Engaging Diverse Adult Learners

Gleason, Barbara.. “Returning Adults to the Mainstream: Toward a Curriculum for Diverse Student Writers.” Mainstreaming Basic Writers: Politics and Pedagogies of Access. Ed. Gerry McNenny and Sallyanne Fitzgerald. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001. 121-143. Print.

Barbara Gleason states that remedial education is “inappropriate” for those returning to college after five plus years and presents an approach that acknowledges many diversities among students (121). Her criticism of remedial education is something my research affirms, although she’s chosen to define specifically mature returning students while most of what I’ve read asserts that remedial/non-credit coursework is problematic for college students of all ages.

Gleason notes the range of diversities among returning students including “age, gender, family, educational history, culture, social class, sexual orientation, and employment” (121). All of these diversities are relevant, especially in a large community college system such as my own (and not just for mature students).

Gleason proposes using specific genres including personal narratives and autoethnogoraphies in order to help instructors get to better know students and assist them in “entering the culture of college” adding that this approach can “pave the way for their acquisition of academic literacies” (121). These assignments, she later suggests, also help students form bonds among one another (126).

Gleason sees the composition class as a place where students learn both academic and mainstream culture (122). Many of her students write about their previous academic struggles and failures, which engages them in their own learning in a unique way.

Although Gleason’s approach focuses on working adults returning to the classroom, many of her strategies apply to the community college classroom. My courses have a wide range of students and Gleason shows an understanding of the complex problems students face when joining the academic realm. She explains, “Unlike many middle class, native English-speaking people, these students do not usually experience college as a natural extension of their home communities or even of high school” (123). Again, this concept doesn’t only apply mature students.

Gleason explains some of her initial writing assignments for her course, including an assignment where each student writes a letter articulating their feelings about returning to school and a questionnaire about  their background. She calls on Louise Wetherbee Phelps to show that her role as instructor is to introduce students to “a lifelong process of literacy development” (122).

Gleason’s approach fits well with our readings for this week. Her approach involves beginning with personal/internal assignments and moving towards less/somewhat external assignments:

1. a language/literacy autobiography
2. a storytelling and a story writing multitask project
3. a student interview report
4. an ethnogrpahy research writing project

Gleason writes, “By inviting them to conduct interviews with one another during class, I encourage students to use their existing language forms as a bridge to acquiring academic styles of thinking, talking, and writing (126). Her attitude dovetails well with the points that Lo Bianco and Gutierrez make about multilingualism as an advantage that can lead to greater meaning making.

Gleason’s article offers insight for instructors working with mature returning students but really emphasizes an understanding of the variety of diversities within almost any course. Her assignments seem to transition students from the personal to external in a way that engages that diversity.