Perspectives in AE — do they know who we are?: A Starting Point for Enhancing the Visibility of Adult Education Programs within Schools of Education

Like many adult educators, I was “doing” adult education before I knew what to call it. We are, at times, hidden in plain sight, going about the business of conducting computer training, facilitating small group Bible studies, teaching adults to read, or fostering any number of other learning environments without necessarily labeling these activities as adult education. This recognition that learning does not have to occur in a classroom is, perhaps, one of the great contributions of adult education to the broader field of education.

And yet, the very nature of much adult education, especially when it occurs in nonformal and outside–of–the–classroom settings, may also mean that it is unnoticed or unacknowledged by those who expect teaching and learning to take a certain form, specifically that of a classroom teacher giving assignments and issuing grades to students who are engaged in designated and formal learning projects. Our work, even when it is hidden in plain sight, is still hidden. Furthermore, in the current economic and higher education institutional climates in which many adult educators work, administrative structures and budget shortfalls often create competition for scarce resources. For example, Delaware State University just announced the “deactivation” of 23 programs, including a graduate–level program in adult basic education and seven other graduate–level education programs (Fishman & Spencer, 2016) following a review process that considered internal and external demand for each program as well as the “impact, justification, and overall essentiality” (Program Prioritization Initiative, 2015, p. 8) of the program. Review processes and program cuts such as these are increasingly common and draconian (e.g., Mulhere, 2015; Will, 2015), and increased visibility may be a first, best step for insuring the survival and sustainability of our programs. As Elizabeth Tisdell (2014) wrote during her service as the Chair of the Commission of Professors of Adult Education (CPAE), “knowing how to successfully negotiate power and interest is key to the success of any formal adult education program in the changing landscape of higher education … we do indeed need to negotiate this changing landscape on behalf of our programs” (p. 1).

This negotiation begins with exploring that landscape and understanding the real and imagined barriers that may be inhibiting meaningful dialogue and collaboration. Furthermore, although Gilbert's (2008) comment that “we don't reach beyond our own silos enough to know that colleagues in other silos are wrestling with similar issues and ideas” (p. B45) referred specifically to his work regarding diversity initiatives within higher education, the same could be said for various programs within a single School or College of Education. Nicholson and Garcia Brooks (2004) explored the condition of education in West Virginia across the P–20 spectrum, seeking to understand the pipeline of educational opportunities, beginning with preschool (i.e., the “P” in P–20) and continuing through graduate–level education (i.e., the “20” in P–20). In their work, Nicholson and Garcia Brooks highlighted how important it was for various educational initiatives to be working in awareness of and cooperation with each other—for the benefit of the students; they suggested “that these silos must be turned on their side and welded together to create a pipeline through which all students … can travel smoothly” (p. v). Likewise, the extent to which faculty within a particular sub–discipline of education are unaware of the work being conducted and programs being offered in other sub–disciplines is the extent to which students develop an incomplete picture of the breadth of education—in and out of the classroom. For example, students in a career counseling class preparing to work with future clients who are contemplating a return to higher education would almost certainly benefit from understanding the breadth of adult education literature related to the experiences of adult learners who are returning to colleges or universities (e.g., Berker, Horn, & Carrol, 2003; Kasworm, 2003, 2012). This necessitates, of course, the counselor educator knowing about this literature base, so that the educator can share that information with students.

Perhaps this is where Thorp and Goldstein's (2010) suggestion is helpful: an important step in breaking down academic silos is focusing on reshaping institutional or departmental culture, rather than reworking administrative structures, reorganizing organizational charts, or creating task forces. The administrative home of the adult education program may shape the flow of paperwork, decisions, and resources, but it need not determine the flow of information or collaboration. In other words, are there ways to infuse who we are and what we do, as adult educators, into conversations with our “near neighbors” in other sub–disciplines of education?

As a junior faculty member working in a School of Education, Health Professions, and Human Development where K–12 teacher educators far outnumber the faculty in any other program within the School, these tasks—“increasing visibility” and “negotiating power and interest” (Tisdell, 2014)—seemed a bit daunting. I began, therefore, where I was trained to begin: I designed a small case study (Stake, 1995), complete with IRB approval, which allowed me to interview my own colleagues and explore the following research question: What are the perceptions of K–12 teacher educators and professors in other disciplines within the School of Education, Health Professions, and Human Development, specifically related to the field of adult education? My primary interest was to understand the knowledge my colleagues already had about the field of adult education. To this end, I designed a semi–structured interview protocol (Creswell, 2007) and invited the 27 faculty members in my university's School of Education, Health Professions, and Human Development to participate in the study. Of the 10 who participated, four were tenured, and the remaining six held tenure–track positions. Participants had worked at the university for as little as two months and as long as 15 years and represented a variety of sub–disciplines within education: K–12 teacher preparation (4), educational leadership and supervision (2), counselor education (2), special education (1), and educational technology (1). Our conversations were much shorter than I had anticipated in designing the study, averaging 15 minutes. Although I frequently used the semi–structured format of the interviews to clarify responses, quite often participants’ initial responses invited no further prompting. For example, when asked to describe adult basic education, one participant said, “I have no idea.” Given that I was primarily interested in participants’ baseline knowledge about the field, I chose to let responses like this stand on their own, rather than prompting in a way that might not accurately reflect the participant's existing perceptions of the field but rather my own. While this may have led to shorter–than–anticipated interviews, this approach also highlights my colleagues’ limited knowledge of adult education. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis. All participant names presented here are pseudonyms.

I began by asking broad questions such as what comes to mind when thinking about adult education and where do adult educators work. Responses typically highlighted the involvement of adult educators in addressing developmental and learning needs of adults, working to alleviate educational deficiencies (e.g., high school equivalency instruction, adult literacy programs, or developmental coursework), and preparing professionals to work in higher education. Marlene referred to aspects of adult education as “teacher ed. for those teaching in a community college.” Others talked about corporate training, staff and career development, and personal or professional coaching. In describing the settings where adult educators work, many of the responses focused on the roles of adult educators within higher education or in non–profit and human service agencies. There was also some mention of adult basic education and corporate settings. Cathy highlighted that adult education went beyond GED–type instruction, and Sally described it as a “big wide spectrum” that included all college and university professors, because “they're educating not children, not adolescents, but adults.” For Sally, this also meant that professors are adult educators, even if they had “never, ever taken one class of adult ed. or even any training or even take any education, [because they're] still educating adults.”

After asking these big–picture questions, I asked about more narrowly focused areas of the field, and the responses were also widely varied. For example, when I asked participants to define or describe adult basic education, Robin said “I have no idea,” and Elaina's response included teaching skills such as balancing a checking account, running a household, and “those basic needs for being an adult.” Other responses focused on instruction leading to high school equivalency certifications, described by Lisa as “learning the basic set of curriculum … the basic education that we might have already provided the learners in K–12 settings.”

Responses to prompts regarding community education or lifelong learning were also diverse, reflecting widely varying levels of understanding of adult education. Ramona referred generically to preventive health programs when talking about community education and described “programs … for the benefit of the community. Like, trying to educate the community about how to take care of themselves, wellness. It can be, just anything that might be of interest, working with the community of adult learners” without providing any detail regarding how those programs might be selected, developed, or evaluated. At the same time, Lisa and Karlene described nuanced strategies for community engagement and needs assessment as critical first steps for any community education initiative.

Given our shared professional setting, as faculty in a School of Education, I asked participants what topics or classes they thought should be taught in a graduate program in adult education. Most participants highlighted adult learning theory (9 responses) or aspects of human resources, management and program operations (7). Several also mentioned effective instruction (5), needs assessment or learning assessment (4), communication (3), and field experiences (3). Although perhaps named differently by participants, there is some overlap between these responses and the recently updated Standards for Graduate Programs in Adult Education (CPAE, 2014), notably the mention of adult learning and development, teaching adult learners, and curriculum and program planning. According to Karlene, a counselor educator, however:

I would hope it would include actual training on how to be a trainer, like facilitation of the learning process. But, I'll be honest, if I saw an adult education sort of curriculum and it had that in it, I would be shocked; I think people don't understand that is a skill, in terms of facilitating learning, that's a skill. And, I just don't think that programs teach that or know how to teach that.

Other responses seemed to indicate uncertainty regarding the scope of the field and the outcome of a graduate education in adult education. Rebecca suggested that master's–level graduates in adult education would be prepared “for working with adults in social service agencies,” and Robin said, “I think you guys also do some, like, touchy–feely stuff … you deal with things like, kind of like a counseling … in that you're teaching other adults to work well with adults.”

When I asked Greg if there were anything he wished to add to our conversation, he said “I don't know enough … to know what questions you missed.” Greg's comment highlights an earlier point: hidden in plain sight is still hidden. Hu and Randel (2014) conceptualized this idea in terms of the social capital (i.e., structural, relational, and cognitive networks) within a team suggesting that “the resources that arise from social capital are both actual and potential resources that can be drawn on in the future” (p. 215). As long as our colleagues and near neighbors in education are unaware of who we are, what we do, and where we might be able to contribute to the work they are doing, we may also find it challenging to negotiate for the power and interest that will benefit our programs, as Tisdell (2014) suggested we must do. Tisdell, Wright, and Taylor (2016) surveyed faculty in adult education programs (n = 207). Participants reported a mean score of 2.65 (out of 4) when considering “collegiality with faculty colleagues outside [the] department” and a mean score of 2.47 related to institutional–level program support (p. 89), which may suggest, on some level, a recognition that discipline–focused silos may be counter–productive and detrimental to the ongoing support of our programs. Larry Martin (2015), who is currently serving as Chair of CPAE, recently posed this important question: “If [you are] asked, ‘why is your program relevant to the economic needs of our state’ is your adult education program prepared to construct an evidence–based justification that will justify its existence?” (p. 9). Perhaps an appropriate precursor to that question is more locally focused: Do your colleagues know enough about your field and your program to help you justify your program's existence?

It is only fitting to acknowledge that this was a very small–scale project conducted within an institution where the adult education faculty members constitute approximately five percent of the School of Education faculty and the adult education program is a relatively new, fully online program. While there are other fully online programs within the School, most faculty are also assigned face–to–face courses in the undergraduate teacher education program; this is not the case for the adult education faculty. These factors do tend to limit the visibility of adult education within this particular School of Education, but conducting these interviews may have served to raise the profile of adult education in a way I did not anticipate. At the end of our interview, Lisa said, “It just feels like this is something everybody can relate to…. How can we better our students’ learning?” Michelle described her pre–faculty work in teacher professional development by saying “I was doing adult ed. for many years, working in staff development.… I didn't take any classes in it.” Ann talked about the job she held at a nursing home before pursuing a career in academia, recognizing—as we discussed the idea of lifelong learning—that when she was working with nursing home residents, she had been engaged with adult learning without realizing it. Thinking back, she said the lifelong learning “could have been much bigger than what it was” if the staff would have intentionally programmed activities to “keep [residents’] minds fresh and keep them learning about new things; new technology, or things [like] money management.” In other words, the very act of asking education colleagues—who for the most part may not see themselves as adult educators—to talk about adult education and their own educational and professional background helped them to make connections between their own career and the broader field of adult education. As Lisa mentioned, “I want to teach my students to be lifelong learners, so I have to be one by example,” but before our interview she would not necessarily have linked lifelong learning with adult education.

In some ways, of course, this was not a fair exercise. Faculty in higher education are, almost by definition, specialists rather than generalists; between teaching, research, and service commitments, there just is not a lot of time to have these sorts of conversations with colleagues. Likewise, it is neither necessary nor reasonable to suggest that our colleagues become experts in what we do. I am sure that if I had been the participant, rather than the researcher, I would have had difficulty defining or describing the various sub–disciplines of special education or the nuances of training future counselors, because these are not my areas of expertise; in the same way, I was asking non–specialists to describe some of the details of my field of study. And yet, regardless of the age or situation of the learners or clients they are preparing to work with, students who complete a program within a School or College of Education will almost certainly go on to become adult learners themselves. The kindergarten teacher or the counselor will eventually attend mandatory professional development, and the high school principal may go on to pursue certification as a superintendent. In some cases, they may even find they are involved in working with adult learners, such as a special education teacher who helps parents develop strategies to nurture the learning and development of their children or the administrator who uses instructional leadership as a means to mentor new teachers. The work we do, as adult educators and as faculty of adult education, is very relevant to the long–term impact of our colleagues in other areas of education.

In developing this study, I expected to approach these conversations as a researcher, and I was seeking to understand what my co–workers know and understand about the discipline of adult education. Along the way, however, I found that each interview provided me with an opportunity to broadly advocate for adult education and for my specific program. Talking with colleagues also challenged me to explore areas of overlap between various sub–disciplines within education, and I am now thinking about ways to raise the profile of adult education within my own School of Education, Health Professions, and Human Development. Ten 15–minute conversations in the pursuit of knowledge led to 10 opportunities to help others better understand my corner of the landscape of higher education (Tisdell, 2014) and provided broader insight into how I might more effectively justify my program's existence (Martin, 2015) to my colleagues. It was time well spent.