Bridging the Gap: Faculty-Led Recognition of Prior Military Learning in Higher Education

Veterans as Adult Learners in Higher Education

Research consistently positions military veterans as adult learners whose trajectories differ from those of traditional undergraduates. Many arrive with substantial applied technical training and leadership experience from formal military schooling and operational practice (Vacchi & Berger, 2014). These characteristics align with andragogy’s emphasis on self-direction, goal orientation, and immediate application to real-world problems (Knowles et al., 2023). Prior work also documents recurring challenges in higher education—translating military experience into academic credit, adapting to civilian classroom norms, and navigating campus systems (DiRamio et al., 2008; Jenner, 2017). These challenges highlight the need to align instructional and institutional design with adult-learning principles. What remains less developed is an explicit connection between veteran experiences and the instructional and institutional design choices predicted by adult-learning theory.

CPL, earlier referred to as prior learning assessment, is associated with higher persistence, faster completion, and lower costs for adult students (Klein-Collins, 2010; Klein-Collins et al., 2020). For veterans, CPL commonly relies on American Council on Education (ACE, 2024) credit recommendations derived from Joint Services Transcript evaluations. While these provide national consistency, scholars note that discipline-specific faculty assessment can surface competencies not fully captured by generic recommendations, particularly for advanced training (Cate et al., 2017; Kilgore, 2024). When decisions solely rely on automated or non-disciplinary processes, veterans may repeat content already mastered, thereby extending the time-to-degree completion.

Adult-learning scholarship emphasizes that institutional navigation, including program structures, service integration, and decision points, shape learner success, especially for students balancing work, family, and finances (Ford & Vignare, 2015). Veterans encounter these general adult-learner frictions alongside veteran-specific processes (e.g., benefits certification, JST/ACE mapping, enrollment verification tied to federal timelines), which can amplify handoff failures across offices (Vacchi & Berger, 2014; Zoli et al., 2015). Framing these issues through adult-learning principles focuses attention on designable features—clarity, coordination, and recognition mechanisms—rather than on individual deficits. Together, these factors illustrate how institutional complexity compounds transition instability at the point of entry.

Conceptual Adult-Learning Framework

This study used a conceptual, integrated adult-learning framework of andragogy, experiential learning, and multimodal design as a design heuristic to interpret veterans’ reported experiences.

Knowles’ andragogy positions adults as self-directed, goal-oriented learners who expect recognition of existing competence and opportunities to apply learning immediately (Knowles et al., 2023). Military schooling is explicitly competency-based and performance-evaluated, thus repeated coursework by veterans in higher education represents a misalignment between adult-learner expectations and institutional credit practices. Andragogy predicts dissatisfaction when previously mastered competencies are not recognized through advanced standing.

Kolb’s (2014) experiential learning cycle (concrete experience → reflection → abstraction → experimentation) closely maps to military training and routine after-action reviews. While portions of military learning are necessarily directive for safety or standardization, complex tasks are taught via scenarios that require diagnosis and iteration, resolving the apparent “directive vs. problem-based” tension. Classroom norms that privilege discussion or abstraction without anchoring in authentic experience may obscure veterans’ established experiential cycle rather than indicate disengagement. Kolb’s experiential cycle helps explain muted participation when courses emphasize abstraction or unanchored discussion.

Felder–Silverman’s (1988) multimodal design is used to guide redundant, coordinated representations of information (active/reflective, visual/verbal, sequential/global). Adult-learning research cautions against matching claims (Pashler et al., 2008) but supports designing multiple, accessible pathways. Veterans’ accounts of benefits certification, JST/ACE translation, and verification timelines indicate that fragmented navigation (Spencer, 2024) is a design problem: Information and support are distributed across offices and modes without coordination, undermining self-direction and predictability for adult learners.

Method

The current study used a secondary analysis of qualitative interview data collected for a phenomenological doctoral dissertation study approved by the institutional review board at a university in the southeastern United States. The original study (Spencer, 2024) examined how U.S. military veterans navigated the transition from service to higher education, with specific attention to credit transfer, classroom culture, and access to campus services. The current study builds on that work by reanalyzing the interview data to specifically examine how faculty-led recognition of prior military learning and institutional design choices shape veterans’ academic progression. While the original study broadly examined transition, the current study narrowed the focus to recognition processes and instructional implications grounded in adult-learning theory.

Participants comprised 10 veterans from the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy while enrolled at a four-year university. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using a protocol focused on prior training recognition, classroom engagement, and institutional support. All participants provided informed consent (Table 1)

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics.

Pseudonym	Age range	Branch	Role/Background
Ann	25–30	Army	Brigade-level experience
Earnest	40–44	Army	Law enforcement
Fran	20–24	Army National Guard	Medic
Henry	45–49	Army	Combat veteran/Faith-centered perspective
Kurt	45–49	Army	Combat veteran/PTSD challenges
Matt	30–34	Air Force	Aviation mechanic
Seth	30–34	Marine Corps	Communications/Tech systems
Susan	25–30	Navy	Combat veteran/Military discipline
Tim	25–30	Army	Multiple deployments
Tina	35–39	Navy	Hospital corpsman/EMT-B

For the current study, transcripts were reanalyzed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Coding proceeded iteratively with constant comparison across cases to refine codes and candidate themes (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Credibility and dependability procedures included maintaining an audit trail of code decisions and theme development, reflexive journaling, selective member checks, and peer debriefing (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Nowell et al., 2017). Reporting followed the standards for qualitative transparency (O’Brien et al., 2014), offered as analytic generalizations appropriate to qualitative inquiry, rather than statistical generalizations.

Findings

The current study examined where and why recognition gaps occur, connected those gaps to established adult-learning frameworks that explain veterans’ strengths and needs, and identified design-level implications for faculty practice and institutional processes that move beyond symbolic “veteran-friendly” efforts toward systematic, evidence-based recognition of prior learning. Major findings included the systemic challenges veterans face—undervaluation of military training and experience, cultural disconnects between veterans and their faculty members and peers, and the need for coordinated centralized support for veterans (Figure 1).OPEN IN VIEWER

The first major finding comprised the undervaluation of military training and experience. Participants consistently described receiving little or no academic credit for extensive military training and being required to repeat basic coursework. As Tina, a Navy veteran who completed Hospital Corpsman “A” school, recalled, “We trained for months, longer than some associate programs, but when I got here, none of it counted. They told me to start from scratch.” Matt described a similar experience: “It felt like everything I did before didn’t matter. I wasn’t asking for special treatment—I just didn’t want to sit through material I’d already mastered.” Tim reflected this frustration, explaining, “It wasn’t about getting ahead—it was about not repeating what I had already proven I could do.” These narratives reflect persistent recognition gaps between demonstrated competence and institutional policy. As Kurt explained, “It felt like starting over, even though I knew I already had the skills.” Henry similarly stated, “Repeating what I already knew felt unnecessary and frustrating.” Fran, a National Guard medic, reinforced this pattern, noting, “I had medical training already, but I still had to repeat basic courses that didn’t add to what I knew.” These accounts indicate a consistent disconnect between demonstrated competence and institutional recognition practices, rather than isolated credit evaluation decisions.

The second major finding comprised a cultural disconnect between veterans and their faculty members and peers. Participants reported difficulty adjusting to informal, discussion-heavy classroom norms compared with the structured training they experienced in the military. Several veterans described instructors misreading direct communication or a reserved demeanor as disengagement. As Seth, a Marine veteran, explained, “When I don’t talk much, it’s not because I don’t care. It’s because I was trained to listen and act.” Susan elaborated, “In the military, you speak when you have something clear and useful to add. In class, it seemed like talking more was rewarded, even if it wasn’t always productive.” Ann described the adjustment more directly: “I had to learn how to communicate differently here, even when I knew what I was talking about.” Earnest added, “The way I communicated didn’t always fit what professors expected, even when I understood the material.” Such reflections suggest that perceived disengagement may instead reflect differing norms of professionalism and communication. These patterns suggest that differences in communication norms are frequently misinterpreted as disengagement, rather than recognized as products of prior professional training.

The third major finding comprised fragmented navigation across veteran-specific systems, for example, Post-9/11 GI Bill certification with the School Certifying Official, aligning Joint Services Transcript/ACE credit with degree maps, reconciling VA payment timelines with campus billing, and verifying enrollment changes tied to benefits. Several reported “running in circles” among financial aid, the registrar, advising, and the certifying official. In this sample, 80% of participants offered at least one example of a handoff failure, such as delayed housing allowance due to late verification or unapplied JST credits. Earnest, an Army veteran, succinctly summarized the experience: “Every office told me to talk to someone else. It was like the system wasn’t built for someone using military benefits.” This pattern was not isolated. Fran shared, “I kept getting sent from one office to another, and nobody really knew how it all connected.” These accounts underscore how navigation breakdowns are experienced as systemic design failures rather than isolated administrative mistakes. Collectively, these experiences point to coordination failures across institutional units.

Discussion of Findings

Interpreted through adult-learning theory and prior scholarship on veteran transitions, the major findings suggest gaps in credit transfer and CPL, cultural disconnects and classroom misinterpretations, and fragmented veteran support services.

Implications for Practice, Policy, Reform, and Future Research

Collectively, the findings offer implications for instructional practice, institutional policy, higher education reform, and future research to serve veterans as adult learners.