“This Group Is Vital”: Adult Peers in Community for Support and Learning

Abstract

Adult learners often experience uncertainty, isolation, and, in graduate school, angst about meeting program requirements. Therefore, graduate students created and facilitated a seminar series and preliminary examination study group. The experience, however, transcended seminars and study meetings to build relevant and meaningful community. The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine adult peers in community for support and learning. Major findings included participants built community for support and learning, using programming as foundation for building a community of practice (CoP), with peer mentoring playing a major role. The findings also feature participant voices and share programming ideas for adult learners and educators.

Keywords

adult learners graduate students zone of proximal development communities of practice peer mentoring

“Adult learners have fewer opportunities to build relationships with peers and are more likely to experience uncertainty and isolation.”

Adult learners juggle multiple roles in the family, workplace, and community and often experience significant personal or professional transitions while pursuing learning; therefore, they differ from traditional students and have different needs (Panacci, 2015; Ross-Gordon, 2011). Generally, adult learners have fewer opportunities to build relationships with peers and are more likely to experience uncertainty and isolation. The resulting lack of support may translate into angst about meeting challenges and achieving success. In graduate school, such challenges include completing coursework, passing preliminary examinations, and writing theses or defending dissertations. For example, graduate students often feel unprepared to conduct independent research and find the thesis or dissertation process challenging (Golde & Dore, 2001; Lovitts, 2008). Research on adult learners as graduate students is lacking and merits further investigation (Hegarty, 2011).

This article’s first two authors recognized the need for peer support while in an adult education graduate program. Inspired by collegiality experienced during an American Association for Adult and Continuing Education (AAACE) conference, we sought to build supportive and sustainable relationships in our program by designing relevant programming to share information and co-construct learning. Based on perceived need and student input, a student-driven and voluntary seminar series and preliminary examination study group resulted.

The purpose of this study was to examine adult peers in community for support and learning. Three research questions guided the study:

Research Question 1: Why do adult learners build community?

Research Question 2: How do adults find support and learn in community?

Research Question 3: How do peers provide support and facilitate learning in community?

The following sections discuss the study’s conceptual framework, research design, findings, and implications, which may inform community building in varied adult learning contexts—adult basic education, continuing professional education, community action, cultural organizations, higher education, nonprofit organizations, and the workplace.

Conceptual Framework

This study situated in three distinct but intersecting bodies of literature, which served as the conceptual framework: zone of proximal development, communities of practice (CoP), and peer mentoring.

Zone of Proximal Development

In this study, we applied Vygotsky’s (1986) zone of proximal development, more currently defined as “the difference between what a person can achieve when acting alone and what the same person can accomplish when acting with support from someone else” (Lantolf, 2000, p. 17). A learner’s development comprises three stages: what the learner can do now, cannot do now, and can accomplish with help from others.

Although predominately applied and studied in pedagogical contexts (Wass & Golding, 2014), researchers have used the zone of proximal development with adult learners in higher education contexts. For example, Kuusisaari (2013) applied the zone to adult learning in a study of peer-to-peer teacher collaboration. She found participants progressed through the zone by integrating experience and new theoretical knowledge with practical application, creating new knowledge and work practices. Soto-Santiago, Rivera, and Maxak (2015) studied Spanish-speaking students in an English as a second language (ESL) class at a Puerto Rican public university. For these adult learners, confianza, “a feeling of mutual understanding, respect, and emotional closeness” (p. 10), created conditions in which they activated their zones of proximal development. In a study of doctoral students completing dissertations in social work, Liechty, Liao, and Schull (2009) found higher achievement levels when peer social support, advisor academic support, and skills preparation closed the zone’s differences. Social and academic support along with skill development led to this study’s second framework component—CoP.

Community of Practice (CoP)

Lave and Wenger (1991) originally defined a CoP as “a set of relations among persons, activity and world, over time and in relation to other tangential and overlapping CoPs” (p. 98). Later, Wenger (1998) identified three key elements for learning in a CoP—joint domain, mutual engagement, and a shared repertoire. Today, CoPs exist in a variety of contexts, including the workplace (see Aljuwaiber, 2016), nonprofit organizations (see Bryan & Brown, 2015), and higher education.

In higher education, CoP benefits include connecting people, providing shared context, enabling dialogue, stimulating learning, capturing and diffusing existing knowledge, introducing collaborative processes, helping people organize, and generating new knowledge (Cambridge, Kaplan, & Suter, 2005). For example, Kriner, Coffman, Adkisson, Putman, and Monaghan (2015) examined CoP participation to foster emerging scholar identities, concluding identities developed, and increased self-efficacy. They identified mentoring as a major finding, defined as a circular process among participants with varying experience levels. Within the CoP, participants with differing knowledge, skills, and abilities—students, an adjunct, and a faculty member—perceived and demonstrated reciprocal learning. This intersection of CoP and mentoring within the zone of proximal development precipitated peer mentoring as the third framework component.

Peer Mentoring

According to Minor (2007), the goal of peer mentoring is “a seasoned peer interact[ing] with targeted students, sharing his or her knowledge and experience, and thereby improving students’ understanding and learning” (p. 2). While Minor (2007) primarily considered undergraduate students, peer mentoring is also effective in a variety of contexts, such as the workplace (see Fine & Pullins, 1998) and higher education. In higher education, Hadjioannou, Shelton, Fu, and Dhanarattigannon (2007) concluded a graduate student organization designed to facilitate peer mentoring provided emotional support and helped students balance personal and academic experiences. In addition, students increased disciplinary understanding, writing skills, and academic discourse. Similarly, Grant-Vallone and Ensher (2000) found peer mentoring provided graduate students with social support and assistance navigating academic systems.

To generate emotional and academic support and create sustained relationships, Minor (2007) suggested eight peer mentor roles and responsibilities: socialization, orientation, mentoring, advising, supervision, instruction, coordination and leadership, and role-modeling. These roles and responsibilities may be combined, as needed, depending on context and purpose. Beyond benefiting mentees, peer mentoring benefits student mentors by providing challenges, responsibilities, and leadership opportunities as preparation for future professions.

Hansman (2013) developed a more formalized structure for the integration of CoP and peer mentoring. In her community of peer mentors model, students move through critical phases leading to new phases: forming, connecting, engaging, concluding and new beginnings, and enduring networks. While the model heavily relies on student peer relationships, faculty involvement initiates and drives the experience. Similarly, other excellent mentoring models apply to adult graduate education (see Hansman, 2016), but feature faculty mentoring students in contrast to independent student peer mentoring. Collectively, the zone of proximal development, CoP, and peer mentoring informed this study, in addition to the research design.

Research Design

As evidenced by the purpose and research questions, this study sought to understand how people interpret their experiences, and thus used a qualitative research design (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This section discusses the study’s participants, data collection, and data analysis.

In qualitative research, purposeful sampling identifies participants “from whom the most can be learned” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 96). For this study, we identified and invited 25 students in an adult education doctoral program; 15 participated. Twelve doctoral students participated in the seminar series and/or preliminary examinations study group. Three additional doctoral students participated in programming and collaborated as co-principal investigators and article authors. Two of the three doctoral students created, organized, and participated in the community building activities while the third participated as a first-year doctoral student. To maintain participant anonymity, the study did not collect extensive demographic information (see Table 1). However, all participants were between the ages of 30 and 60 years, included people of color and more women than men.

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics (n = 15)

Participant characteristic	Number of participants	% of participants
Time in program
• More than 3 years	9	60
• 1-3 years	4	27
• Less than 1 year	2	13
Current status (all that apply)
• Completing coursework	7	47
• Studying for preliminary exams	6	40
• Working on dissertation	6	40
• Writing dissertation proposal	3	20
Campus proximity
• Local	9	60
• Distance	6	40
Enrollment
• Full-time	9	60
• Part-time	6	40
Employment
• Full-time	7	47
• Assistantship or fellowship	6	40
• Unemployed	2	13

Data collection comprised two sources—documents and a survey. First, we gathered documents related to the seminar series and preliminary examination study group, including emails, agendas, minutes, notes, handouts, outlines, and electronic files. Second, participants completed an anonymous survey consisting of 10 close-ended and four open-ended questions about their demographics, the seminar series, and the study group. The survey’s purpose was to assess participant needs, inform programming, and gather data; however, participants also shared their community building experiences. Data analysis involved descriptive statistics and thematic coding. For close-ended survey questions, the study used descriptive statistics to analyze participant characteristics and program data. For documents and open-ended survey questions, qualitative thematic analysis applied open coding to identify potentially relevant data and axial coding to group data and ultimately identify findings.

Findings

This section presents major findings and features participant voices. The study found participants built community for support and learning, using programming as foundation for building a CoP, with peer mentoring playing a major role.

Community for Support and Learning

Adult learners built community for support and learning. In this study, the first two authors recognized the need for peer support to progress and thrive in an adult education doctoral program. As participants approached the end of coursework and advanced to the preliminary examination and dissertation phases, they missed interacting with instructors and peers and lost the structure of deadlines and semester cycles. Some felt lost, while others felt they were “spinning their wheels.” As one participant noted, “I was missing the big picture, what the journey looks like.” Adult learners confirmed this need for support and learning by voluntarily participating in a seminar series and/or study group.

Specifically, participants reported needing help in finalizing coursework, submitting to conferences, passing written and oral preliminary examinations, and writing and defending proposals and dissertations. Seminar series participants identified two major reasons to build community—socialization with other adult learners and peer advice on navigating the program. One participant summarized, “This group is VITAL.” Another participant described the experience as “demystification of the process combined with practical advice and general support.” Participants also appreciated occasionally interacting with advisors and faculty, as invited guests, for guidance on policies, procedures, and program navigation.

Study group participants, unsure how to pass written and oral preliminary examinations, identified two major reasons to build community—scholarly discussion and multiple perspectives. One participant highlighted the community’s “comradery, dividing the workload, scholarly discussion, and helpful review,” as most supportive and valuable. Another participant cited “listening to my peers’ assumptions and interpretations of the adult education material discussed/explored in class” as most beneficial and added, “It has been very interesting to hear multiple perspectives and a venue for me to test some of my own assumptions.” Although initially gathering for programming, the participant experience transcended seminars and study meetings to meaningful community building.

Programming as Foundation for a CoP

As discussed, the organizers sought to generate supportive and sustainable relationships by designing programming for participants to share information and co-construct learning. Programming, based on perceived need and student input, facilitated participant support and learning in community and consisted of a seminar series and preliminary examinations study group.

The seminar series consisted of five 1½-hr voluntary sessions offered across the academic year. Table 2 summarizes the session titles and descriptions which included program navigation, conference proposals, preliminary examinations, and dissertations. (After this study, participants continued to support and learn in community by practicing proposal and dissertation defenses as well as presentations for faculty position interviews.) Doctoral students participated in the seminars in-person or virtually using technology. Each session focused on a topic to progress through the program and purposefully included time for socialization and discussion.

Table 2.

Seminar Series Sessions and Preliminary Examinations Study Group Topics

Session	Description
Pathways Through the Program: Requirements and Resources	Panel discussion with two faculty members and an academic adviser
Preliminary Exams: Expectations and Preparation	Panel discussion with two faculty members
Student Perspectives on Prelims, Proposals, and Dissertations	Panel discussion with advanced students regarding major academic milestones
Prelims Postmortem	A student who recently passed preliminary exams shared experience with other students
Conference Presentation Prep	Students shared their research and practiced conference presentations

Note. Italic formatting indicates titles of events.

The preliminary examination study group voluntarily met 6 times for 2 hr each, focusing on adult education content: foundations and theories; diversity, social justice, and globalization; and research methodologies. The adult education doctoral program requires all students to pass preliminary examinations to advance to the dissertation phase. To prepare and practice for the “nerve-wracking” examinations, participants synchronously gathered in-person and virtually. They divided content areas and took turns condensing, analyzing, synthesizing, and presenting material to stimulate scholarly discussion.

Such scholarly discussion gave participants an opportunity to engage with material in new and meaningful ways by building upon students’ first exposure to content, which for some was years ago, and including varying interpretations of the material. Combining content with participants’ professional experience created conversation that encouraged participants to see content from new and different viewpoints. For example, study group members had worked in various adult learning contexts—large corporate and professional development offices, literacy advocacy centers, health education programs, and the military. Applying theory to these different contexts and practices enriched the study group experience. According to one participant, the greatest benefit was “the exchange of ideas and information with colleagues; each of us focuses on something different, so studying with the group opens up broader perspectives.” Scholarly discussion and multiple perspectives contributed to the co-construction of learning. Ultimately, participants built a CoP for support and learning in which adult learners served as peer mentors.

Peer Mentoring Played a Major Role

Throughout the experience and study, adult peers played a major role in building community. Initially, two peers founded and developed the seminar series and preliminary examination study group. Collaboratively, all peers brainstormed and prioritized programming needs, and CoP and peer mentoring emerged as natural extensions of the activities.

In the seminar series, advanced peers shared experiences and expertise as featured speakers and facilitators. In the study group, peers took turns presenting material and facilitating scholarly discussion. In both programs, participants socialized, shared, listened, and cheered each other on. Table 3 uses Minor’s (2007) peer mentor roles and responsibilities, including CoP characteristics, as a framework to report this study’s major findings. The following section discusses these major findings.

Table 3.

Peer Mentoring (Minor, 2007) Applied to Study of Adult Peers in Community

Roles	Responsibilities	Seminar series	Preliminary examination study group
Coordination and leadership	• Organizing activities, groups, programs, events • Catalyzing or advising learner-initiated projects and programs	First two authors sought to design relevant and interesting programming for students to share information and co-construct learning
Orientation	• Familiarizing with systems, resources, personnel, processes, making sense of bureaucracy	Pathways Through the Program: Requirements and Resources	Participants pooled information about the written and oral prelim process
Advising	With or without formal training, advising about • Classes to take • Which professors to take • Study and majors • Career options	• Pathways Through the Program • Numerous participant discussions about advising before, during, and after seminar sessions	Not applicable
Instruction	• Teaching • Tutoring	• All seminars included peer instruction • Preliminary Exams: Expectations and Preparations	Participants took turns reviewing assigned textbook chapters, preparing outlines, and leading scholarly group discussion
Mentoring	• Guiding to expand learning and participation in opportunities • Transferring knowledge and experience • Challenging for different ways of thinking • Helping to understand the bigger picture	• Student Perspectives on Prelims, Proposals, and Dissertations • Prelims Postmortem	Scholarly discussion prompted • New learning • Knowledge transfer and application • Challenged different thinking • Connections to big picture
Role-modeling	Providing example behavior	Conference Presentation Prep	Advanced participants role-modeled scholarly discussion
Socialization	• Getting to know one other • Developing bonds • Building community • Addressing conflicts and concerns	• First two authors sought to build supportive and sustainable relationships • Sessions provided opportunities for participants to become familiar, develop bonds, and build community • Varying benefits for distance learners; virtual options merit further study
Supervision	Executing institutional oversight	Not applicable	Not applicable
Cheerleading (addition)	Providing support and encouragement	Major study finding meriting a distinct peer mentor role and responsibility

Note. Italic formatting indicates titles of events.

Discussion of Findings

This study examined adult peers in community for support and learning. Within the context of an adult education doctoral program, participants progressed through their zones of proximal development by building a CoP and providing reciprocal peer mentoring. More specifically, they built community on a foundation of programming—a seminar series and study group—and benefited from socialization, peer mentoring, scholarly discussion, and multiple perspectives. This section’s discussion parallels a graphic based on the study’s framework and findings (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Major findings related to adult peers building community for support and learning (based on this study and Lantolf, 2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Minor, 2007; Vygotsky, 1986; Wenger, 1998).

Progressing Through the Zone in Community

Situated in Vygotsky’s (1986) zone of proximal development, this study’s participants built a community for support and learning, what Lantolf (2000) referred to as learner can accomplish with help from others (see Figure 1). Participants generally experienced learner can do now (Lantolf, 2000) confidence related to coursework but struggled with learner cannot do now (Lantolf, 2000) angst related to conference presentations, preliminary examinations, and dissertation proposal and defense. To facilitate much needed help from others, two doctoral students planned programming with participant input. The resulting seminar series and preliminary examination study group, however, evolved beyond mere programming into CoP.

Participants built a CoP as described by Wenger’s (1998) three-part definition (see Figure 1). First, they shared a joint domain—an adult education doctoral program. Second, participants exhibited mutual engagement during the seminar series and study group by actively teaching, learning, discussing, and socializing. Third, over time in sustained interaction, they created a shared repertoire of information and resources to navigate coursework, conferences, preliminary examinations, and dissertations.

The CoP provided the conditions—mutual understanding, respect, and emotional closeness (Soto-Santiago et al., 2015)—in which adult learners activate zones of proximal development. According to Kuusisaari (2013), adult learners progress through their zones by integrating and applying new theoretical knowledge and practical experience, leading to new knowledge creation and work practices. In this study, participants prepared for preliminary examinations and the dissertation process by integrating and applying new, or in the study group, reviewed, knowledge and varying professional experiences to co-construct new knowledge and practice.

In contrast to Kriner et al. (2015), this study’s participants did not specifically address their identities as emerging scholars. However, they identified scholarly discussion, along with peer socialization, mentoring, and multiple perspectives, as findings which contributed to identity development. Similar to Kriner et al.’s study, participants perceived mentoring and learning as a reciprocal, circular process within the CoP.

Peer Mentoring in Community

Peers played a major role in this study’s resulting CoP, and findings largely align with Minor’s (2007) peer mentor roles and responsibilities (see Figure 1). Alignment included coordination and leadership, orientation, advising, instruction, mentoring, role-modeling, and socialization, but excluded supervision. As this community’s activities were self-directed and voluntary, supervision was unnecessary and arguably counterproductive. One faculty member commented, “The power of this group was it was not faculty led; the power was in peers helping peers.” Based on the findings, we propose a new role and responsibility—cheerleading. As cheerleaders, participants supported and encouraged one another, celebrating successes and regrouping after setbacks. Much like adult learner reciprocal learning in CoPs (Kriner et al., 2015), peer mentors provided reciprocal cheerleading.

While Minor (2007) seemed to have presented the peer mentor roles and responsibilities in no particular order, we suggested a natural progression of responsibilities and activities. Therefore, the major findings graphic (see Figure 1) presents roles and responsibilities in a cycle from most to least formal or structured. The cycle begins with coordination and leadership, in which peer mentors must be organized and intentional, and ends with cheerleading, arguably the most dynamic and improvised. This study’s findings and Minor’s (2007) roles and responsibilities align well with the forming, connecting, and engaging phases of Hansman’s (2013) community of peer mentors model. As we write this article, several participants have concluded their formal learning and started new positions (Hansman’s concluding and new beginnings phase). Some have formed enduring networks (final phase) related to teaching and research (e.g., this co-authored article). This study’s power was peer mentoring in community to progress through the zone, which offers implications.

Implications for Adult Educators

Adult learners often experience uncertainty, isolation, and angst about program requirements. Adult educators, including faculty and advisors, cannot meet all learner needs. For theory, this study adds adult learners in the context of higher education to the intersection of the zone of proximal development, communities of practice (CoP), and peer mentoring. For practice, the study provides implications for how programs can help adult peers build community for support and learning. Educators may use findings to enable, guide, and encourage adult learners.

First, enable adult learners to develop their own CoP. This study’s student-driven effort cost nothing, yet provided participants with additional support through peer mentoring while saving faculty and advisor time. The CoP addressed learners’ basic concerns, such as moving through the program, through peer assistance in goal setting and models of successful pathways.

Second, guide adult learners with programming ideas, such as those in this study. The most productive sessions covered major milestones throughout the learning experience, including learners’ conference presentations, preliminary examinations, and proposal and dissertation defenses. Knowing what to expect supported student progress through the zone of proximal development. Opportunities for adult learners to give and receive feedback in the CoP enriched the sessions.

Third, encourage adult learners to develop professional relationships. Participants built connections extending support and learning beyond this study, as they move through new zones of proximal development as advanced doctoral students, new faculty, and advancing practitioners. Participants continue peer mentoring through career brainstorming, job application review, teaching resources, and collaboration in practice, research, publishing, and grant writing.

For future research, the study of adult peers building community for support and learning merits additional examination. Specifically, we recommend extending this study beyond graduate school to include job searching, interviewing, and practice. Generally, we recommend examining the application of this study’s findings in other adult education contexts. In retrospect, this peer CoP experience for support and learning shaped our identities as adult educators and strengthened our practice and scholarship. As we write this article, we find ourselves in new zones of proximal development as, once again, we seek to build community and practice peer mentoring in new careers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the 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 Biographies

Catherine A. Cherrstrom, MBA, PhD, is an assistant professor at Texas State University in the Department of Occupational, Workforce, & Leadership Studies. Her research interests include adult development, transition, and productivity in multiple contexts, especially higher education, industry, and nonprofit organizations, as well as technology’s role in such experiences.

Jill Zarestky, PhD, is an assistant professor at Colorado State University in the School of Education. Her research interests include nonformal and community-based education, STEM education, and issues of feminism, globalization, and social justice.

Shannon Deer, CPA, PhD, is director of the Full-Time MBA Program in Mays Business School at Texas A&M University. Her research interests include sustainable solutions, including community-based education, for social problems. Her current line of research is investigating solutions to human trafficking.

References

Aljuwaiber

(2016). Communities of practice as an initiative for knowledge sharing in business organisations: A literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20, 731-748. doi:10.1108/JKM-12-2015-0494

Bryan

Brown

(2015). The individual, group, organizational, and community outcomes of capacity-building programs in human service nonprofit organizations: Implications for theory and practice. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39, 426-443. doi:10.1080/23303131.2015.1063555

Cambridge

Kaplan

Suter

(2005). Community of practice design guide: A step-by-step guide for designing & cultivating communities of practice in higher education. Retrieved from https://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/nli0531.pdf

Fine

L. M.

Pullins

E. B.

(1998). Peer mentoring in the industrial sales force: An exploratory investigation of men and women in developmental relationships. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 18, 89-103. Retrieved from https://www-tandfonline-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1080/08853134.1998.10754150

Golde

C. M.

Dore

T. M.

(2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED450628

Grant-Vallone

E. J.

Ensher

E. A.

(2000). Effects of peer mentoring on types of mentor support, program satisfaction and graduate student stress: A dyadic perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 637-642. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ621106

Hadjioannou

Shelton

Dhanarattigannon

(2007). The road to a doctoral degree: Co-travelers through a perilous passage. College Student Journal, 41, 160-177. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/

Hansman

C. A.

(2013). Mentoring doctoral students: Challenges and models for success. In Boden-McGill

C. J.

King

K. P.

(Eds.), Conversations about adult learning in our complex world (pp. 195-207). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Hansman

C. A.

(2016). Developing supportive mentoring models for graduate education. In Peno

Mangiante

E. M. S.

Kenahan

R. A.

(Eds.), Mentoring in formal and informal contexts (pp. 97-118.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

10.

Hegarty

(2011). Adult learners as graduate students: Underlying motivation in completing graduate programs. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 2011, 146-151. doi:10.1080/07377363.2011.614883

11.

Kriner

B. A.

Coffman

K. A.

Adkisson

A. C.

Putman

P. G.

Monaghan

C. H.

(2015). From students to scholars: The transformative power of communities of practice. Adult Learning, 26, 73-80. doi:10.1177/1045159515573021

12.

Kuusisaari

(2013). Teachers’ collaborative learning—Development of teaching in group discussions. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19, 50-62. doi:10.1080/13540602.2013.744198

13.

Lantolf

(2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

14.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Liechty

J. M.

Liao

Schull

C. P.

(2009). Facilitating dissertation completion and success among doctoral students in social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 45, 481-497.

16.

Lovitts

B. E.

(2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t, and why. The Journal of Higher Education, 79, 296-325. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0006

17.

Merriam

S. B.

Tisdell

E. J.

(2016). Qualitative research (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

18.

Minor

F. D.

(2007). Building effective peer mentor programs (Learning Communities & Educational Reform). Washington Center. Retrieved from http://evergreen.edu/washingtoncenter/docs/monographs/lcsa/lcsa4building.pdf

19.

Panacci

A. G.

(2015). Adult students in higher education: Classroom experiences and needs. College Quarterly, 18(3). Retrieved from http://collegequarterly.ca/2015-vol18-num03-summer/panacci.html

20.

Ross-Gordon

J. M.

(2011). Research on adult learners: Supporting the needs of a student population that is no longer nontraditional. Peer Review, 13(1). Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/research-adult-learners-supporting-needs-student-population-no

21.

Soto-Santiago

S. L.

Rivera

R. L.

Mazak

C. M.

(2015). Con confianza: The emergence of the zone of proximal development in a university ESL course. HOW: A Colombian Journal for Teachers of English, 22(1), 10-25. Retrieved from https://www.howjournalcolombia.org/index.php/how/article/view/132/163

22.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1986). Thought and word. In Kozulin

(Ed. & Trans.), Thought and language (Rev. ed., pp. 210-256). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

23.

Wass

Golding

(2014). Sharpening a tool for teaching: The zone of proximal development. Teaching in Higher Education, 19, 671-684. doi:10.1080/13562517.2014.901958

24.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.