–learning experiences relate to their constructive-developmental perspectives?

This study employed a qualitative case study design, appropriate for gaining a deep understanding of the meaning of an experience from the perspective of those involved (Merriam, 1998), and for understanding a phenomenon through an “in-depth exploration of a bounded system” (Creswell, 2008, p. 344) such as a program or group (Merriam, 1998); in this case, nine adult ESOL learners enrolled in a U.S. ABE college and career preparation class. It employs Kegan’s (1982, 1994) CDT as a lens because of its prior success with understanding learning experiences of non-Western adults, including ABE/ESOL populations (Kegan et al., 2001; Lindsley, 2011; Villegas-Reimers, 1996), and its valid and reliable instrument for measuring meaning-making complexity, or developmental stages, the Subject Object Interview (SOI; Kegan, 1994; Lahey, Souvaine, Kegan, Goodman, & Felix, 1998).

Setting and Participants

This study was carried out in an ABE/ESOL college and career preparation class delivered through a nonprofit educational organization under the umbrella of Minnesota’s ABE system. The class was purposefully chosen for its typicality (Merriam, 1998) and for its accessibility. Critically, this class served ABE/ESOL learners, and intentionally built academic language skills. I was a manager and teacher in the organization delivering this class and had a longstanding, trusting relationship with the teacher and a baseline familiarity and friendly rapport with some of the learners. Therefore, this class was both a convenience sample, and one in which I was well-poised to develop “productive relationships” with participants (Merriam, 1998). I obtained written permission from the organization to collect data in the class and informed consent from all participants.

The ABE/ESOL learners in this study hailed from different countries, had different language backgrounds, different levels and types of formal education backgrounds, and had been speaking English and living in the United States for different lengths of time. Participants were selected by teacher recommendation based on availability to complete two interviews, a minimum English-reading level of High Intermediate ESL (English as a Second Language), and her evaluation of strong English verbal skills relative to reading skills, making it likely that they would be able to successfully complete conversational-style interviews.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection methods included two in-depth qualitative interviews per participant, and class observations during a 3-week summarizing unit. The unit was typical for this class in its length and in focusing on an academic language skill. Because of ABE learners’ barriers to persistence (Mellard et al., 2013), the data collection period was limited to 8 weeks to help guard against attrition.

Demographic Questionnaire and Standardized Assessments

To contextualize the findings and consider factors other than development that might explain learning experiences (Yin, 2009), I collected demographic information via questionnaire and follow-up questions during Learner Experience Interview (LEI) and English-reading scores measured by the standardized Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System or Test of Adult Basic Education.

Subject Object Interview

To understand participants’ constructive-developmental perspectives, I administered the SOI. In this interview, participants are given words or phrases to prompt a story of a recent experience related to the prompt word. For example, in response to the word success, a participant might tell a story of accomplishing something she had not been sure she could accomplish. After hearing the story, the interviewer asks questions to assess the developmental perspective from which the story was told.

To acquire additional information about how participants understood their learning experiences, I situated the SOI within the college and career preparation class as much as possible. For example, instead of asking, “Tell me about a time you experienced success,” I asked, “Tell me about a time you had success in the college prep class.”

To help ensure that the interviewer elicits the participants’ meaning, rather than imposing meaning, the interviewer frequently checks her understanding by reflecting what she heard. Due to participants’ ELL status, I explicitly invited them to correct any possible misunderstandings.

Each SOI transcript was read and independently coded and scored by me and a coscorer using the method described in the guide to administering and interpreting the instrument (Lahey et al., 1988). We are both certified raters, which is accomplished through training and practice culminating in accurate analyses of at least 8 of 10 SOI transcripts. The fact that we are both certified raters increased the reliability of the developmental findings (Lahey et al., 1988).

I also analyzed the SOIs for information that helped answer how participants experienced academic language learning. In that process, I employed grounded theory analysis (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1965). In order to reduce the likelihood of projecting assumptions or theoretical bias onto participants’ meanings, I conducted line-by-line coding beginning with actions and processes closely connected to participants’ own words and meanings, such as “wanting to understand vocabulary” in one third of the interviews (Charmaz, 2006). Next, I grouped codes by similarity of experiencing academic language learning, abstracting from the original, more literal codes to tentatively focused codes (Charmaz, 2006), such as grappling with new summary-writing conventions. As I analyzed each subsequent interview, the codes from previous interviews helped inform the initial parsing of the data in the grounded theory process of constant comparison (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1965). Throughout this process, I continued grouping data based on similarities in meaning and experience, and continually refined codes to more tightly fit the data (Charmaz, 2006). I rereviewed the codes at several stages to assess the soundness of the distinctions and make changes as necessary. As a final step, I reread the interviews toward saturation of each category (Glaser & Strauss, 1965), coding any initially missed supporting data, as well as any data that were in dissonance with the themes I had developed.

While I purposefully brought the theoretical lens of CDT to this study, grounded theory analysis allowed academic language–learning themes to arise from participants’ own words and experiences.

Class Observations

To gain context for tailoring the LEI to each participant (Merriam, 1998), and to contextualize participants’ descriptions of their learning experiences, I conducted class observations during the summarizing unit. I took in-depth field notes guided by an observation grid I created during initial visits focused on how participants may be experiencing learning, with categories including interactions, conversations between learners, and noting what did not happen where something might have been expected to happen, for example, when a learner did not write anything after the teacher instructed the class to write a summary (Merriam, 1998). I typed and fleshed out my notes, which originally included abbreviations and shorthand, shortly after completion of each observation (Erickson, 1986). In analyzing the notes, I employed grounded theory’s constant comparative method to generate codes for incidents (Charmaz, 2006) such as “responding to a question.”

Learning Experience Interview

To understand participants’ academic language–learning experiences, I conducted a 1-hour LEI with each participant. This open-ended qualitative interview was adapted from the Adult Development Project Experience of Learning Interview (Kegan et al., 2001) and from similar studies investigating learning experiences through a constructive-developmental lens (Boes, 2006; Bridwell, 2013; Lindsley, 2011). The interview protocol included questions organized into three categories: expectations of the class with questions including, “What were you hoping to learn in the class?”; learning take-aways with questions including, “What are the most important things you’re learning in the class?” and process of learning with questions including, “How do you think you learned these things?”

I analyzed data from the LEIs using the same grounded theory process (Charmaz, 2006) described in the second analytical step of the SOI, beginning with line-by-line coding of actions and processes rooted in participants’ words and meaning, grouping codes by similarity of academic language–learning experiences, and constantly comparing and refining codes (Charmaz, 2006) such as “having to use my own words.”

To understand learners’ academic language–learning experiences in relation to their constructive-developmental perspectives, I used findings from Research Question 1, the constructive-developmental perspective of each participant, to reexamine the grounded theory codes generated about participants’ learning experiences. I then separated the interviews according to similar developmental perspectives and repeated the grounded theory analysis process to allow new codes the opportunity to emerge within specific developmental categories.

Trustworthiness, Researcher’s Role, and Reflexivity

A constructivist approach to grounded theory recognizes that the researcher’s interpretations are a construction of reality rather than objective, and therefore places a strong emphasis on reflexivity (Charmaz, 2006). During data gathering, I maintained a field log and reflex journal (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010), in which I noted initial interpretations of interviews and observations, and the assumptions and theoretical biases that may have been informing them (Merriam, 1998). Also, prior to my observations of the 3-week summarizing unit, I conducted four informal observations of the class to increase the likelihood that learners were comfortable discussing their experiences openly (Maxwell, 2005), and to develop an observation code (Merriam, 1998). Reflexive steps I took during data analysis included memoing several times per week to track my own process of theorizing, reflect on my theoretical bias and assumptions, and on the lens I brought to the class from the vantage point of a manager in the organization. I also discussed initial findings during the research process with an experienced colleague not connected to my research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), inviting alternate interpretations to my own (Krefting, 1991).

Findings

Findings from this study suggest that participants held diverse developmental perspectives, which made a qualitative difference in academic language–learning experiences.

Developmental Diversity

Developmental perspectives among participants fell into three categories, including dominantly instrumental, indicated by an SOI score of 2(3); socializing, indicated by an SOI score of 3; and transitioning from socializing to self-authoring, indicated by the SOI scores 3/4 and 4/3. Developmental perspectives did not consistently correspond to other demographic data including reading level or educational background. For example, two of the three participants constructing meaning on the journey toward self-authorship, Masha and Maria, had relatively high prior educational levels including high school and a year of college in their home countries, respectively, but the participant constructing meaning from the most complex perspective, Salazam, had only an eighth-grade education in his rural hometown in Ecuador. This lack of clear correspondence between educational background and language level with developmental perspectives reflects the multifaceted nature of developmental growth in adulthood, which is affected by an individual’s challenges, supports, and continuity thereof, over time, rather than by any one factor or input. Table 1 displays participant demographics, reading levels, and SOI scores.

Table 1.

Demographics, English-Reading Levels, and SOI Scores.

Participant	Age (years)	Country of origin	School in home country (years)	First language(s)	Years in the United States	School in the United States (years)	ESL/ABE reading level	SOI score
Illyas	45	Somalia	10	Somali	2	>1	Advanced ESL	2(3)
Sofiya	73	Somalia	0	Somali	13	2	High Int. ESL	2(3)
Leticia	30	Mexico	12	Spanish	10	1.5	Low Adult Secondary Ed.	3
Louam	40	Eritrea	12	Tigrigna	17	1+	Beg. Basic Ed.	3
Nabil	26	Kenya	11	Somali	1	>1	High Int. ESL	3
Teresa	23	Mexico	8	Spanish	11	3	High Int. Basic Ed.	3
Maria	40	Mexico	13	Spanish	1	>1	High Int. ESL	3/4
Masha	30	China	11	Khazak, Uzbek, Kurgis, Chinese	4	1	High Int. ESL	3/4
Salazam	42	Ecuador	8	Spanish	25	7	Low Adult Secondary Ed.	4/3

Note. SOI = Subject Object Interview; ABE = Adult Basic Education; ESL = English as a Second Language. ABE/ESL reading levels included scores within the following National Reporting System level range, from low to high: High Intermediate ESL; Advanced ESL; Beginning ABE Literacy; Beginning Basic Education; Low Intermediate Basic Education; High Intermediate Basic Education; Low Adult Secondary; High Adult Secondary.

Developmentally Distinct Academic Language–Learning Experiences

Depending on their developmental perspectives, learners described and demonstrated qualitatively distinct academic language–learning experiences.

Instrumental academic language learning

Instrumental learners in this study described qualitatively unique experiences with academic language learning. They oriented to clear-cut learning successes, consequences, and rules. In summarizing, they described understanding the text itself as the end goal, rather than the first step of a larger process. Similarly, they described summary writing as understanding the text, then “writing something.” When finding the main idea of a passage, these learners seemed to look for what was important in an absolute, concrete way, rather than within the context of the text. They also appeared at times to respond to texts with free association, and to disengage, or “otherwise” engage in class activities making abstract reasoning demands. They valued teacher explanations and group work as rules to be followed and strategies for acquiring more information.

Illyas described literacy success in terms of getting the right answer during dictations, and learning a certain number of words: “Teacher give us dictation, and we write our name, and words, and then I get answer. . . . If you write ten words, it’s good” (LEI). Sofiya likewise oriented to clear-cut, quantifiable evidence of success in her writing: “Sometimes she [the teacher] circle. Now she circle three or four or five. But when my goal is, she have to circle one” (SOI). Just as they focused on concrete successes, Illyas and Sofiya oriented toward concrete consequences. When asked what made her worry about missing class, Sofiya explained, “Because I know I missed sentence” (SOI).

In the summarizing unit, Sofiya and Illyas both described understanding the text as the end goal in and of itself. Sofiya explained that for her, understanding is success: “Sometimes I read something before I didn’t know. But now I know what the meaning. That’s my successful, period” (SOI).

Just as instrumental learners described understanding the text as the end goal, they described summarizing as understanding the text, then “writing something.” Illyas, explaining how he decided what to write in a summary draft, explained, “First I read paragraph. And I understand something in the paragraph. And I write something” (LEI).

When asked about identifying main ideas, Illyas and Sofiya described ideas that were important in an absolute way. For example, Sofiya, when asked about the main ideas she had highlighted in a reading, explained:

I think it was, hundred and thousands of people, that number I highlighted.

WHAT MADE YOU HIGHLIGHT THAT NUMBER?

Because it’s a big number. A big number. (LEI)

Both Illyas and Sofiya at times appeared to respond to questions about their experience with a summarizing activity by free associating with the text read in that activity. In response to a question about having summarized a short article in class, Sofiya listed characteristics of the word “product,” which appeared within it, then concluded, “It create something new, that’s product. I told you, if you remember, I like to help people. So I like something product. So of course” (LEI).

In describing what helped her learn, Sofiya described listening to the teacher as a rule to be followed: “I have to listen teacher. . . . And I have to take the pen or pencil, I have to write what teacher said. . . . You have to good student” (SOI). Illyas described the benefit of group work in terms of acquiring more information: “Group work is good, is better than one person . . . because you remember something . . . I remember something, and another person remembers something” (SOI).

Socializing and transitioning toward self-authoring

Socializing learners and those transitioning toward self-authoring described summary learning within the themes of learning a new genre in a new language, including understanding first, and working harder in English; using different approaches to find the main idea of a text; and grappling with new writing conventions specific to summarizing. They also described participating in stages of writing. In describing what helped them learn, they explained how teacher feedback and group work helped clarify misconceptions.

Whereas instrumental learners had described understanding the text as the end goal, these learners described understanding the text as merely the first step. Louam explained, “If you don’t understand what we are reading, it’s hard, nothing can do” (LEI).

Whereas instrumental learners described the main idea of a text in an absolute way, several of these learners described taking different approaches to identifying important ideas in the context of the text. Teresa explained answering the wh-questions, a strategy learned in class:

Sometimes it’s make me confuse, like, “oh here is a detail.” And I keep reading. “Oh, here’s another detail.” And I’m like, “which one it’s the more important detail? Which one goes in the summary, this or this?”

When asked how she decided, Teresa explained: “ . . . the most in a summary you need to explain what, why, where, when” (LEI).

From their socializing perspectives in which relating abstract ideas becomes accessible, some learners also described comparing ideas in the text to find the main idea. When asked how she decided which ideas in a text are important, Louam, with a metaphor, described relating ideas back to the main idea:

It’s [the main idea] connects all the message. It will give you more to understand what is the main. . . . In my language they call it like when a plant is connected. They call it harek. It’s connected, when it’s grow the leaf, it’s like design. So the idea is coming together, and explain the message. (SOI)

Several learners constructing meaning from socializing perspectives and beyond explained the challenge of writing with new genre conventions. Leticia described “using my own words” as a new and initially confusing expectation:

Sometimes we have to read the article and find the main idea. But, in this case, we don’t have to find the main idea, we have to write in our own words the main idea, so that’s why I was confused. (LEI)

Other learners described how being concise was a new challenge. Nabil explained, “Right now, we can condense, we can make it shorter than maybe one paragraph, two paragraph. . . . So that’s a difference” (LEI).

Participants constructing meaning from socializing perspectives and transitioning toward self-authoring also described participating in stages of writing. Louam describes a process of note taking, using the strategy of answering the wh-questions she had learned in class, and then writing:

We have to . . . read the article, right? And then the take notes. So I try to take the notes. And answer the question. So that’s why I have the key words. . . . Then, I try to answer the question, what, where, when, who and why. And then . . . I can start with this introduction. . . . And I try to write. (LEI)

Some learners constructing meaning from socializing perspectives and beyond, where it becomes developmentally possible to take another’s perspective, described taking the reader’s viewpoint to guide their writing. Nabil explained:

It can maybe attract the reader . . . so that you get his mind interested, continue reading. When you use some similes, some other personification, metaphor, and some proverb, some those stuff when you put them together, it can be maybe very sweet to read, very interesting [laughs]. (LEI)

Nabil also described how the teacher’s clarification helped him “get the concept” of main ideas versus details. Initially, he explained, “I just go another way . . . I left the main details and the more important ones behind” (LEI). After, he continued, “she explain to me, one by one, step by step, what I supposed to do, then then I get the concept” (LEI).

Leticia described how during group work, a classmate’s summary helped her clarify a misconception:

Someone give . . . the main idea . . . but not directly from the passage. With their own words. So then . . . I understand, I don’t have to copy, I have to say what I understand from the passage . . . I have to say in my own words. (LEI)

Academic language learning on the journey to self-authoring

Learners transitioning toward self-authoring perspectives uniquely expressed learning for personal development and beginning to self-monitor learning.

While these learners still expressed, on one level, practical motivations for learning, they also expressed, on another level, wanting to learn for personal development. Maria enthusiastically described how she was gaining new ways of seeing life through class readings, including the novel The Color of My Words: “I think that when you read the book, your mind is more open . . . you learn many things . . . it’s amazing” (SOI). Whereas instrumental and socializing learners described group work as a way to get more information or learn from others, respectively, Salazam framed class group work as an opportunity for personal development: “This class here is teaching me kind of leadership skills” (SOI).

One hallmark of self-authorship is developing internal benchmarks by which to measure success. Accordingly, Masha explained how she would, in time, assess her own learning:

What you are putting in your mind . . . maybe here, maybe I learn, maybe I didn’t learn . . . I have to be adding my improvement together, then I can see how much did I improve or not improve. (SOI)

Observations

Classroom observations during the summarizing unit yielded a pattern of either “otherwise engaging” or visibly engaging in activities. Illyas and Sofiya, when encountering activities requiring abstract reasoning, showed signs of “otherwise engaging.” Sofiya, during a small group activity in which learners were comparing three summaries, sat to the side underlining seemingly new words before finally checking her cell phone and talking with a classmate in Somali. Similarly, when his small group was discussing the main idea of an article, Illyas sat to the side, underlining words.

Corroborating their descriptions of engaging in stages of writing, all learners constructing meaning from socializing perspectives and beyond demonstrated actively engaging in abstract activities. For example, where Sofiya had sat to the side, underlined new words, and turned to her cell phone and a classmate during a small group discussion of the best of three summaries, Teresa, in the same group, argued for the summary she thought was best.

Discussion

The developmentally distinct ways in which participants described and demonstrated academic language learning are consistent with what might be predicted by their developmental stage descriptions in Kegan’s (1982, 1994) CDT. Several of these themes are consistent with previous findings on how adult development affects ABE/ESOL learning experiences (Kegan et al., 2001).

Sofiya and Illyas’s academic language–learning experiences, on one level, appear to represent struggle. However, when viewed together from the internally coherent perspective of their instrumental worldview, these themes describe a logical pathway toward success as they defined it. If understanding the text is in fact the end goal, it is logical that summarizing could be understood as first and foremost understanding the text, then simply “writing something.” If reality is absolute and concrete, it follows that what is important from a text would be that which is important in an absolute way. If abstract reasoning is not yet accessible, it is also logical that these learners could experience disconnection from and opt out of abstract summarizing activities, instead pursuing success as they defined it—understanding the text—by rereading and underlining unfamiliar words. Sofiya and Illyas’s tendencies to free associate echo Taylor’s (2006) description of instrumental writing as a “brain dump,” of disconnected and unedited thoughts, logical because from this perspective, adults are still developing the capacity to take a perspective on, and therefore regulate, their own thinking (Kegan, 1982; Kegan et al., 2001). Sofiya and Illyas’s focus on concrete successes and black-and-white rules is consistent with previous findings that native English-speaking college learners constructing meaning from Perry’s stage of dualism, similar to Kegan’s (1982, 1994) instrumental stage, oriented to looking for the “right answer,” there being only one from their developmental perspective. Their concrete conceptions of learning, rule-based orientations to listening to the teacher and conception of group work as means to “get” more information echo instrumental learning experience findings in the National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy study (Kegan et al., 2001).

The experiences of socializing learners and those transitioning toward self-authoring were consistent with Kegan’s descriptions of the abstract reasoning characteristic of these stages. Rather than seeing understanding as the end goal, they described it as the first step in a process, which appears to reflect their developmental capacity to conceive of summarizing in a multilayered way. The strategies these learners used to find the main idea were consistent with their developmental capacity to make abstractions and relate ideas, for example, to find the main idea. These learners’ descriptions of engaging in stages of writing also reflect a broader conception of the writing process, as in Louam’s description of first taking notes, identifying key words, answering the wh-questions, and then drafting. Just as learners constructing meaning from socializing perspectives and beyond appeared to be using their abstract reasoning capacities to follow steps in a process, they also seemed to be using their developmental capacity to take another’s point of view to envision a reader’s perspective, and in turn, use that perspective to shape writing choices. They appeared to use their developmental capacity to reflect on their own thinking (Kegan, 1982, 1994) to clarify misunderstandings through teacher explanations and group work.

The themes unique to learners transitioning toward self-authorship are consistent with Kegan’s (1982, 1994) description of this stage, marked by an increased concern with personal competence and reliance on internal authority. These learners’ ways of monitoring their own learning appear to reflect a growing capacity for and interest in gauging their own learning and competence and aligns with previous findings among self-authoring adult ESOL learners (Kegan et al., 2001). These learners’ orientation to learning for personal development was also consistent with previous findings among self-authoring ABE/ESOL learners, who oriented toward the intrinsic value of learning (Kegan et al., 2001).

Limitations

As a qualitative case study with nine participants, the findings in this study are not generalizable. Connections between developmental perspectives and academic language–learning experiences, while explanatory (Yin, 2009), cannot be assumed to be causal. While developmental stages appeared to mediate learning experiences, these participants also brought many types of diversity to their learning experiences, including age, gender, ethnicity, first language(s), educational backgrounds, and, within a range, levels of English. None of these differences were explored in systematic depth in this study, and all surely informed learning experiences. Learning experiences may also have been influenced by other factors such as culturally influenced thinking patterns (Vorobel & Kim, 2011) and cultural identity as influenced by social, historical, and cultural factors (McKinley, 2015).

Finally, while grounded theory analysis provides a rigorous method to ensure that themes arise from learners’ words and meaning, as constructivist grounded theorist Charmaz (2006) argues, the notion of researcher objectivity in any study, including this one, is a misnomer. Other researchers analyzing the same data using the same methods may, through their own theoretical biases and experiential inferences, have found other valuable interpretations of these nine learners’ academic language–learning experiences.

Implications

Supporting developmentally diverse academic language learning

These nine learners appeared to bring unique developmental perspectives—and distinct learning needs—to the experience of academic language learning. To experience success and meaning in academic language learning, instrumental learners would likely benefit from scaffolding over time. Taylor (2006) describes developmental scaffolding as the distance between what a learner can do independently and with support, likening the concept to Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of proximal development, “the space between” what a learner can do alone and with help. Perhaps one of the most organic strategies for scaffolding summarizing with instrumental learners would be to start with their already strong focus on understanding the text, which is indeed a first necessary step in summary writing (Swales & Feak, 2012). Understanding the text can be addressed through answering comprehension questions. As Illyas put it, “ . . . if you are understanding well, you know paragraph and reading, you can easy, easy to answer, A, B, C” (LEI). Comprehension questions can be framed as the wh-questions that many learners with socializing perspectives and beyond found helpful in identifying the main ideas in their readings.

While already engaged in the cognitive demands of academic language learning, socializing learners and beyond described this learning as challenging. They may benefit from strategies leveraging their abstraction capacities, such as metacognitive activities promoting reflection, or graphic organizers for visualizing and analyzing example texts and their own. With their tendency to self-reflect during group work, they may also find structured opportunities to compare and discuss their writing helpful. They may benefit from being challenged to begin self-monitoring and evaluating their writing, for example, through writing portfolios.

Learners on the journey toward self-authoring also described learning a new genre in a new language as challenging, and could also benefit from these strategies. Uniquely, they also described looking for not only learning but personal development in the academic language class. From Maria’s perspective, one way of addressing this is through rich classroom readings. For Salazam, this personal development came from having informal leadership opportunities in class. These learners are poised for self-editing their own writing, and will likely be motivated by learning skills and content that support them in achieving their self-defined goals.

Conclusion

While adult ESOL learners, like all adult learners, bring hidden developmental diversities and developmentally distinct learning needs to the academic language classroom, most educators would not know the developmental perspectives of their learners. However, just as adult ESOL educators draw on their awareness of diversities such ethnicity, culture, and language to inform instructional decisions, educators can strive to be cognizant of hidden developmental diversities in the adult ESOL classroom. Being aware of diversities in how adults construct meaning can help educators more effectively respond to learners’ developmentally distinct ways of constructing meaning with academic language learning. This, in turn, can help educators create more developmentally inclusive academic language experiences for all adult ESOL learners.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Jennifer R. Ouellette-Schramm holds an MA ESL and EdD from Hamline University. Her research interest lies at the intersection of adult development and learning. She has taught and supported teachers in the field of ABE ESL for over 10 years, and teaches college ESL and academic writing courses in Saint Paul, Minnesota. She also teaches and advises in Hamline University’s MA ESL program.

References

Bailey

Cho

S-W.

(2010). Developmental education in community colleges (Issue brief). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/PDFDocs/college-completion/07-developmental-education-in-community-colleges.pdf

Baxter

M. M.

(1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship: Constructive-developmental pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Belenky

M. F.

(1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bigelow

Watson

(2014). The role of educational level, literacy, and orality in L2 learning. In Gass

Mackey

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 461-475). New York, NY: Routledge.

Boes

(2006). Learning from practice: A constructive-developmental study of undergraduate service-learning pedagogy (Order No. 3221585, Harvard University). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 305334897)

Bridwell

(2013). A constructive-developmental perspective on the transformative learning of adults marginalized by race, class, and gender. Adult Education Quarterly, 63, 127-146. doi:10.1177/0741713612447854

Brookfield

Holst

J. D.

(2011). Radicalizing learning: Adult education for a just world. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell

J. W.

(2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10.

Cummins

(1979, October). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters (Working Papers on Bilingualism, No. 19, pp. 197-205). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED184334

11.

Drago-Severson

(2004). Becoming adult learners: Principles and practices for effective development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

12.

Erickson

(1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In Wittrock

M. C.

(Ed.), The handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York, NY: Macmillan.

13.

Gholamain

Geva

(1999). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in English and Persian. Language Learning, 49, 183-217.

14.

Gilligan

(1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

15.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1965). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

16.

Helsing

Broderick

Hammerman

(2001). A developmental view of ESL students’ identity transitions in an urban community college. In Kegan

Broderick

Drago-Severson

Helsing

Popp

Portnow

(Eds.), Toward a “new pluralism” in the ABE/ESL classroom: Teaching to multiple “cultures of mind” (pp. 77-228). Retrieved from http://www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/research/report19a.pdf

17.

Jitendra

A. K.

Gajria

(2011). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43(8), 1-16.

18.

Kegan

(1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

19.

Kegan

(1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

20.

Kegan

Broderick

Drago-Severson

Helsing

Popp

Portnow

(Eds.). (2001). Toward a “new pluralism” in the ABE/ESOL classroom: Teaching to multiple “cultures of mind” (Research Monograph of the National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy, No.19). Boston, MA: World Education.

21.

Kohlberg

(1981). The meaning and measurement of moral development. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.

22.

Krefting

(1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 214-222.

23.

Kruidenier

MacArthur

Wrigley

(2010). Adult education literacy instruction: A review of the research. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.

24.

Kucer

(2014). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for teaching reading and writing in school settings. New York, NY: Routledge.

25.

Lahey

Souvaine

Kegan

Goodman

Felix

(1988). A guide to the subject-object interview: Its administration and interpretation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Graduate School of Education, Laboratory of Human Development.

26.

Leki

(1996). L2 composing: Strategies and perceptions. In Leeds

(Ed.), Writing in a second language: Insights from first and second language teaching and research (pp. 27-37). White Plains, NY: Longman.

27.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

28.

Lindsley

R. B.

(2011). Constructive developmental theory and programming across cultures: An examination of the development and experiences of adult Burmese participants in a high quality adaptive capacity development program (Order No. 3459743, Harvard University). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 875951085)

29.

Loevinger

(1976). Stages of ego development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

30.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

31.

McKinley

(2015). Critical argument and writer identity: Social constructivism as a theoretical framework for EFL academic writing. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 12, 184-207.

32.

McMillan

J. H.

Schumacher

(2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry. Boston, MA: Pearson.

33.

Mellard

D. F.

Krieshok

Fall

Woods

(2013). Dispositional factors affecting motivation during learning in adult basic and secondary education programs. Reading and Writing, 26, 515-538.

34.

Merriam

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

35.

Perry

(1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

36.

Piaget

(1952). The origins of intelligence in children. Oxford, England: International Universities Press.

37.

Pimentel

(2013). College and career readiness standards for adult education (Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education). Retrieved from http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/CCRStandardsAdultEd.pdf

38.

Popp

Boes

(2001). Competence as a developmental process. In Kegan

Broderick

Drago-Severson

Helsing

Popp

Portnow

(Eds.), Toward a “new pluralism” in the ABE/ESL classroom: Teaching to multiple “cultures of mind” (pp. 615-662). Retrieved from http://www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/research/report19a.pdf

39.

Swales

J. M.

Feak

C. B.

(2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

40.

Taylor

(2006). Autonomy in self-directed learning: A developmental journey. In Hoare

(Ed.), Handbook of adult development and learning (pp. 196-218). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

41.

Taylor

Marienau

Fiddler

(2000). Developing adult learners: Strategies for teachers and trainers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

42.

Villegas-Reimers

(1996). Self development of Venezuelan adolescents: A test of Kegan’s theory of subject-object interview in another culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 25-36.

43.

Vorobel

Kim

(2011). Upper-intermediate-level ESL students’ summarizing in English. TESOL Journal, 2, 330-354.

44.

Vygotsky

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

45.

Yin

R. K.

(2009). Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

46.

Zwiers

(2008). Building academic language: Essential practices for content classrooms, Grades 5-12. Newark, DE: Jossey-Bass.