640882

research-article2016

AEQXXX10.1177/0741713616640882Adult Education QuarterlyOuellette-Schramm

Article

Developmental Diversity in
the Academic Language
Learning Experiences of
Adult English as a Second or
Other Language Learners: A
Constructive-Developmental
Study

Adult Education Quarterly

2016, Vol. 66(3) 219236
The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0741713616640882
aeq.sagepub.com

Jennifer R. Ouellette-Schramm1

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

1Hamline

University, Saint Paul, MN, USA

Corresponding Author:
Jennifer R. Ouellette-Schramm, Hamline University, 1184 Goodrich Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55105, USA.
Email: Jouellette01@hamline.edu

220

Adult Education Quarterly 66(3)

Developing academic language skills is a challenging, high-stakes endeavor for Adult

Basic Education (ABE)/English as a Second or Other Language (ESOL) learners preparing for postsecondary education (Pimentel, 2013). While ABE/ESOL learners
increasingly aspire to transition into college, most of the relatively few who do so are
required to take remedial reading or writing classes (Pimentel, 2013), after which
fewer than 25% go on to earn a degree (Bailey & Cho, 2010).
The complexities ABE/ESOL learners bring to academic language learning are
many, including a range of formal educational backgrounds and levels of English
(Kruidenier, MacArthur, & Wrigley, 2010) and situational barriers to persistence
(Mellard, Krieshok, Fall, & Woods, 2013). Additionally, academic language is a formidable skill for even the most well-resourced second-language learner in that it
makes complex cognitive and linguistic demands (Cummins, 1979; Zwiers, 2008).
Many types of diversity affect ABE/ESOL academic language learning, including
first language (Gholamain & Geva, 1999), culture, cultural traditions of academic
writing (McKinley, 2015), age, and educational background (Bigelow & Watson,
2014). A more hidden diversity, that of adult development, has also been found to
affect the reasoning employed in academic language learning (Kegan, 1982, 1994).
Reasoning during summarizing, a baseline requirement of postsecondary writing and
the academic language skill focused on in this study, includes constructing logical
relationships between abstract ideas (Jitendra & Gajria, 2011) and recognizing how
primary and subordinate ideas are organized (Leki, 1996; Zwiers, 2008). These
abstract ways of reasoning are described in Kegans (1982, 1994) constructive-developmental theory (CDT) as developmental capacities. Kegan (1982) suggests that
depending on developmental complexity, some learners will understand summarizing
as relating one event after the next, rather than abstracting individual incidents into an
overarching theme, not because of lack of intelligence, rather, because of a concrete
way of constructing meaning.
The match between developmental perspective and the types of challenges learners encounter in the classroom has been found to affect learners experiences of learning, including among ABE/ESOL learners (Kegan etal., 2001). A study of ABE/ESOL
learning experiences through a constructive-developmental lens found that depending
on developmental perspective, the very same curriculum, classroom activities, or
teaching behaviours can leave some learners feeling satisfied and well attended while
others feel frustrated or lost (Drago-Severson, 2004, p. 15; Kegan etal., 2001). In the
same large-scale study, Helsing, Broderick, and Hammerman (2001) describe how a
learner with a complex perspective demonstrated a multilayered conception of writing, while a learner constructing meaning from an earlier perspective preferred concrete writing topics such as sports over abstract topics like openness.
If developmental perspectives shape qualitatively different ways of reasoning and
experiences of learning, it stands to reason that the question of match between
developmental perspective and learning task is important to consider in academic
language learning. In focusing on academically underprepared learners, this study
joins a small but growing body of research using a constructive-developmental lens
to explore the learning and growth of populations who have been academically,

Ouellette-Schramm

221

economically, or socially disadvantaged (Bridwell, 2013; Kegan etal., 2001). Some

scholars have noted the potential risk of investigating adult learners through a developmental lens, which may favor growth and higher stages of development often
afforded by resource-rich environments and access to privileges such as formal education and time for reflection (Brookfield & Holst, 2011). Popp and Boes (2001)
point out that a danger of looking at competence from a developmental perspective is
that it can be interpreted as a deficit model, as if it were focusing on what the adult
cannot do (p. 627). This study focuses not on what learners can do, but how they
make sense of what they are asked to do, honoring that each adult makes sense of
experience in a logically coherent way, and from a constructive-developmental perspective expressive of where they are on the developmental journey rather than who
or how intelligent they are (Kegan etal., 2001). The purpose of this qualitative case
study, therefore, was to understand the academic languagelearning experiences of
nine ABE/ESOL leaners, in light of their constructive-developmental perspectives, in
order to help educators more effectively reach developmentally diverse learners
building academic language skills.

ABE/ESOL Academic Language

While academic language has existed for hundreds of years (Zwiers, 2008), it became
recognized as a linguistically distinct language variety, a form of language that develops
in a community of language users, when bilingualism researcher Jim Cummins (1979)
distinguished basic interpersonal communicative skills from cognitive academic language proficiency. Cummins (1979) describes basic interpersonal communicative skills
as social, informal, and easier to acquire, while cognitive academic language proficiency
is strongly related to overall cognitive and academic skills (p. 198) and includes being
able to relate complex ideas and information through language. Kucer (2014) and Zwiers
(2008) similarly state that in academic language, linguistic and cognitive complexities
are closely intertwined.
Academic English tasks involve both cognitive and linguistic skills. Bigelow and
Watson (2014) argue the importance of cognitive development in second-language
acquisition, including how the psychological circumstances of learners lives may have
affected their cognitive and linguistic development (p. 462). Leki (1996) emphasizes
the intertwined but distinct cognitive and linguistic aspects of second-language academic language learning by pointing out that use of cognitive strategies during academic
writing is not impeded by lower English levels, and that struggling writers do not gain
access to more complex writing strategies by virtue of greater English proficiency alone.
ABE learners bring additional dimensions to the academic languagelearning process. The Kruidenier etal. (2010) explains that foreign-born ABE English language
learners (ELLs) have a wider range of educational backgrounds than U.S.-born ABE
learners, that some ABE ELLs may not have had access to formal education previously, and that even higher level ELLs may struggle due to insufficient exposure to
more sophisticated language structures and from lack of practice in more cognitively
demanding academic forms of English (p. 29).

222

Adult Education Quarterly 66(3)

Adult Constructive Development

Adult developmental research over the past 40 years has demonstrated that contrary
to the conventional notion that development flatlines in late adolescence, adults can
continue to develop cognitively, emotionally, and interpersonally throughout adulthood, moving hierarchically through predicable patterns of increasingly complex
ways of constructing meaning (Baxter, 1999; Kegan, 1982, 1994; Loevinger, 1976;
Perry, 1970). Kegans CDT belongs to a family of theoretical models including
Kohlbergs (1981) and Gilligans (1982) models of moral development; Loevingers
(1976) theory of ego development; Perrys (1970) stages of ethical and intellectual
development in the college years; and Belenkys (1986) stages of womens development. Each of these theories, based on empirical data from longitudinal developmental research, extend through adulthood the principles of Jean Piagets (1952)
developmental stages in childhood. Kegans CDT takes the constructivist view that
we actively construct, rather than passively receive, meaning from our experiences;
also, that the ways in which we construct meaning develop in the direction of greater
complexity over time. While CDT derives from Western psychology, it has been
tested for cross-cultural validity (Villegas-Reimers, 1996) and has been used successfully in research with non-Western populations, including ABE/ELLs (Kegan
etal., 2001; Lindsley, 2011).
In Kegans (1982, 1994) CDT, a concrete, or instrumental thinker makes meaning
with the same black-and-white logic that characterizes Piagets concrete operational
stage. The world is seen in terms of right and wrong with orientations toward concrete
rules and consequences. The structure of this way of knowing is categorical. That is,
instrumental learners think through one concrete category at a time, and cannot yet
cross-reference categories. In turn, an instrumental meaning maker is not capable of
abstract thinking or making generalizations (Drago-Severson, 2004, p. 25).
Instrumental adult ELLs have been found to orient to concrete aspects of learning and
to equate learning with doing (Kegan etal., 2001). Knowledge is seen as a possession to be acquired, or given by authorities (Kegan etal., 2001). One instrumental
ABE/ESOL learner described his preference for writing about concrete topics, explaining that while writing about abstract concepts like openness is difficult, . . . when
you can write about the sport, you can write (Helsing etal., 2001, p. 162). Taylor
(2006) describes the writing that instrumental learners are likely to produce as a brain
dump, of disconnected and unedited thoughts (p. 207).
Kegan (1982) explains that at the next socializing stage, the underlying structure is
cross-categorical, making these learners capable of cross-referencing information to
make abstractions, inferences, and generalizations. The ability to look through more
than one category at a time also enables these learners to take anothers perspective
(Kegan, 1982, 1994). This capacity comes with a new limitation, as socializing knowers define their own success by how well they measure up to expectations set by valued others (Kegan, 1982, 1994). Socializing ABE/ESOL learners, for example, have
been found to measure success by how well they meet the expectations of the teacher,
a valued expert (Kegan etal., 2001).

Ouellette-Schramm

223

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

Method
Research Design and Questions
The purpose of this study was to understand experiences of academic language learning among ABE/ESOL learners through a constructive-developmental lens, in order to
help educators better reach developmentally diverse learners. The following questions, therefore, guided this study:
Research Question 1: What constructive-developmental perspectives do ABE/
ESOL learners bring to their academic languagelearning experiences?
Research Question 2: How do they experience academic language learning in the
class, especially in a recent summarizing unit?
Research Question 3: How do learners academic languagelearning experiences
relate to their constructive-developmental perspectives?
This study employed a qualitative case study design, appropriate for gaining a deep
understanding of the meaning of an experience from the perspective of those involved
(Merriam, 1998), and for understanding a phenomenon through an in-depth exploration of a bounded system (Creswell, 2008, p. 344) such as a program or group
(Merriam, 1998); in this case, nine adult ESOL learners enrolled in a U.S. ABE college
and career preparation class. It employs Kegans (1982, 1994) CDT as a lens because
of its prior success with understanding learning experiences of non-Western adults,
including ABE/ESOL populations (Kegan etal., 2001; Lindsley, 2011; VillegasReimers, 1996), and its valid and reliable instrument for measuring meaning-making
complexity, or developmental stages, the Subject Object Interview (SOI; Kegan, 1994;
Lahey, Souvaine, Kegan, Goodman, & Felix, 1998).

Setting and Participants

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

224

Adult Education Quarterly 66(3)

relationships with participants (Merriam, 1998). I obtained written permission from

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

Data Collection and Analysis

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

Demographic Questionnaire and Standardized Assessments

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

Subject Object Interview

To understand participants constructive-developmental perspectives, I administered
the SOI. In this interview, participants are given words or phrases to prompt a story of
a recent experience related to the prompt word. For example, in response to the word
success, a participant might tell a story of accomplishing something she had not been
sure she could accomplish. After hearing the story, the interviewer asks questions to
assess the developmental perspective from which the story was told.
To acquire additional information about how participants understood their learning
experiences, I situated the SOI within the college and career preparation class as much
as possible. For example, instead of asking, Tell me about a time you experienced
success, I asked, Tell me about a time you had success in the college prep class.
To help ensure that the interviewer elicits the participants meaning, rather than
imposing meaning, the interviewer frequently checks her understanding by reflecting
what she heard. Due to participants ELL status, I explicitly invited them to correct any
possible misunderstandings.

Ouellette-Schramm

225

Each SOI transcript was read and independently coded and scored by me and a
coscorer using the method described in the guide to administering and interpreting the
instrument (Lahey etal., 1988). We are both certified raters, which is accomplished
through training and practice culminating in accurate analyses of at least 8 of 10 SOI
transcripts. The fact that we are both certified raters increased the reliability of the
developmental findings (Lahey etal., 1988).
I also analyzed the SOIs for information that helped answer how participants
experienced academic language learning. In that process, I employed grounded
theory analysis (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1965). In order to reduce the
likelihood of projecting assumptions or theoretical bias onto participants meanings, I conducted line-by-line coding beginning with actions and processes
closely connected to participants own words and meanings, such as wanting to
understand vocabulary in one third of the interviews (Charmaz, 2006). Next, I
grouped codes by similarity of experiencing academic language learning, abstracting from the original, more literal codes to tentatively focused codes (Charmaz,
2006), such as grappling with new summary-writing conventions. As I analyzed
each subsequent interview, the codes from previous interviews helped inform the
initial parsing of the data in the grounded theory process of constant comparison
(Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1965). Throughout this process, I continued
grouping data based on similarities in meaning and experience, and continually
refined codes to more tightly fit the data (Charmaz, 2006). I rereviewed the codes
at several stages to assess the soundness of the distinctions and make changes as
necessary. As a final step, I reread the interviews toward saturation of each category (Glaser & Strauss, 1965), coding any initially missed supporting data, as
well as any data that were in dissonance with the themes I had developed.
While I purposefully brought the theoretical lens of CDT to this study, grounded
theory analysis allowed academic languagelearning themes to arise from participants own words and experiences.

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

226

Adult Education Quarterly 66(3)

Learning Experience Interview

To understand participants academic languagelearning experiences, I conducted a 1-hour
LEI with each participant. This open-ended qualitative interview was adapted from the
Adult Development Project Experience of Learning Interview (Kegan etal., 2001) and
from similar studies investigating learning experiences through a constructive-developmental lens (Boes, 2006; Bridwell, 2013; Lindsley, 2011). The interview protocol included
questions organized into three categories: expectations of the class with questions including, What were you hoping to learn in the class?; learning take-aways with questions
including, What are the most important things youre learning in the class? and process
of learning with questions including, How do you think you learned these things?
I analyzed data from the LEIs using the same grounded theory process (Charmaz,
2006) described in the second analytical step of the SOI, beginning with line-by-line
coding of actions and processes rooted in participants words and meaning, grouping
codes by similarity of academic languagelearning experiences, and constantly comparing and refining codes (Charmaz, 2006) such as having to use my own words.
To understand learners academic languagelearning experiences in relation to their
constructive-developmental perspectives, I used findings from Research Question 1,
the constructive-developmental perspective of each participant, to reexamine the
grounded theory codes generated about participants learning experiences. I then separated the interviews according to similar developmental perspectives and repeated the
grounded theory analysis process to allow new codes the opportunity to emerge within
specific developmental categories.

Trustworthiness, Researchers Role, and Reflexivity

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

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

227

Ouellette-Schramm
Table 1. Demographics, English-Reading Levels, and SOI Scores.

Years School in
School
in the the United
in home
States
ESL/ABE reading SOI
United
Age Country country
(years)
level
score
Participant (years) of origin (years) First language(s) States
Illyas
Sofiya
Leticia

45
73
30

Somalia
Somalia
Mexico

10
0
12

Somali
Somali
Spanish

2
13
10

>1
2
1.5

Louam
Nabil
Teresa
Maria
Masha

40
26
23
40
30

Eritrea
Kenya
Mexico
Mexico
China

12
11
8
13
11

17
1
11
1
4

1+
>1
3
>1
1

Salazam

42

Ecuador

Tigrigna
Somali
Spanish
Spanish
Khazak, Uzbek,
Kurgis, Chinese
Spanish

25

Advanced ESL
2(3)
High Int. ESL
2(3)
Low Adult
3
Secondary Ed.
Beg. Basic Ed.
3
High Int. ESL
3
High Int. Basic Ed. 3
High Int. ESL
3/4
High Int. ESL
3/4
Low Adult
Secondary Ed.

4/3

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

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

Developmentally Distinct Academic LanguageLearning Experiences

Depending on their developmental perspectives, learners described and demonstrated
qualitatively distinct academic languagelearning experiences.
Instrumental academic language learning. Instrumental learners in this study described qualitatively unique experiences with academic language learning. They oriented to clear-cut

228

Adult Education Quarterly 66(3)

learning successes, consequences, and rules. In summarizing, they described understanding the text itself as the end goal, rather than the first step of a larger process. Similarly, they
described summary writing as understanding the text, then writing something. When
finding the main idea of a passage, these learners seemed to look for what was important
in an absolute, concrete way, rather than within the context of the text. They also appeared
at times to respond to texts with free association, and to disengage, or otherwise engage
in class activities making abstract reasoning demands. They valued teacher explanations
and group work as rules to be followed and strategies for acquiring more information.
Illyas described literacy success in terms of getting the right answer during dictations,
and learning a certain number of words: Teacher give us dictation, and we write our
name, and words, and then I get answer. . . . If you write ten words, its good (LEI).
Sofiya likewise oriented to clear-cut, quantifiable evidence of success in her writing:
Sometimes she [the teacher] circle. Now she circle three or four or five. But when my
goal is, she have to circle one (SOI). Just as they focused on concrete successes, Illyas
and Sofiya oriented toward concrete consequences. When asked what made her worry
about missing class, Sofiya explained, Because I know I missed sentence (SOI).
In the summarizing unit, Sofiya and Illyas both described understanding the text as
the end goal in and of itself. Sofiya explained that for her, understanding is success:
Sometimes I read something before I didnt know. But now I know what the meaning.
Thats my successful, period (SOI).
Just as instrumental learners described understanding the text as the end goal, they
described summarizing as understanding the text, then writing something. Illyas,
explaining how he decided what to write in a summary draft, explained, First I read
paragraph. And I understand something in the paragraph. And I write something (LEI).
When asked about identifying main ideas, Illyas and Sofiya described ideas that
were important in an absolute way. For example, Sofiya, when asked about the main
ideas she had highlighted in a reading, explained:
I think it was, hundred and thousands of people, that number I highlighted.
WHAT MADE YOU HIGHLIGHT THAT NUMBER?
Because its a big number. A big number. (LEI)

Both Illyas and Sofiya at times appeared to respond to questions about their experience with a summarizing activity by free associating with the text read in that activity.
In response to a question about having summarized a short article in class, Sofiya
listed characteristics of the word product, which appeared within it, then concluded,
It create something new, thats product. I told you, if you remember, I like to help
people. So I like something product. So of course (LEI).
In describing what helped her learn, Sofiya described listening to the teacher as a
rule to be followed: I have to listen teacher. . . . And I have to take the pen or pencil,
I have to write what teacher said. . . . You have to good student (SOI). Illyas described
the benefit of group work in terms of acquiring more information: Group work is

Ouellette-Schramm

229

good, is better than one person . . . because you remember something . . . I remember
something, and another person remembers something (SOI).
Socializing and transitioning toward self-authoring. Socializing learners and those transitioning toward self-authoring described summary learning within the themes of learning a new genre in a new language, including understanding first, and working harder
in English; using different approaches to find the main idea of a text; and grappling
with new writing conventions specific to summarizing. They also described participating in stages of writing. In describing what helped them learn, they explained how
teacher feedback and group work helped clarify misconceptions.
Whereas instrumental learners had described understanding the text as the end goal,
these learners described understanding the text as merely the first step. Louam explained,
If you dont understand what we are reading, its hard, nothing can do (LEI).
Whereas instrumental learners described the main idea of a text in an absolute way,
several of these learners described taking different approaches to identifying important
ideas in the context of the text. Teresa explained answering the wh-questions, a strategy learned in class:
Sometimes its make me confuse, like, oh here is a detail. And I keep reading. Oh,
heres another detail. And Im like, which one its the more important detail? Which
one goes in the summary, this or this?

When asked how she decided, Teresa explained: . . . the most in a summary you
need to explain what, why, where, when (LEI).
From their socializing perspectives in which relating abstract ideas becomes accessible, some learners also described comparing ideas in the text to find the main idea.
When asked how she decided which ideas in a text are important, Louam, with a metaphor, described relating ideas back to the main idea:
Its [the main idea] connects all the message. It will give you more to understand what is
the main. . . . In my language they call it like when a plant is connected. They call it harek.
Its connected, when its grow the leaf, its like design. So the idea is coming together, and
explain the message. (SOI)

Several learners constructing meaning from socializing perspectives and beyond

explained the challenge of writing with new genre conventions. Leticia described
using my own words as a new and initially confusing expectation:
Sometimes we have to read the article and find the main idea. But, in this case, we dont
have to find the main idea, we have to write in our own words the main idea, so thats why
I was confused. (LEI)

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

230

Adult Education Quarterly 66(3)

Participants constructing meaning from socializing perspectives and transitioning

toward self-authoring also described participating in stages of writing. Louam
describes a process of note taking, using the strategy of answering the wh-questions
she had learned in class, and then writing:
We have to . . . read the article, right? And then the take notes. So I try to take the notes.
And answer the question. So thats why I have the key words. . . . Then, I try to answer
the question, what, where, when, who and why. And then . . . I can start with this
introduction. . . . And I try to write. (LEI)

Some learners constructing meaning from socializing perspectives and beyond,

where it becomes developmentally possible to take anothers perspective, described
taking the readers viewpoint to guide their writing. Nabil explained:
It can maybe attract the reader . . . so that you get his mind interested, continue reading.
When you use some similes, some other personification, metaphor, and some proverb,
some those stuff when you put them together, it can be maybe very sweet to read, very
interesting [laughs]. (LEI)

Nabil also described how the teachers clarification helped him get the concept of
main ideas versus details. Initially, he explained, I just go another way . . . I left the main
details and the more important ones behind (LEI). After, he continued, she explain to
me, one by one, step by step, what I supposed to do, then then I get the concept (LEI).
Leticia described how during group work, a classmates summary helped her clarify a misconception:
Someone give . . . the main idea . . . but not directly from the passage. With their own
words. So then . . . I understand, I dont have to copy, I have to say what I understand
from the passage . . . I have to say in my own words. (LEI)

Academic language learning on the journey to self-authoring.Learners transitioning

toward self-authoring perspectives uniquely expressed learning for personal development and beginning to self-monitor learning.
While these learners still expressed, on one level, practical motivations for learning,
they also expressed, on another level, wanting to learn for personal development. Maria
enthusiastically described how she was gaining new ways of seeing life through class
readings, including the novel The Color of My Words: I think that when you read the
book, your mind is more open . . . you learn many things . . . its amazing (SOI).
Whereas instrumental and socializing learners described group work as a way to get
more information or learn from others, respectively, Salazam framed class group work
as an opportunity for personal development: This class here is teaching me kind of
leadership skills (SOI).
One hallmark of self-authorship is developing internal benchmarks by which to
measure success. Accordingly, Masha explained how she would, in time, assess her
own learning:

Ouellette-Schramm

231

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

Observations
Classroom observations during the summarizing unit yielded a pattern of either otherwise engaging or visibly engaging in activities. Illyas and Sofiya, when encountering activities requiring abstract reasoning, showed signs of otherwise engaging.
Sofiya, during a small group activity in which learners were comparing three summaries, sat to the side underlining seemingly new words before finally checking her cell
phone and talking with a classmate in Somali. Similarly, when his small group was
discussing the main idea of an article, Illyas sat to the side, underlining words.
Corroborating their descriptions of engaging in stages of writing, all learners constructing meaning from socializing perspectives and beyond demonstrated actively
engaging in abstract activities. For example, where Sofiya had sat to the side, underlined new words, and turned to her cell phone and a classmate during a small group
discussion of the best of three summaries, Teresa, in the same group, argued for the
summary she thought was best.

Discussion
The developmentally distinct ways in which participants described and demonstrated
academic language learning are consistent with what might be predicted by their
developmental stage descriptions in Kegans (1982, 1994) CDT. Several of these
themes are consistent with previous findings on how adult development affects ABE/
ESOL learning experiences (Kegan etal., 2001).
Sofiya and Illyass academic languagelearning experiences, on one level, appear to
represent struggle. However, when viewed together from the internally coherent perspective of their instrumental worldview, these themes describe a logical pathway
toward success as they defined it. If understanding the text is in fact the end goal, it is
logical that summarizing could be understood as first and foremost understanding the
text, then simply writing something. If reality is absolute and concrete, it follows that
what is important from a text would be that which is important in an absolute way. If
abstract reasoning is not yet accessible, it is also logical that these learners could experience disconnection from and opt out of abstract summarizing activities, instead pursuing success as they defined itunderstanding the textby rereading and underlining
unfamiliar words. Sofiya and Illyass tendencies to free associate echo Taylors (2006)
description of instrumental writing as a brain dump, of disconnected and unedited
thoughts, logical because from this perspective, adults are still developing the capacity
to take a perspective on, and therefore regulate, their own thinking (Kegan, 1982;
Kegan etal., 2001). Sofiya and Illyass focus on concrete successes and black-andwhite rules is consistent with previous findings that native English-speaking college
learners constructing meaning from Perrys stage of dualism, similar to Kegans (1982,

232

Adult Education Quarterly 66(3)

1994) instrumental stage, oriented to looking for the right answer, there being only
one from their developmental perspective. Their concrete conceptions of learning, rulebased orientations to listening to the teacher and conception of group work as means to
get more information echo instrumental learning experience findings in the National
Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy study (Kegan etal., 2001).
The experiences of socializing learners and those transitioning toward self-authoring
were consistent with Kegans descriptions of the abstract reasoning characteristic of these
stages. Rather than seeing understanding as the end goal, they described it as the first step
in a process, which appears to reflect their developmental capacity to conceive of summarizing in a multilayered way. The strategies these learners used to find the main idea were
consistent with their developmental capacity to make abstractions and relate ideas, for
example, to find the main idea. These learners descriptions of engaging in stages of writing also reflect a broader conception of the writing process, as in Louams description of
first taking notes, identifying key words, answering the wh-questions, and then drafting.
Just as learners constructing meaning from socializing perspectives and beyond appeared
to be using their abstract reasoning capacities to follow steps in a process, they also seemed
to be using their developmental capacity to take anothers point of view to envision a
readers perspective, and in turn, use that perspective to shape writing choices. They
appeared to use their developmental capacity to reflect on their own thinking (Kegan,
1982, 1994) to clarify misunderstandings through teacher explanations and group work.
The themes unique to learners transitioning toward self-authorship are consistent with
Kegans (1982, 1994) description of this stage, marked by an increased concern with personal competence and reliance on internal authority. These learners ways of monitoring
their own learning appear to reflect a growing capacity for and interest in gauging their
own learning and competence and aligns with previous findings among self-authoring
adult ESOL learners (Kegan etal., 2001). These learners orientation to learning for personal development was also consistent with previous findings among self-authoring ABE/
ESOL learners, who oriented toward the intrinsic value of learning (Kegan etal., 2001).

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

Ouellette-Schramm

233

Charmaz (2006) argues, the notion of researcher objectivity in any study, including
this one, is a misnomer. Other researchers analyzing the same data using the same
methods may, through their own theoretical biases and experiential inferences, have
found other valuable interpretations of these nine learners academic languagelearning experiences.

Implications
Supporting developmentally diverse academic language learning.These nine learners
appeared to bring unique developmental perspectivesand distinct learning needsto
the experience of academic language learning. To experience success and meaning in
academic language learning, instrumental learners would likely benefit from scaffolding
over time. Taylor (2006) describes developmental scaffolding as the distance between
what a learner can do independently and with support, likening the concept to Vygotskys
(1978) notion of proximal development, the space between what a learner can do
alone and with help. Perhaps one of the most organic strategies for scaffolding summarizing with instrumental learners would be to start with their already strong focus on
understanding the text, which is indeed a first necessary step in summary writing (Swales
& Feak, 2012). Understanding the text can be addressed through answering comprehension questions. As Illyas put it, . . . if you are understanding well, you know paragraph
and reading, you can easy, easy to answer, A, B, C (LEI). Comprehension questions can
be framed as the wh-questions that many learners with socializing perspectives and
beyond found helpful in identifying the main ideas in their readings.
While already engaged in the cognitive demands of academic language learning,
socializing learners and beyond described this learning as challenging. They may benefit from strategies leveraging their abstraction capacities, such as metacognitive
activities promoting reflection, or graphic organizers for visualizing and analyzing
example texts and their own. With their tendency to self-reflect during group work,
they may also find structured opportunities to compare and discuss their writing helpful. They may benefit from being challenged to begin self-monitoring and evaluating
their writing, for example, through writing portfolios.
Learners on the journey toward self-authoring also described learning a new genre
in a new language as challenging, and could also benefit from these strategies.
Uniquely, they also described looking for not only learning but personal development
in the academic language class. From Marias perspective, one way of addressing this
is through rich classroom readings. For Salazam, this personal development came
from having informal leadership opportunities in class. These learners are poised for
self-editing their own writing, and will likely be motivated by learning skills and content that support them in achieving their self-defined goals.

Conclusion
While adult ESOL learners, like all adult learners, bring hidden developmental diversities and developmentally distinct learning needs to the academic language classroom,

234

Adult Education Quarterly 66(3)

most educators would not know the developmental perspectives of their learners.
However, just as adult ESOL educators draw on their awareness of diversities such
ethnicity, culture, and language to inform instructional decisions, educators can strive
to be cognizant of hidden developmental diversities in the adult ESOL classroom.
Being aware of diversities in how adults construct meaning can help educators more
effectively respond to learners developmentally distinct ways of constructing meaning
with academic language learning. This, in turn, can help educators create more developmentally inclusive academic language experiences for all adult ESOL learners.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

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

References
Bailey, T., & Cho, S-W. (2010). Developmental education in community colleges (Issue brief).
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/PDFDocs/college-completion/07-developmentaleducation-in-community-colleges.pdf
Baxter, M. M. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship: Constructivedevelopmental pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Belenky, M. F. (1986). Womens ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bigelow, M., & Watson, J. (2014). The role of educational level, literacy, and orality in L2
learning. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 461-475). New York, NY: Routledge.
Boes, L. (2006). Learning from practice: A constructive-developmental study of undergraduate service-learning pedagogy (Order No. 3221585, Harvard University). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 305334897)
Bridwell, S. (2013). A constructive-developmental perspective on the transformative learning
of adults marginalized by race, class, and gender. Adult Education Quarterly, 63, 127-146.
doi:10.1177/0741713612447854
Brookfield, S., & Holst, J. D. (2011). Radicalizing learning: Adult education for a just world.
San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cummins, J. (1979, October). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters (Working Papers on Bilingualism,
No. 19, pp. 197-205). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED184334
Drago-Severson, E. (2004). Becoming adult learners: Principles and practices for effective
development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Ouellette-Schramm

235

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), The

handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Gholamain, M., & Geva, E. (1999). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in English and Persian. Language Learning, 49, 183-217.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL:
Aldine.
Helsing, D., Broderick, M., & Hammerman, J. (2001). A developmental view of ESL students
identity transitions in an urban community college. In R. Kegan, M. Broderick, E. DragoSeverson, D. Helsing, N. Popp, & K. Portnow (Eds.), Toward a new pluralism in the
ABE/ESL classroom: Teaching to multiple cultures of mind (pp. 77-228). Retrieved from
http://www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/research/report19a.pdf
Jitendra, A. K., & Gajria, M. (2011). Reading comprehension instruction for students with
learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43(8), 1-16.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Kegan, R., Broderick, M., Drago-Severson, E., Helsing, D., Popp, N., & Portnow, K. (Eds.).
(2001). Toward a new pluralism in the ABE/ESOL classroom: Teaching to multiple
cultures of mind (Research Monograph of the National Center for the Study of Adult
Learning and Literacy, No.19). Boston, MA: World Education.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). The meaning and measurement of moral development. Worcester, MA:
Clark University Press.
Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 214-222.
Kruidenier, J., MacArthur, C., & Wrigley, H. (2010). Adult education literacy instruction: A
review of the research. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
Kucer, S. (2014). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for teaching reading and writing
in school settings. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lahey, L., Souvaine, E., Kegan, R., Goodman, R., & Felix, S. (1988). A guide to the subject-object interview: Its administration and interpretation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University, Graduate School of Education, Laboratory of Human Development.
Leki, I. (1996). L2 composing: Strategies and perceptions. In B. Leeds (Ed.), Writing in a second language: Insights from first and second language teaching and research (pp. 27-37).
White Plains, NY: Longman.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lindsley, R. B. (2011). Constructive developmental theory and programming across cultures:
An examination of the development and experiences of adult Burmese participants in a high
quality adaptive capacity development program (Order No. 3459743, Harvard University).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 875951085)
Loevinger, J. (1976). Stages of ego development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
McKinley, J. (2015). Critical argument and writer identity: Social constructivism as a theoretical framework for EFL academic writing. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 12,
184-207.

236

Adult Education Quarterly 66(3)

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry.

Boston, MA: Pearson.
Mellard, D. F., Krieshok, T., Fall, E., & Woods, K. (2013). Dispositional factors affecting
motivation during learning in adult basic and secondary education programs. Reading and
Writing, 26, 515-538.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York,
NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. Oxford, England: International
Universities Press.
Pimentel, S. (2013). College and career readiness standards for adult education (Department of
Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education). Retrieved from http://lincs.ed.gov/
publications/pdf/CCRStandardsAdultEd.pdf
Popp, N., & Boes, L. (2001). Competence as a developmental process. In R. Kegan, M. Broderick,
E. Drago-Severson, D. Helsing, N. Popp, & K. Portnow (Eds.), Toward a new pluralism in the ABE/ESL classroom: Teaching to multiple cultures of mind (pp. 615-662).
Retrieved from http://www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/research/report19a.pdf
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks
and skills. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Taylor, K. (2006). Autonomy in self-directed learning: A developmental journey. In C. Hoare
(Ed.), Handbook of adult development and learning (pp. 196-218). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Taylor, K., Marienau, C., & Fiddler, M. (2000). Developing adult learners: Strategies for teachers and trainers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Villegas-Reimers, E. (1996). Self development of Venezuelan adolescents: A test of Kegans
theory of subject-object interview in another culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
27, 25-36.
Vorobel, O., & Kim, D. (2011). Upper-intermediate-level ESL students summarizing in
English. TESOL Journal, 2, 330-354.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zwiers, J. (2008). Building academic language: Essential practices for content classrooms,
Grades 5-12. Newark, DE: Jossey-Bass.

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

Copyright of Adult Education Quarterly is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.