When Co-Occurring Factors Impact Adult Learners: Suggestions for Instruction,Preservice Training,and Professional Development

Abstract

This literature review explored areas that are often manifest in adult classrooms but insufficiently addressed or overlooked in preservice training and in-service professional development for educators of adults. Three overarching themes emerged: (a) educational background considerations (e.g., significant interruptions in formal education), (b) disability considerations (e.g., learning disabilities and students on the autism spectrum), and (c) status considerations (e.g., domestic violence and mental health issues). This overview of the identified themes was contextualized within andragogy, which posits ways that adults learn differently from children. Recommendations to enhance instructional approaches were interwoven throughout the review. Following the overview and instructional recommendations, preliminary assertions for strengthening preservice training and ongoing professional development for educators of adults and areas for future research were advanced.

Keywords

adult learners co-occurring factors disabilities teacher training professional development

“Providing more effective, relevant, and individualized instruction to all adults is critical to enhancing their academic achievement and success.”

The preservice training and in-service professional development (PD) that educators of adults have historically received often focus on teaching the content within an academic discipline, pedagogical approaches to enhance students’ literacy and language-acquisition skills, organizational policy and regulations, or student assessment (King & Lawler, 2003). This highly specified training focus typically fails to address the complex, and often hidden, realities of students’ lives that can manifest in the classroom. These wide-ranging, co-occurring factors include the rigor and consistency of their academic preparation (e.g., significant interruptions in formal education [SIFE]), disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities [LD] and students on the autism spectrum), and other considerations (e.g., domestic violence and mental health issues). Adult education programs generally do not require instructors to be licensed to teach, so any existing regulatory and pedagogical mandates are also different between postsecondary settings and Pre-K through 12 education.

In addition, the rights of adult students in postsecondary settings differ from students in preschool, elementary, and high school in the United States. This difference is perhaps most pronounced for students with disabilities. For example, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 2004) mandates the provision of appropriate services and supports to individuals with disabilities, but this federal law does not apply to adult learners once they have graduated from high school (Plotts, 2001). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of (1973) and the Americans with Disability Act of (1990) (ADA) mandate accessibility for adults with disabilities in educational settings, yet most adult literacy and postsecondary institutions tend to focus on specific disability classification, standardized assessments, and testing accommodations versus the curricular and pedagogical adjustments that are needed (Mull, Sitlington, & Alper, 2001). In the absence of curricular modifications, adult learners, especially those with disabilities, may suffer socioeconomic consequences by performing at lower literacy levels and failing to earn required educational credentials to sustain gainful employment (Patterson, 2008).

As curricular modifications are not commonly evidenced when teaching adults, Mull et al. (2001) pondered whether the supports and accommodations that are effective at the secondary level could be equally effective at the postsecondary level and whether faculty, advisors, and frontline staff are adequately trained to address the needs of their students. Polson and White (2001) asserted that educators of adults typically lack educational awareness and training to identify and to provide services, especially to students with disabilities, and suggested that changes in preservice training and in-service PD are warranted.

This review of the extant research literature was inspired by my own preservice training and professional experience as a teacher and administrator of programs for adult learners and affirmed by the questions, concerns, and frustrations raised by colleagues. Following a search of the ERIC and the Education Source databases using key words like “adult learner” or “adult student” with “learning disabilities,” “autism spectrum disorders,” “psychiatric disorders,” and “trauma,” the 34 articles and book chapters initially selected for this literature review focused on the areas that educators of adults have identified as being inadequately addressed in preservice training programs or in-service PD. From this literature review, three overarching themes emerged: (a) educational background considerations, (b) disability considerations, and (c) status considerations.

This overview of the identified themes is addressed in the following sections and contextualized within andragogy, which posits ways that adults learn differently from children. Recommendations to increase awareness and enhance instructional approaches are interwoven throughout this review. Following the overview and instructional recommendations, preliminary assertions for strengthening preservice training and ongoing PD for educators of adults and areas for future research are advanced.

Andragogy

Malcolm Knowles introduced the term, andragogy, to the United States in the early 1970s to distinguish how adults learn differently from children (pedagogy). Since its introduction, andragogy has inspired both heated debate and further research in the hopes of systematizing the “complex nature of adult learning” (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2015, p. 3). Just as there is no single framework to explain learning in general, andragogy was Knowles’ attempt to provide practical guidance about how adults learn (Knowles et al., 2015). Investigating diverse disciplines, theories, and research from philosophy and the social and behavioral sciences, Knowles proposed fundamental assumptions of the andragogical model. As adults are typically more pragmatic than children and more intrinsically motivated to learn, they must understand why they are learning something. This “immediacy of application” (Hanstock, 2004, p. 81) focuses learning on what will help them cope with real-life situations more effectively. Overall, they are also more proactive and accustomed to making their own decisions. As more self-directed learners, adults thrive with project-based or inquiry activities where they can determine the pace and style of their own learning and incorporate “multiple intelligences” (Gardner, 1983) in the process. Consequently, instruction should be more student-centered and driven with instructors acting as guides and facilitators. Adults’ intrinsic motivation, background knowledge, and lived experiences can enrich classroom dynamics, make instruction more meaningful, and enhance student achievement. Fundamentally, andragogy encourages adults to become autonomous learners who apply information gained from previous experiential and informal learning (Hanstock, 2004) and formal instruction to their daily lives. Preservice training and in-service PD should take a similar approach because educators of adults are adults themselves.

Educational Background Considerations

DeCapua, Smathers, and Tang (2007) asserted that “studies focusing on students with interrupted formal education are practically non-existent” (p. 46), and this assertion is particularly true for adult students. War, migration, cultural dictates, and socioeconomic realities can lead to SIFE. Perhaps more prevalent among adult, immigrant, English-language learners (ELLs) (Allender, 1998), SIFE are also common among students in adult literacy and postsecondary settings in the United States, including migrant workers and other students who must work full-time to provide financial support to their families or care for younger siblings. Older, nontraditional students returning to school can feel great hesitation and anxiety before entering adult classrooms (Isserlis, 2008) and could also be considered students with SIFE.

Ideally, instruction for students with SIFE should occur in small, safe classes where a “community of learners” can be fostered (Allender, 1998). Instruction should focus initially on educational fundamentals by providing needed background content knowledge and schema, addressing students’ multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983) through visuals and hands-on activities, and doing frequent comprehension checks. Moving from educational foundations to adapted mainstream curricula has met with success at the secondary level (DeCapua et al., 2007) and could be successful with adults.

For adult students with SIFE, classroom instruction should be more contextualized, multisensory, and experiential and, consistent with andragogy, have explicit transfer to their survival needs and academic and vocational goals. Allender (1998) asserted that instruction should incorporate clear visual aids and diagrams, and activities should be differentiated and scaffolded, gradually moving from concrete to more abstract concepts. Directly teaching problem-solving and other academic skills, including mnemonic devices and using reference tools like dictionaries, is recommended. Content should be consistently recycled through a variety of learning tasks, and pacing should be lively with diverse, engaging activities. For older students with SIFE, on the other hand, the overall pace of instruction should more deliberate. Assessments should also be more informal and flexible and match students’ identified learning needs and goals.

Cultural and linguistic ambassadors who can address cross-cultural differences could make transitioning back to traditional classroom settings in a new country easier for adult ELLs with SIFE. Beyond teaching basic classroom etiquette and protocols, andragogical supports should include differentiated bilingual instruction. Incorporating academic content with English as a second language (ESL) support, often through co-teaching content with ESL specialists, and collaborative and project learning with cross-proficiency pairing (one student with stronger English-language proficiency than the other) have been effective strategies. Awareness of psychosocial issues, including anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is also critical (DeCapua et al., 2007; Isserlis, 2008).

Disability Considerations

This section will challenge practitioners to examine their own internalized biases regarding working with students with disabilities, specifically those on the autism spectrum, with LD, and with psychiatric conditions and highlight recommended classroom practices and andragogical interventions.

Challenging Ableism

McLean (2011) asserted that adult education settings are “one context where ableist notions may persist unrecognized and unchallenged” because disability can still be perceived as an “abnormal deviance” (p. 16) that teachers feel ill-equipped to address. Like other forms of privilege, educators of adults “for whom literacy acquisition comes easily” (Isserlis, 2008, p. 21) need to unpack their own ableist beliefs and destigmatize disabilities by implementing effective teaching strategies and accommodations so all students can reach their learning goals (McLean, 2011; Rocco, 2001; Ross-Gordon, 2001). McLean (2011) affirmed that inclusive project-based, service, and other forms of collaborative inquiry “promote the development of respect and empathy for people frequently regarded as different” (p. 20) and encourage students to explore “difference” through respectful dialogue and shared learning activities. Similarly, Ross-Gordon (2001) promoted self-awareness among educators and self-advocacy among adult learners with disabilities so both might become independent, lifelong learners and gainfully employed workers. Promoting autonomous learning is also consistent with andragogy.

Adults on the Autism Spectrum

Autism typically has its onset in early childhood and persists throughout the life span (Schmidt et al., 2015). Research and treatment efforts with autism have focused on early identification and treatment with young children in the hopes of improving long-term outcomes, so little is understood about the development of autism past childhood into adulthood because intervention studies for adults with autism are fewer in number and less rigorous in quality (Howlin et al., 2015; Volkmar, Reichow, & McPartland, 2014). Consequently, the services and educational interventions needed to support adults with autism throughout adulthood are currently unavailable or inadequate (Howlin et al., 2015; Volkmar et al., 2014). This lack of research knowledge and the limited availability of adequate supports is particularly concerning because, with advances in earlier detection and intervention, higher functioning adults with autism will be making their way to adult basic education, vocational training, and postsecondary programs (Rocco, 2001; Volkmar et al., 2014). Similarly, the legislative mandates to provide services, interventions, and educational supports become less exacting as students transition from high school to postsecondary settings, so there is also a need to establish evidence-based interventions and policies for adults with autism that include better diagnostic and assessment methods, appropriate curricular adjustments and accommodations, and treatment of co-occurring support needs (Howlin et al., 2015).

The characteristics of autism are multidimensional and include impaired social cognition (i.e., challenges with communication and social interaction), restricted interests, repetitive behaviors, and problems with executive functioning, expressing empathy, and emotional and social self-regulation (Brown, Wolf, & Kroesser, 2014; Koegel, Ashbaugh, & Koegel, 2016; Laugeson & Ellingsen, 2014; Schmidt et al., 2015). Poor social functioning becomes particularly problematic for adults with autism as they face “increasingly complex social situations with higher expectations for social adeptness” (Laugeson & Ellingsen, 2014, p. 61). Their interactions are “often awkward and sometimes even intrusive or offensive” (Laugeson & Ellingsen, 2014, p. 62) because they may think in very literal terms and struggle to understand and use humor appropriately. In postsecondary settings, poor interpersonal skills are linked with academic and occupational difficulties, rejection by peers, dropping out of school, and later mental health and adjustment problems (Brown et al., 2014; Laugeson & Ellingsen, 2014). Providing social skills training to address these challenges is crucial to enhance student outcomes in postsecondary settings. This training usually occurs outside the classroom but is reinforced via classroom instruction (Brown et al., 2014; Koegel et al., 2016; Laugeson & Ellingsen, 2014; Schmidt et al., 2015).

Under IDEA, transition services for students receiving special education services must be addressed in their Individual Education Programs (IEPs) no later than age 16 and updated annually. IEPs must include “appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age-appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employment, and . . . independent living skills” and “the transition services, including courses of study, needed to assist the student with a disability” (United States Department of Education, 2017, p. 1). The transition to less supportive and resourced postsecondary settings poses particular challenges for adults with autism, especially when their transition planning has been ineffective (Mull et al., 2001; Schall, Wehman, & Carr, 2014; Volkmar et al., 2014). Ideally, this transition planning should focus on promoting independence in functional skills and self-advocacy (Mull et al., 2001). Examples of effective transition planning involve student-family-school-community collaborations that lead to dual enrollment in community college, vocational training programs, or employment internships where students could experience the demands of college life or work while still receiving the support and structure of publicly funded special education services (Schall et al., 2014). Such interventions will make the disruption of established routines feel less jolting and traumatic (Volkmar et al., 2014).

Beyond social skills training, staff and faculty must be mindful of the executive functioning deficits and self-regulation challenges facing adults with autism, including accepting and using feedback, respecting academic hierarchy, and relating to peers. Brown et al. (2014) argued that students with autism resemble the profile of the “dysregulated college student” (p. 124) because they are often disorganized and reliant on external supports to motivate and guide their learning. They can be rigid, lack the cognitive skills or metacognitive awareness to follow a schedule or organize personal belongings, and will likely find working in groups or doing classroom presentations especially challenging. Yager (2016) advocated that adults with autism should be placed into smaller classes with established routines and practices that include multimedia presentations. Faculty should clearly state expectations and instructions, meet with students individually and often, and face the class when lecturing. Online or hybrid classes, “think-pair-share” protocols, and small group work with well-delineated goals and member roles have worked well with adult students with autism. Activities like problem-solving, designing experiments and systems, and data analysis and interpretation could play to the strengths of adults with autism, and inquiry-based learning projects where students with autism give and receive support have also been effective. Faculty need to be mindful of the sensory sensitivity, especially to bright light and sound, common among adults with autism. Classroom assignments that are flexible and promote student autonomy and choice not only address the needs of students with autism but are also consistent with andragogy.

Adults With Learning Disabilities and Related Conditions

Because of the ADA, educators of adults have an ethical and legal responsibility to serve students with disabilities, but, since the mandates and protections within the preschool through grade 12 education system in the United States do not extend to adults, adult students and their teachers must often advocate for services. Generally, students must first self-identify as having a disability and present an assessment of their disability and what accommodations they need before they can receive supportive services and adapted educational interventions (Rocco, 2001). Without sufficient insurance or income, this required psychoeducational evaluation can be cost-prohibitive (Patterson, 2008; Reynolds, Johnson, & Salzman, 2012; Rocco, 2001).

The default classroom intervention for adult students with LD, diagnosed or not, is differentiated instruction, often in a “trial and error” fashion, unless students can share strategies and accommodations that have been effective previously (Mellard, Woods, & Lee, 2016; Polson & White, 2001). Small instructional groups with targeted instruction with clear parameters and appropriate scaffolds are recommended (Mellard et al., 2016). “Think-Pair-Share” will accommodate differences in processing speeds, and one-on-one tutoring can reinforce classroom instruction and provide individual support. Consistent with andragogy, course content should align with students’ learning goals, and skills developed in the classroom should be transferable to their daily lives.

Creating partnerships with community resources and agencies and securing ongoing PD are critical components when working with adult students with LD (Cook, Rumrill, & Tankersley, 2009; Patterson, 2008; Polson & White, 2001; Scanlon & Lenz, 2002; Stampoltzis, Tsitsou, Plesti, & Kalouri, 2015). Plotts (2001) asserted that, given their overlapping characteristics, autism, LD, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and traumatic brain injury (TBI) require differential diagnosis. Such diagnoses require a referral to a trained professional in the community, so interventions and accommodations can be differentiated and individualized within contexts.

Psychiatric Conditions, Self-Harm, and Suicidality

Adults with psychiatric disabilities, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression, also have ambitions to enter postsecondary settings because education yields a sense of “pride and industry” (Corrigan, Barr, Driscoll, & Boyle, 2008, p. 68) and promotes an adult identity linked with work and career. Students with psychiatric disabilities identified similar needs and barriers as non-disabled students, including concerns related to finances, study skills, and time and stress management. The conundrum, however, is whether the psychosocial and mental health supports that adult students with psychiatric diagnoses require are available and appropriate in all postsecondary settings.

Segal, Connela, Miller, and Coolidge (2016) asserted that self-harm could be a “cry for help” or an indicator of deteriorating psychological functioning. Self-harm can be associated with poorer physical health, depression, and elevated suicide intent. Older adults are also less likely to discuss suicidal ideation but more likely to express suicidality through serious and deadly attempts. Exploring potential secondary gains from self-harm to promote more adaptive behavioral strategies, including enhanced emotional regulation, is crucial to the students’ long-term well-being as are referrals to trained mental health professionals.

Students with mental health diagnoses are unique and can express an enormous range of symptoms, aspirations, and interests and can come from diverse backgrounds. Psychopharmacological treatment and its side effects can impact student functioning (James, 2006) and mirror the learning struggles that others face, including problems with focus, long- and short-term memory, and recall. Given the stigma associated with mental illness, educators of adults must acknowledge their own biases, look beyond the label, and raise their expectations about the ability of adults with mental health issues to learn and achieve. Differentiating instruction and promoting inclusive learning is fundamental in helping students reach their fullest potential in the least restrictive environment possible (James, 2006).

Status Considerations

Veterans with TBI and other survivors of trauma, including domestic abuse and violence, are present in postsecondary settings. This section will provide practical suggestions to accommodate these students and address their educational and psychosocial needs more effectively.

Veterans

The most common cases of TBI or blast injuries are among returning veterans. With the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (also known as the GI Bill of Rights), many veterans are finding their way into adult education, vocational training, and other postsecondary settings. The symptoms common to TBI can mimic learning challenges that others, like students with autism or ADHD, manifest, including difficulties with executive functioning skills, concentration, memory, and recall. TBI, coupled with PTSD, can also impact social, emotional, and behavioral functioning (Church, 2009; Helms & Libertz, 2014) and lead to depression and social anxiety disorder (Church, 2009). As veterans may resist accessing traditional disability services and support, they might self-medicate with drugs and alcohol, which could lead to substance abuse problems. Suicide is also higher among veterans than the general population as is failure to disclose hidden or untreated medical conditions (Church, 2009). Becoming familiar with community resources that provide psychological and medical support, especially those that provide peer counseling from other veterans, is essential for educators of adults.

Like other disabling conditions, the learning challenges associated with TBI are unique to each individual and can change over time, so students need to be consistently assessed and interventions modified accordingly (Helms & Libertz, 2014). In general, universal design (http://udiguidelines.cast.org/), which is intended to make academic environments more welcoming to students with disabilities, is also effective for returning veterans with TBI and PTSD (Church, 2009) and other adult learners (Swenson & Sugar, 2012; see Recommendations). Direct instruction can reduce task difficulty by presenting new material in small segments and using scaffolds and other supports like teacher modeling and “thinking aloud.” Providing supportive, yet corrective, feedback and encouraging extensive and autonomous student practice have also proven effective. Much like working with students with autism, awareness of harsh lighting, and the potential for sudden, loud noise and other triggers of PTSD reactions and panic attacks is invaluable in successfully managing veterans in postsecondary settings.

Trauma

For Isserlis (2000), acknowledging the “prevalence of violence generally . . . is critical to the development of instructional approaches that make classrooms safer and learning more possible” (p. 2). Students’ responses to emotional, physical, or sexual abuse and other forms of trauma may manifest via inconsistent attendance, incomplete homework, and lack of classroom participation. Many educators misperceive these behaviors as “lack of motivation,” “laziness,” or “inattentiveness” (Isserlis, 2008, p. 21). Wilbur (2017) argued that educators should examine their own power and privilege by affirming their students’ lived experiences and current sociopolitical realities. Otherwise, they risk perpetuating “social injustices” (Wilbur, 2017, p. 6) by erroneously labeling and stigmatizing their students.

Isserlis (2008) continued that educators must acknowledge that for many adults learning is “intimidating and difficult” (p. 25), especially for victims of trauma. By listening attentively, “bearing witness” (Wilbur, 2017, p. 14), and treating their students in empathetic ways, educators can create safer, more open “communities in the classroom” to counteract the marginalization and isolation that many victims of trauma experience (Wilbur, 2017). One successful approach involves creating “ground rules” that allow students to decide how and when to share personal information regarding trauma. The seeming chaos of their lives can also mask underlying survival strategies that educators could leverage to promote learning. Consistent with andragogy, teachers must transform this deficit model to a strengths-based approach where adults become equal partners in their own learning. Educators must be mindful that class content, like family and health, can trigger distress symptoms because of present or past abuse. Educators must also characterize mistakes as indicators of learning and growth, not failures. Most importantly, educators must not assume all their students, especially immigrants, have experienced trauma but be respectful to those who have (Isserlis, 2008).

Survivors of war and political crisis

When working with refugees and other survivors of trauma, educators need to be attentive to feelings of loss, suffering, and apprehension about the future (Magro, 2006) as well as to memory impairment, short attention span, and severe anxiety (Allender, 1998). Often, instructors play pivotal roles as brokers for refugees as they establish themselves in their new communities (Wilbur, 2017). Consistent with Freire’s critical pedagogy (1970), instruction should integrate resettlement issues with the skills needed to function effectively in a range of unfamiliar social and vocational contexts. Aligned with andragogy, students should be actively involved in the design and implementation of curricula to promote agency and ownership. More than content experts, educators must be empathic, patient, and hopeful and help learners build bridges from prior knowledge to new content (Magro, 2006). More nontraditional approaches, like breathing and mindfulness exercises, creative and expressive arts, and humor, can help survivors of trauma transform stress into resilience (Wilbur, 2017).

Survivors of domestic abuse and violence

Domestic violence is rooted in the abuser’s need for power and control over his or her victim and can take the form of emotional, economic, or sexual abuse, including the use of coercion, threats, and isolation (Horsman, 2000). For ELLs, loss of immigration status and custody of children are threats commonly used by their batterers, and any physical “isolation is exacerbated by language and culture differences that make finding safer options more daunting” (Isserlis, 2000, p. 2). As learning, especially language learning, demands making connections and generating meaning, ELLs experiencing the effects of current or past trauma are particularly challenged in learning a new language due to memory loss and difficulty concentrating.

Educators of adult victims and survivors of domestic abuse and violence must be mindful of the contradictions evidenced in their students: vulnerability and fragility coupled with strength and resilience (Horsman, 2004) or fear of failing combined with a similar fear of succeeding (Isserlis, 2008). For some, the classroom might be the only safe place they experience away from their abuser. Since survivors of domestic violence cannot compartmentalize their lives, the impact of the abuse may manifest in the classroom. When present in the classroom, instructors can, for example, create activities where affected students role play accessing needed services at local community-based organizations.

Recommendations for Instruction, Preservice Training, and In-Service PD

To transform instructional practices and student outcomes for adult learners, “deficit model” thinking must be confronted, and strengths-based approaches, like universal design for learning (UDL) and culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP), must be promoted in all aspects of teacher training. By leveraging the strengths and life experiences of adult learners and addressing co-occurring factors, these approaches to preservice training and in-service PD should have two distinct foci. The first requires more consciousness raising, teacher critical self-reflection, and attitudinal and classroom management adjustments, like supporting students dealing with mental health issues, trauma, and domestic violence. These issues also require knowledge of available resources, including community-based agencies, where students can be referred for additional help. The second requires the implementation of andragogical and curricular adjustments and accommodations to address the unique learning and psychosocial needs of students with autism, SIFE, TBI, ADHD, and LD.

UDL

Implementing the principles of UDL into classroom instruction can benefit all learners. Despite its association with students with disabilities, Swenson and Sugar (2012) asserted that UDL is a way to meet “the varied learning needs” of adult students, including ELLs (p. 4). The instructional, assessment, and feedback strategies associated with UDL provide “multiple means of representation, action, expression, and engagement” (p. 4) and are also consistent with andragogy. Examples of instructional strategies include (a) presenting and chunking information in a variety of ways, (b) using less complex language, (c) establishing routines and providing consistency in course design, (d) using graphic organizers to keep students on task, and (e) giving cognitive support like scaffolding assignments, providing context, and summarizing foundational concepts. Encouraging varied class interactions and fostering collaboration through structured pair and group work and whole-class discussions nurtures a community of learners. Providing text transcripts for audio recordings and captions on videos are also elements of UDL. Establishing clear classroom protocols and expectations, providing rubrics, and allowing students to demonstrate their mastery of content in ways that support diverse learning styles are essential components for assessments. Recycling content, providing practice assessments, and giving frequent and timely feedback are other aspects of UDL. Finally, identifying available supports, including for students with disabilities, and nurturing learner autonomy and self-advocacy are crucial. For example, implementing a “Three Before Me” strategy “gives students three places to go for help before asking the instructor for assistance” (Swenson & Sugar, 2012, p. 5). A key principle of UDL, addressing individual needs in an inclusive manner, is also a foundational tenet of CRP.

Integrating CRP and Andragogy

Gay (2002) defined CRP as “using the cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethnically diverse students as conduits for teaching them more effectively” and asserted that “when academic knowledge and skills are situated within the lived experiences and frames of reference of students, they are more personally meaningful, have higher interest appeal, and are learned more easily and thoroughly” (p. 106). As academic success is often built on “cultural validation and strength,” instructors must be trained to work effectively with culturally diverse students (Gay, 2002, p. 110) and incorporate CRP strategies and practices consistently in their classroom instruction (Johnson & Owen, 2013; Rhodes, 2013). CRP thus provides a framework that attunes to students’ race, ethnicity, and culture and can be used to develop andragogical strategies and base classroom instructions on adult students’ lived experiences and prior knowledge. This more individualized approach enables culturally responsive educators to support learners by leveraging positive aspects of their life experiences to enhance their learning (Guy, 1999).

The thematic hallmarks of CRP—differentiated instruction, building on students’ prior knowledge and experience (Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995), and teacher self-efficacy (Bray-Clark & Bates, 2003)—were explicitly raised or repeatedly implied in this literature review. An innovative approach to preservice training and in-service PDs for educators of adult learners could be framed by combining CRP with andragogy to promote teachers’ feelings of self-efficacy in differentiating instruction. This approach could combine tenets of culturally relevant adult education (Guy, 1999) with the culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy (CRTSE) beliefs and practices outlined by Siwatu (2007) to enhance educators’ successful implementation of student-centered andragogical practices.

Conclusion and Implications

Educators are not counselors, but they must be attentive listeners. Understanding the likelihood of adults’ having experienced difficulties means accepting and embracing the possibilities of multiple modes of learning, of supporting learning through taking time, and thoughtfully making progress clear to the learner. (Isserlis, 2008, p. 24)

Providing more effective, relevant, and individualized instruction to all adults is critical to enhancing their academic achievement and success. Beyond being attuned and listening attentively to students and differentiating instruction accordingly, adjustments to enhance preservice and in-service teacher training should be made. For example, policies at the local, state, regional, and federal levels should support ancillary services and adequate teacher preservice training and in-service PD for educators of adults so their students’ diverse and complex learning and psychosocial needs are addressed more comprehensively. Often, educators of adults do not receive suitable training regarding andragogy, the co-occurring factors addressed in this literature review, and more strengths-based approaches like UDL and CRP. Both UDL and CRP have been shown to impact other populations but have not been studied as extensively among adult learners, especially when combined with the tenets of andragogy. Expanding preservice training and in-service PD to include CRP, andragogy, and these co-occurring factors more consistently and comprehensively and measuring their impact on teachers’ feelings of self-efficacy and student outcomes could be areas for future research. Similarly, exploring the oppressive dynamics undergirding and connecting these co-occurring factors, much like intersectionality in other arenas, and supporting adult learners to overcome them through approaches like Freire’s critical pedagogy (1970) or Mezirow’s (1997) transformative learning also warrant further investigation.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge and thank his doctoral cohort and the faculty in the School of Education at Hunter College (CUNY) for their encouragement and support, especially Dr. Karen Koellner for her inspiration to craft this manuscript and Dr. Melinda Snodgrass and Dr. David Connor for their invaluable guidance during the drafting process.

Conflict of Interest

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 Biography

David A. Housel, MA, MSW, is the Associate Director of the CUNY Language Immersion Program at LaGuardia Community College. He has worked in the field of adult literacy, primarily with adult, immigrant English-language learners, for over 18 years and is a licensed social worker in the State of New York. He is currently a doctoral student in Instructional Leadership at Hunter College (CUNY).

References

Allender

S. C.

(1998). Australia’s migrants and refugees: Opening the door to lifelong learning: How adults learn a new language. Paper presented at an International Conference on “How Adults Learn.” Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED419434.pdf

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (1990). Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328. Retrieved from http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/PPL_101_336_AmericansWithDisabilities.pdf

Bray-Clark

Bates

(2003). Self-efficacy beliefs and teacher effectiveness: Implications for professional development. The Professional Educator, 26, 13-22.

Brown

J. T.

Wolf

L. E.

Kroesser

(2014). Innovative programming to support college students with autism spectrum disorders. In Volkmar

F. R.

Reichow

Partland

J. & C.

(Eds.), Adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorders (pp. 121-130). New York, NY: Springer.

Church

T. E.

(2009). Returning veterans on campus with war related injuries and the long road back home. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22, 43-52.

Cook

Rumrill

Tankersley

(2009). Priorities and understanding faculty members regarding college students with disabilities. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21, 84-96.

Corrigan

P. W.

Barr

Driscoll

Boyle

M. G.

(2008). The educational goals of people with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 32, 67-70. doi:10.2975/32.1.2008.67.70

DeCapua

Smathers

Tang

L. F.

(2007). Schooling, interrupted. Educational Leadership, 64, 40-46.

Freire

(1970). The pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury Press.

10.

Gardner

(1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.

11.

Gay

(2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 106-116.

12.

Guy

T. C.

(1999). Culture as context for adult education: The need for culturally relevant adult education. In Guy

T. C.

(Ed.), Providing culturally relevant adult education: A challenge for the twenty-first century (pp. 5-18). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

13.

Hanstock

(2004). Self-directed informal learning: A case study. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 44, 73-83.

14.

Helms

K. T.

Libertz

(2014). When service members with traumatic brain injury become students: Methods to advance learning. Adult Learning, 25, 11-19. doi:10.1177/1045159513510145

15.

Horsman

(2000). “Too scared to learn”: Women, violence, and education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

16.

Horsman

(2004). But is it education? The challenge of creating effective learning for survivors of trauma. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 32, 130-146.

17.

Howlin

Arciuli

Begeer

Brock

Clarke

Costley

Einfeld

(2015). Research on adults with autism spectrum disorder: Roundtable report. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 40, 388-393. doi:10.3109/13668250.2015.1064343

18.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2004). 20 U.S.C. § 1400. Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/

19.

Isserlis

(2000). Trauma and the adult English language learner. ERIC digest. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics & National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED444397.pdf

20.

Isserlis

(2008). Adults in programs for the “academically underprepared.” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 120, 19-26. doi:10.1002.ace.312

21.

James

(2006). More and different. Adults Learning, 17(10), 20-21.

22.

Johnson

Owen

(2013). Reaching a culturally diverse immigrant population of adult English language learners. Journal of Adult Education, 42, 23-29.

23.

King

K. P.

Lawler

P. A.

(2003). Trends and issues in the professional development of teachers of adults. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 98, 5-13.

24.

Knowles

Holton

Swanson

(2015). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (8th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

25.

Koegel

L. K.

Ashbaugh

Navab

Koegel

(2016). Improving empathic communication skills in adults with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46, 921-933. doi:10.1007/s10803-015-2633-0

26.

Ladson-Billings

(1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465-491.

27.

Laugeson

E. A.

Ellingsen

(2014). Social skills training for adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorder. In Volkmar

F. R.

Reichow

McPartland

J. & C.

(Eds.), Adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorders (pp. 61-85). New York, NY: Springer.

28.

Magro

(2006). Overcoming the trauma of war: Literacy challenges of adult learners. Education Canada, 47, 70-74.

29.

McLean

M. A.

(2011). Getting to know you: The prospect of challenging ableism through adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 132, 13-22.

30.

Mellard

D. F.

Woods

K. L.

Lee

J. H.

(2016). Literacy profiles of at-risk young adult enrolled in career and technical education. Journal of Research in Reading, 39,88-108. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12034

31.

Mezirow

(1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5-12.

32.

Mull

Sitlington

P. L.

Alper

(2001). Postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the literature. Exceptional Children, 68, 97-118.

33.

Patterson

M. B.

(2008). Learning disability prevalence and adult education program characteristics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 50-59.

34.

Plotts

C. A.

(2001). Recognizing LD, ADHD, and TBI in adults. Adult Learning, 12(2), 5-7.

35.

Polson

C. J.

White

W. J.

(2001). Serving adult learners with disabilities. Adult Learning, 12(2), 15-18.

36.

Rehabilitation Act. (1973). 29 U.S.C. § 701. Retrieved from https://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/sec504.htm

37.

Reynolds

Johnson

Salzman

(2012). Screening for learning disabilities in adult basic education students. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25,179-195.

38.

Rhodes

C. M.

(2013). A study of culturally responsive teaching practices of adult ESOL and EAP teachers. Journal of Research and Practice for Adult Literacy, Secondary, and Basic Education, 2, 170-183.

39.

Rocco

T. S.

(2001). Helping adult educators understand disability disclosure. Adult Learning, 12(2), 10-12.

40.

Ross-Gordon

J. M.

(2001). Understanding and planning for adult learners with disabilities. Adult Learning, 12(2), 2-4.

41.

Scanlon

Lenz

B. K.

(2002). Intervention practices in adult literacy education for adults with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 16,32-49.

42.

Schall

Wehman

Carr

(2014). Transition from high school to adulthood for adolescents and young adults with autism spectrum disorders. In Volkmar

F. R.

Reichow

McPartland

J. & C.

(Eds.), Adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorders (pp. 41-60). New York, NY: Springer.

43.

Schmidt

Kirchner

Strunz

Brozus

Ritter

Roepke

Dziobek

(2015). Psychosocial functioning and life satisfaction in adults with autism spectrum disorder without intellectual impairment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 71, 1259-1268. doi:10.1002/jclp.22225

44.

Segal

D. L.

Connela

Miller

Coolidge

F. L.

(2016). Deliberate self-harm among younger and older adults. Death Studies, 40, 440-444. doi:10.1080/07481187.2016.1171265

45.

Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944. (1944). Public Law 346, 78th Congress. Retrieved from https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=76

46.

Siwatu

K. O.

(2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1086-1101. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.011

47.

Stampoltzis

Tsitsou

Plesti

Kalouri

(2015). The learning experiences of students with dyslexia in a Greek higher education institution. International Journal of Special Education, 30, 157-170.

48.

Swenson

Sugar

(2012). Universal design for learning can help adults in online classes. Recruiting & Retaining Adult Learners, 15(3), 4-5. doi:10.1002/nsr

49.

United States Department of Education. (2017). A transition guide to postsecondary education and employment for students and youth with disabilities. Retrieved fromhttps://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/postsecondary-transition-guide-may-2017.pdf

50.

Volkmar

F. R.

Reichow

McPartland

J. C.

(2014). Autism spectrum disorder in adolescents and adults: An introduction. In Volkmar

F. R.

Reichow

McPartland

J. & C.

(Eds.), Adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorder (pp. 1-13). New York, NY: Springer.

51.

Wilbur

(2017). Creating inclusive EAL classrooms: How language instruction for newcomers to Canada (LINC) instructors understand and mitigate barriers for students who have experienced trauma. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL Du Canada, 33(10), 1-19. doi:10.18806/tesl.v33i0.1243

52.

Yager

(2016). The challenge of students with autism spectrum disorder in honors programs. Honors in Practice, 12, 79-94.