Adults in the Writing Classroom

The congruence between Malcolm Knowles’ adult learning theory, andragogy, and writing program curricula is perhaps best reflected in the copious research within composition studies that either references andragogy directly or aligns with specific adult learning principles. For example, Robert Sommer premises his book, Teaching Writing to Adults, on the idea that “only andragogy can lead to writing that is worth writing and worth reading” (xii). Others suggest instructional tactics that correspond with particular tenets of andragogy, such fostering a collaborative and supportive writing environment based on active classroom participation (“Anxiety;" Baitinger; Miretello; Stutzman Pate), which is consistent with andragogy’s endorsement of a cooperative and responsive classroom climate. Specific recommendations include providing students time in class to discuss their writing anxieties (Miretello), establishing that the instructor is available as a resource rather than an authority (Stutzman Pate), and valuing the development of creativity and personal expression as much as mechanics and style (Baitinger). 

​

Other scholars highlight the importance of acknowledging adults’ prior experiences – particularly their past writing experiences – as the starting point from which learning needs are identified and subsequent learning will build (“Anxiety;" Gillam; Michaud). Gillam, for instance, asserts that “returning students’ writing background can and should be the matrix out of which their abilities develop” (15), recommending  that instructors begin their writing courses with “experience portfolios,” in which students are asked to provide samples of their writing and describe significant life experiences, their writing history, and how they view themselves as writers (11). Indeed, adult learners may be familiar with a variety of different genres through their personal and professional experiences that may, in turn, influence their reception of unfamiliar genres introduced in their writing courses. Having adult learners complete an initial portfolio thereby enables instructors to better understand their adult students and how they may be navigating their writing assignments. Moreover, the insights gained from students’ writing portfolios can then inform the content of the course as well as instructors’ teaching strategies. Viewed from an andragogical standpoint, preliminary writing portfolios thus facilitate a mutual diagnosis of learning needs, as they require students to evaluate their own writing and how they view themselves as writers before the bulk of instruction even begins. In so doing, adult learners are allowed equal involvement in assessing their learning needs.

​

Similarly, offering adult students control over the writing assignments themselves (Gillespie) or, at the very least, influence over what instructors ultimately teach and assign, has also been recommended (“Anxiety;" Baitinger; Rose; Uehling). Scholars’ approval of this practice therefore foregrounds another central tenet of andragogy: that instruction should be student-centered, catering to the unique interests and learning needs of adult students. Baitinger, for instance, recommends “incorporating topics and tasks that adult learners have identified as meaningful to them” as a way to potentially “contribute in transferring the power for growth and development into the learner’s hands” (7). Gillespie, on the other hand, endorses project-based learning as a way to encourage “collaborative learning and writing for authentic purposes” (27), wherein adult students are allowed to form project groups and corresponding writing assignments based on topics they find personally meaningful. In so doing, students’ learning follows the problem-unit structure for andragogical instruction (see Adult Learning Theory) and is accordingly sequenced by adults’ readiness to learn rather than the logic of course content determined by the instructor. This, in turn, accommodates adult students’ need to be self-directing and derive relevance from their learning, both of which are also principles of andragogy.

​

Furthering Gillespie’s conceptual notion of this, Cleary investigates the effectiveness of project-based instruction within an individualized writing course known as Writing Workshop, which, incidentally, also incorporates nearly all of the elements the andragogical model of instruction dictates ("How Antonio Graduated"). Students start the course by assessing their own writing in conjunction with their instructor, they develop a plan to improve their writing based on these assessments and in collaboration with their instructor, they identify resources to aid their ongoing writing development, and they work on writing tasks that are important to them (“How Antonio Graduated”). Already, therefore, Writing Workshop typifies the fulfillment of the andragogical model within a writing course specifically. In addition, Cleary found that students who took Writing Workshop were retained at higher rates than national averages, with 81 percent having passed their courses “earning an average letter grade of a B” (“How Antonio Graduated” 47).  The adaptation of the andragogical process model to writing classes in particular, therefore, is not represented simply and only as scholar’s abstract conceptualization of it; andragogy has also proven highly beneficial in practice as well.

​

Even assigning specific genres of writing for adult learners has been suggested (Boud; Clark and Rossiter; Hashimoto; Houp; Jarvis; "Genre, Medium, and Learning to Write"). For example, in a study investigating the effectiveness of autobiographical writing in adult learner contexts, Smith found that autobiography can legitimize and leverage adult learner experiences as “bridges to ‘new’ learning” ("Genre, Medium, and Learning to Write" 92). Houp, on the other hand, examined how narrative writing gave an adult student the opportunity to derive meaning from her life experiences while simultaneously cultivating writing skills. Clark and Rossiter even go so far as to postulate that the learning process itself involves constructing an internal narrative, and that narrative writing therefore offers an enhanced way to connect lived experience to learning (68-69). They also suggest utilizing learning journals wherein adult students reflect and write about their learning experiences as they occur within the course. This journal writing enables adults to make sense of their experiences, their connection to learning, and thereby “build a foundation for new experiences that will provoke new learning” (Boud 10-11). The unifying andragogical precept around which all of these writing forms revolve, therefore, is adult learners’ experience and how it should be leveraged as a principal resource for contextualizing new learning. 

​

This is not to say that other pedagogical theories do not stress the importance of student-centered instruction like andragogy does, however. If anything, the harmony between what is considered to be best practices for writing pedagogy and andragogy confirms that WPAs and writing faculty need not make changes to their curricula that are disruptive or significantly divergent from what they are already doing in order to better account for adult learners in their writing courses. For this reason, WPAs are encouraged to educate themselves on andragogy and other adult learning theories to complement their current curricula and teaching practices. As a starting point, Cleary and Wozniak’s use of Knowles’ andragogical principles as a heuristic for investigating existing writing program policy and curricula might prove useful (see Figure 1).