branding and professionalization in u.s. adult education master's programs

Running head: THE CONSEQUENCES OF GOING CORPORATE

The consequences of going corporate: Branding and

professionalization in U.S. Adult Education Master’s Programs

Laura Gogia

May, 2013

THE CONSEQUENCES OF GOING CORPORATE

2

Abstract

As society commoditizes knowledge, institutions of higher education have begun assuming

business strategies, philosophies, and practices to survive in what has become an increasingly

competitive market. Branding, which involves sending a clear, simple, consistent message to a

targeted audience with the intention of acquiring their allegiance, is one of the marketing

practices frequently assumed by universities and university programs. As a field, adult education

historically resists attempts at standardization, professionalization, and other practices consistent

with branding. By studying the websites of adult education master’s programs located at nine

U.S. public universities, I show that these programs are nevertheless engaging in program

branding. They target and then package their curricula for specific professional sectors within

the field of adult education, showing notable favoritism towards the sectors of human resource

development and higher education administration. While these sector-based branding practices

are consistent with the pragmatic focus of today’s knowledge society, they may contribute to the

cultural drift within the field of adult education, which will ultimately retard the field’s progress

towards professionalization. Thoughtful consideration should take place before adult education

programs engage in branding their programs.

Keywords: branding, adult education, higher education, professionalization, best practices


3

List of Tables and Figures

Tables

1. Summary of the 2008 CPAE Standards for Graduate Programs in Adult Education……….8

2. Study inclusion criteria……………………………………………………………………….12

3. Demographic information ……………………………………………………………………13

4. Overview of study findings…………………………………………………………………..15

5. Requirements and options for completion of a master’s degree in adult education…………18

6. Face-to-Face or online: Course format options………………………………………………19

7. Examples of track and professional sector matching…………………………………………20

8. Michigan State University: Course offerings formatted for program-level separation………25

9. Northern Illinois University: Course offerings formatted for within-program separation…...27

10. Availability of adult literacy courses………………………………………………………...28

Figures

1. Cleveland State University: A structural counterexample……………………………………21

2. University of South Florida: Separating students at the departmental level……………….…22

3. The University of Georgia: Separating students at the program level………………………..23

4. Pennsylvania State University: Separating students at the program level……………………24

5. Northern Illinois University: Separating students within the program through tracks……….26


4

Introduction

Contemporary society has been called a “knowledge society” because our increasingly

global economy depends on knowledge- and skill-based services (Kasworm, 2011). Since

institutions of higher education are one source of knowledge, the change is significantly affecting

university practices. It has been credited with the new emphasis on student-centered education,

outcome-based education, accountability, and quality assurance (Ivan, 2011). But not everyone

feels change is universally good; in this new world, knowledge is a marketable commodity and

as such may be appreciated for its utility rather than for itself (Kasworm, 2011). As a society

and as individuals, we demand knowledge that is practical, pragmatic, and directly applicable to

our professions (Natale & Doran, 2012). Within this framework of commoditization, institutions

of higher education are increasingly adopting business terminology, practices, and philosophies

(Natale & Doran, 2012). Of the many examples of business practices found in contemporary

higher education, the adoption of branding and best practices are arguably two of the most

pervasive (Natale & Doran, 2012; Robbins, 2009).

The American Marketing Association defines a brand as a “name, term, sign, symbol or

design, or a combination of them intended to identify the goods and services of one seller…and

to differentiate them from those of other sellers” (Lake, 2013, para. 1). While hundreds of

books, articles, and blogs offer practical advice on branding within any professional or personal

context, the common themes of this advice consist of: (a) delivering a clear message, (b)

connecting with a target audience, (c) demonstrating consistency and credibility, and (d)

motivating the target to obtain the product or service (Lake, 2013). When a university employs

branding, it does so to send a clear message of what the university is and “what it stands for

[sic].” (Waerass & Solbakk, 2009, p. 449). Differentiation from other university programs is


5

essential, and in the intangible world of education, this most often translates into demonstrations

of the graduates’ experience and career marketability (Gupta & Singh, 2010; Natale & Doran,

2012). Although university branding has become a worldwide practice, critics have ethical

concerns about transforming students into consumers (Natale & Doran, 2012). Moreover, some

argue that there is limited data to support branding as a successful practice and call for the

development of better tools for the evaluation of branding within the educational context

(Chapleo, 2010).

The concept of “best practices,” a corporate buzz-phrase linked to equally buzz-worthy

terms like “accountability” and “evidence-based,” can be traced to Frederick Winslow Taylor,

the father of scientific management (Robbins, 2009). As early as 1911, Taylor sought to identify

practices leading to maximum prosperity, making the argument that businesses should

standardize to the most efficient practices and eliminate others (Robbins, 2009). While

complying with best practices is a common objective for businesses, universities, and other

public and private organizations, some critics argue that many best practices are

undersubstantiated and may not be best practices at all. Others argue that best practices are only

“better practices” and that the emphasis on a single right answer leads to unnecessary and

detrimental conformity amongst programs and individuals who are not contextually similar at all

(Axson, 2010).

While the terms “branding” and “best practice” have filtered into the adult education

literature as frameworks for discussing the practice of adult education (see Burrows & Baker,

2009), they are not generally used when discussing university-based professional development

for adult educators. Instead adult educators discuss the professionalization of the field, a related

concept defined as (1) producing a recognizably distinct service, (2) developing a specialized and


6

standardized knowledge base required to produce the service, and (3) controlling the market for

the service (Larson, 1977). Among other things professionalization requires standardization and

specialization of training which lends itself to the use of branding and compliance with best

practices (Cervero, 1992).

The debate regarding professionalization in the field of adult education began in the mid-

twentieth century and continues to figure prominently in the adult education literature (Kaswork,

Rose, & Ross-Gordon, 2010). Not all adult educators want the field to achieve standardization

and professionalization. John Ohliger, an adult educator and activist in the late twentieth

century, saw professionalization as a means of taming the field. Similar to critics of best

practices, Ohlinger was concerned that professionalization would impact learner freedom,

choice, and independence (Grace et al., 2009). In contrast, others consider the debate over

professionalization a non-issue, arguing that professionalism is a “function of pervasive social,

political, and economic forces inherent to Anglo-American capitalist societies” (Cervero, 1992,

p. 46). These scholars argue that as long as university-based adult education programs continue

to train and provide certification for adult educators, the field will inexorably trend towards

professionalization (Cervero, 1992).

Literature Review

The Road to Professionalization

The first university graduate programs in adult education were created in the 1930s,

partially as a result to pressure from the New Deal government; they needed a skilled cohort of

workforce educators that could train or re-train a relatively unskilled American labor force

(Cervero, 1992). By the 1960s, Houle (1964) identified 16 university adult education programs,


7

a number that escalated to the hundreds by the 1970s before stabilizing in the mid-100s for the

last few decades (Welton, 2010).

National-level professional organizations reflect further attempts to organize and

professionalize the field; the Adult Education Association of the U.S.A. (AEA) was created in

1951 by the merger of the Carnegie Foundation-supported American Association for Adult

Education and the Department of Adult Education of the National Education Association. It, in

turn, merged with the National Association of Public School Adult Educators in 1982 to become

the American Association for Adult and Continuing Education (AAACE; “American Education

Association/American Association for Adult and Continuing Education Records,” n.d., para. 2).

By the 1980s, creating “best practices” as a form of benchmarking had become popular in

higher education (Robbins, 2009). In response to the trend a division of the AACE, the

Commission of Professors for Adult Education (CPAE), developed the first Standards for

Graduate Programs in Adult Education in 1986 (“Commission of Professors of Adult Education

Records,” n.d., para. 2; Solstrom, 2012). These recommendations consisted of nine “core topical

areas” that the CPAE considered essential for doctoral studies programs in adult education.

Revisions were made to the Standards in 2008 and the updated list can be found in Table 1. This

list is the first and only benchmark available for measuring, comparing, and evaluating the

content of adult education graduate programs (Solstrom, 2011).


8

Table 1

Summary of the 2008 CPAE Standards for Graduate Programs in Adult Education.

2008 CPAE Standards for Graduate Programs in Adult Education

• Advanced study of adult learning

• Historical, philosophical foundations of adult education

• Study of leadership, including theories or organizational leadership,

administration and change

• Analysis/study of the changing role of technology in adult education

• Study of issues of policy in relation to adult education

• Analysis of globalization and international issues or perspectives in adult

education

• In-depth analysis of social, political, and economic forces that have shaped the

foundations and discourse within adult education

• Advanced specialty courses relevant to unique program and faculty strengths

• Appropriate depth of qualitative or quantitative research methodology

coursework to support dissertation research and ability to use existing

literature

Note. This list was adapted from Sonstrom, 2011.

The Limited Impact of “Best Practices”

Few researchers have attempted to identify what adult education programs teach and how

they function. Those that have done so tend to focus on the program content of doctoral

programs. Murk and Ross (1988) reviewed 32 course syllabi across 24 North American

universities and found that doctoral coursework in adult education typically fell into three major

categories: adult development theory, adult learning theory, and instructional methodologies.

DelGesso (1995), Harrison (1995), Milton et al. (2003), and Sonstrom et al., (2012) found

evidence of significant variability in the compliance of doctoral programs with the CPAE

Standards. The most recent study, Sonstrom et al., (2012) found that only two of 37 programs

met all nine recommendations. Overall mean compliance was 66%, with a range of 22% to 92%

compliance at the level of individual recommendations. While the Standards for Graduate


9

Programs in Adult Education has been available for over a decade, it appears to have had limited

impact on how adult education programs function.

Challenges for Professionalization

Of all the barriers to standardization in the adult education field, the diversity and

decentralized working conditions of adult educators may be the most important (Cervero, 1992;

Knox & Fleming, 2010; Merriam & Brockett, 2007; Sonstrom, 2012). As Bierema (2010) states,

the term “adult educator” can mean:

“…literary teacher, continuing education instructor, continuing professional educator,

labor educator, nonprofit staff, instructional designer, human resource developer, K-12

educator, corporate trainer, higher education administrator, extension agent, prison

educator, organization development consultant, college professor, career development

counselor, community activist, health educator, public official, or something else.” (p.

135)

The decentralization of adult educators means that they are often subject to and identify with the

policies, cultures, and motivations of the larger organization for which they work. In other

words, they identify as members of an industry, correctional facility, university, public health

entity, or nonprofit organization rather than adult educators (Knox & Fleming, 2010). Cultural

drift occurs across the field of adult education as members identify with different professional

sectors, developing sector-dependent terminology, theoretical frameworks, and instructional

techniques. Some adult educators working in certain sectors might even consider themselves

oppositional to other adult educators; literacy educators with a Freirian philosophical framework

for example may refuse to identify with workforce trainers who attempt to improve worker

efficiency and compliance. Such divisions lead to difficulty in achieving field standardization,

shared vision, and common goals (Knox & Fleming, 2010).

Research Purpose


10

The purpose of this study is to explore the branding practices, if any, of adult education

programs, specifically those offering master’s degrees and situated in large, public, research-

oriented American universities. Unlike previous research in the field, this is not meant to be a

comprehensive content analysis or evaluation for compliance with the CPAE Standards for

Graduate Programs in Adult Education. Instead, this report aims to answer the following

questions:

Do adult education programs brand themselves and, if so, how?

What is the purpose of adult education master’s programs and how is that purpose

communicated to perspective students?

How are adult education master’s programs targeting audiences, if at all? Who are these

audiences?

What are the current trends in the structure and content of adult education master’s

programs?

Methodology

Participants

Unlike previous researchers who strove to study all adult education graduate programs

(Hancock, 1995; Sonstrom et al., 2012), my purpose in establishing a list of adult education

programs was to identify programs that (a) actively contribute to the professional adult education

community and (b) possess profiles and resources similar to those of my home university,

Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU). Purposeful sampling was performed with the intent

to continue sampling until appropriate data saturation was achieved. I used the 2012 American

Association for Adult and Continuing Education (AAACE) 61st Annual Conference Program

Guide and Exhibitor Directory and the 2012 Human Resource Development Directory of

Academic Programs in the United States to identify faculty or programs promoting active

scholarship in adult education (American Association for Adult and Continuing Education, 2012;

Roberts, 2012). I achieved a database of 108 potential program sites through these two sources.


11

After removing the non-academic institutions (e.g., private adult education consulting

groups) and non-domestic universities from my database, I surveyed the websites of the

remaining 91 colleges and universities for evidence of master’s degree-bearing adult education

programs. Some adult education programs offered only certificates or doctorates in adult

education. Some presenters at the AAACE conference represented educational administration

and policy departments from universities that did not have adult education programs. Still others

were present at the AAACE to address issues of human resource or adult development and

represented schools of business, social work, or psychology rather than school of education-

based adult education programs. Of the 91 domestic universities represented at the AAACE

conference and in the Directory of Human Resource Development Directory of Academic

Programs, only 41 (45%) offer master’s programs in adult education.

The initial survey of the 91 university websites led to an internal sampling process that

culminated in the development of study inclusion criteria. The criteria, meant to identify

universities with similar demographics and resources to VCU, are summarized in Table 2. In

addition to criteria concerning university funding sources, research-orientation, and adult

education programming, I limited the participation of statewide university systems to one

university for each system. This decision was related to my concerns that system-wide policies

or resource-sharing might skew findings. In reality, this criterion affected only the Texas-based

university system as other university systems were limited by the other criteria.

Of the 41 programs, seven (17%) met all of the criteria: University of Georgia (Athens),

Michigan State University, University of South Florida (Tampa), Northern Illinois University,

Indiana University (Bloomington), Pennsylvania State University (University Park), and

University of Connecticut. Although the purpose of the study was to evaluate schools with


12

similar demographics to VCU, I opted to study two additional universities that did not meet the

Carnegie Research Classification criteria: Texas State University (San Marcos) and Cleveland

State University. My purpose in doing so was to evaluate whether adult education programs

located at research-oriented schools were distinctively different from those that were not. The

selection of these two programs was not random; their colleges of education appeared

structurally similar to the VCU School of Education. Data saturation was evident with the

sample size of nine programs.

Table 2

Study Inclusion Criteria

Public, non-profit universities located in the United States of America

Program titles suggesting a broad program of study, for example “Adult Learning”

or “Adult Education” rather than “Workforce Development” or “Adult Literacy”

“Very high” or “High” research Carnegie classification

Only one representative from a state-wide university system

The universities sampled for this study are large universities located in the northeast,

southern, and central United States. Some but not all are land grant colleges, most are located in

mid-sized urban settings, and all of them are large enough in area and population to considerably

impact the culture and economy of their home cities. All offer baccalaureate, master’s, doctoral,

and professional degrees in hundreds of different programs. Almost half of the programs are

affiliated with prominent members of the adult education field, including Sharan Merriam

(University of Georgia), John Dirkx (Michigan State University), Libby Tisdale and Ed Taylor

(Pennsylvania State University), and Lisa Baumgartner (Northern Illinois University).

Additional demographic information about the programs can be found in Table 3.


13

Table 3

Demographic information for the adult education master’s programs included in the study.

University Master’s

Program

Name

Student

Population

Carnegie

Research

Classificationa

Number of

Colleges in

University

Number of

Departments in

College/School

of Education

Relevant US News

and World Report

Rankings, 2013 b,c

The University

of Georgia

(Athens)d

Adult

Education

34,475 Very High 18 9 #43 - Graduate

Programs, Education

Michigan State

Universitye

Higher, Adult

and Lifelong

Learning

48,906 Very High 17 4 #15 – Graduate

Programs, Education

Indiana

University

(Bloomington)f

Adult

Education

42,347 Very High 15 5 #19—Graduate

Programs, Education

Northern

Illinois

Universityg

Adult and

Higher

Education

22,990 High 7 6 #4—Online Graduate

Programs, Education

Pennsylvania

State University

(University

Park)h

Adult

Education

21,416 Very High 17 4 #28 (tie)—Graduate

Programs, Education

University of

South Florida

(Tampa)i

Adult

Education

41,047 Very High 15 8 #81—Graduate

Programs, Education

University of

Connecticutj

Adult

Learning

30,256 Very High 14 5 #28 (tie)—Graduate

Programs, Education

Texas State

University (San

Marcos)k

Adult

Education

34,225 No Research

Designation

(Basic)

9 3 #177—Graduate

Programs, Education

Cleveland State

Universityl

Adult

Learning and

Development

16,000 No Research

Designation

(Basic)

8 5 #161—Graduate

Programs, Education

a Carnegie Classifications for Research can be found at “Institution lookup,” n.d.

b US News and World Report 2013 rankings for graduate programs can be found at “Best education programs,” 2013.

c US News and World Report 2013 rankings for online graduate education programs can be found at “Best online graduate programs in

education,” 2013. d

“About UGA,” n.d. e “About MSU,” n.d.

f “About IU,” 2013.

g “About NIU,” 2013.

h “Welcome to Penn State’s fact book,” n.d.

i “About USF,” 2013.

j “About UConn,” n.d.


14

k “About Texas State,” n.d. l “Cleveland State University: About us,” 2013.

Procedures for Evaluation

This study utilizes a comparative case study design meant to capture the essence of adult

education master’s programs offered through public universities in the United States. Using

constant comparative methodology, I reviewed the websites of nine university programs at the

university, college, departmental, and program levels. Since adult education program websites

frequently fail to advertise online program options, the distance or online learning department

webpages were also reviewed for each university. There is precedent for using university

websites to gather information about adult education programs; Sonstrom used university

websites to compile a comprehensive list of adult education doctoral programs in 2011.

Quantitative data regarding program requirements, program format, and course offerings

were entered into Excel spreadsheets. Descriptive statistics were generated but a review of the

results suggested that the statistics alone did not capture the essence of these nine programs.

Further data collection was performed using constant comparative methodology. Emerging

themes were identified and coding was performed by both university program and emergent

theme.

Findings

Three themes emerged consistently from every program. The master’s degree programs:

(a) state their mission clearly, (b) explicitly target audiences, and (c) package curriculum in ways

that are consistent with their target audience and mission. These practices are consistent with the

practice of branding. Table 4 provides an overview of the findings.


15

Table 4

Overview of Study Findings.

Branding in Adult Education Master’s Programs

The Mission

• Define purpose as providing professional development for practitioners

• Use language consistent with constructivism and transformative and experiential

learning

The Audience

• Target students from specific professional sectors

• Reduce barriers to participation

The Structure

• Present curriculum in profession-specific packages

• Track students through the profession-specific curriculum

• Ensure consistent image by aligning program curriculum with department

orientation

The Mission

Adult education master’s program missions are stated in clear, unmistakable language;

master’s programs in adult education provide practitioners with continuing professional

development. Most programs include the terms “practitioner” or “practitioner-oriented” in their

statement. Of the nine programs reviewed only those at University of Georgia and University of

Connecticut imply any emphasis on research within their purpose statements by describing their

graduates as “scholar-practitioners and researchers” (“Adult Education, Learning and

Organization Development,” n.d., para. 1; “Adult Learning: Philosophy and mission,” n.d.,

para.1).

All mission statements are couched in the language of constructivism, transformative

learning, and other verbiage consistent with adult learning theory. The program purpose


16

statement at University of Connecticut explains that learning occurs within the context of

experience and “interactions between individuals and their environments” (“Adult Learning:

Philosophy and mission,” n.d., para.1). Cleveland State University stresses the importance of

learning to assist adult learners “as they cope with the effects of an ever changing world” (“Adult

Learning and Development program overview,” n.d., para. 1). “Conscious, systematic,

purposeful learning” is emphasized in the University of Georgia’s Adult Education program

(“Adult Education, Learning and Organization Development,” n.d., para. 1). Program mission

statements consistently use phrases that support mindfulness, resilience, and flexibility of

thought among adults.

The Audience

Target students from specific professional sectors.

Although mission statements clearly orient programs towards practitioners, most

programs go further in the explicit identification of their desired student population.

Occasionally programs narrow their message to the point of targeting only one professional

sector even though their program name suggests a broad base of learners. Michigan State

University, for example, designed its Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Learning (HALE) program for

students aiming for careers in higher education administration. The message is clear; their

purpose statement describes HALE master’s students as “…seeking to build careers in

community colleges, four-year college, and adult learning agencies” (“HALE: Higher, Adult,

Lifelong Education,” 2011, para. 2). Consistent with this message, the program offers

coursework entirely focused on administration, policy, and organizational learning (see Table 7).

Finally, its location in the Department of Educational Administration is also consistent with the

program’s message of mission, targeted audience, and content.


17

Other programs are less narrow in their targeted audience but just as specific when

discussing ideal student populations. For its Adult Education master’s program, Texas State

University (San Marcos) targets “practitioners who work or will work as teachers, program

developers and evaluators, or administrators” (“Mission”, n.d., para. 1). The Adult Learning

program at University of Connecticut lists the professional achievements of recent graduates, all

of whom have careers in business, nonprofit organizations, or educational administration (“Adult

Learning: Careers in adult learning,” n.d.). Regardless of who is targeted, all programs directly

communicate how graduates apply their training in the professional world.

Reduce barriers to participation.

All nine universities reduce barriers to participation in their programs in ways meaningful

for their targeted audience. For most, this means providing degree completion options and

convenient program formats for part-time students who are practitioners but not necessarily

confident scholars. Universities offer reasonable degree completion timeframes and experiential

learning rather than elaborate or extensive academic ventures. Of the programs reviewed, only

the Adult Education master’s program at Pennsylvania State University requires a written thesis

for degree completion. For all other programs writing a thesis is optional if offered at all, and the

non-thesis option is very visible for perspective students who might be intimidated by the writing

process. Table 5 provides a list of degree completion requirements for all of the university

master’s programs studied.


18

Table 5

Requirements and options for completion of a master’s degree in adult education.

a “Master’s degree in Adult and Higher Education,” 2013.

b “Course advice,” 2011.

c “Academic programs – Adult Education, Learning and Organization Development,” n.d.

d “M.A. Plan of study,” n.d.

e “Degrees and programs: Adult Education,” 2013.

f “Courses-Master of Education in Adult Education,” n.d.

g “M.A. in Adult Education,” 2009. h “Program overview college core,” 2011.

i “Degree outline,” n.d.

Providing convenient formats is another way universities attract busy practitioners to

their programs. Of the nine programs surveyed, only three require students to spend any time on

campus in face-to-face classroom settings. These three programs seek to offset the

inconvenience of traditional classroom participation by offering evening and weekend classes or

intensive week-long sessions. Of the programs that have online course offerings, only Northern

Illinois University has a hybrid program requiring students to take both online and face-to-face

classes to complete their degree. Pennsylvania State University and University of Illinois

(Bloomington) only offer online degrees in adult education. As this report was being prepared

the University of Georgia announced the closure of its face-to-face Adult Education M.Ed.

University Course Hours

(Required)

Capstone

Project

Thesis Portfolio

Northern Illinois Universitya 36 Yes No No

Michigan State Universityb

30 Yes No No

University of Georgiac 33 Yes No Yes

University of Connecticutd 24-30 No Optional No

Indiana University

(Bloomington)e

36 No Optional No

Pennsylvania State University

(University Park)f

33 No Yes No

University of South Florida

(Tampa)g

36 Yes No No

Cleveland State Universityh 35-36 Optional Optional Optional

Texas State University (San

Marcos)i

39-42 Yes Optional No


19

program. It plans to offer the degree through online coursework only. The course format

options offered by the nine universities are outlined in Table 6.

Table 6

Face-to-Face or online: Course format options.

Face-To-Face Format Only Online Format Available

University of Connecticut a Northern Illinois Universityc

Texas State University (San Marcos)b Michigan State Universityd

Pennsylvania State University (University

Park)e

The University of Georgia(Athens)f

University of South Florida (Tampa)g

Indiana University (Bloomington)h

Cleveland State Universityi

a “M.A. Plan of study,” n.d.

b “Study anywhere,” n.d.

c “Online and blended courses,” 2013.

d “Admissions information for perspective students,” 2013.

e “Courses-Master of Education in Adult Education,” n.d.

f “COE degree programs,” n.d.

g “Fully online programs,” n.d. h “Degrees and programs: Adult Education,” 2013.

i “Graduate programs: Master degree programs,” 2010.

The Structure

Present curriculum in profession-specific packages.

Most adult education master’s programs make an effort to package and label curriculum

so that students can match the coursework to their professional sector of interest. Examples of

clearly named curriculum tracks can be found in Table 7. The Adult Learning and Development

master’s program at Cleveland State University offers a counter example to the other programs.

Its structure is unusual because it has nine “focuses” within the program. The content of the

focuses overlap and some of them are unmatched to specific professions. Students at Cleveland

State University can focus their studies in “Multicultural Diversity” or “Technology,” for


20

example (“Program overview college core,” 2011). While courses related to multicultural

diversity and technology are common themes in adult education master’s programs, most

universities make courses on these topics available to all students instead of creating specific

tracks devoted to them. Cleveland State University’s Adult Learning and Development master’s

program is illustrated in Figure 1.

Table 7

Examples of track and professional sector matching

Track Names

Work and Learninga

Higher Education/Student Affairsb

Adult ESLa

Community Development, International,

and Popular Educationb

Continuing and Community Educationb

Adult Continuing Educationb

Human Resource Developmentb

Adult Literacyc

a “Degree outline,” n.d. b “Master’s degrees in Adult and Higher Education,” 2013. c “Courses – Master in Education in Adult Education,” n.d.


21

Figure 1

Cleveland State University: A structural counterexample.

Note. Adapted from “Adult Learning and Development – Master’s of Education in Adult Learning and Development,” 2011.

Track students through the profession-specific curriculum.

The eight universities that package curriculum for specific professional audiences

separate students from different professional sectors at one of three different levels: (a) the

department, (b) the program, or (c) within the program through tracks, areas of emphasis, or

focuses.

Some universities separate adult education students at the departmental level, practically

guaranteeing that students from different professional sectors will not intermingle. These

programs have different core curricula and little or no crossover in electives. Departmental

Cleveland State University

College of Education

Counseling, Administration, Supervision, and Adult Learning

Department

Other Programs

Adult Learning and

Development Program

Ad

ult L

iteracy

Co

mm

un

ity H

ealth

Cu

lture

Co

mm

un

ication

an

d H

ealthcare

Hig

her E

du

cation

Man

agem

ent an

d

Train

ing

Mu

lticultu

ral D

iversity

No

np

rofit

Man

agem

ent

Stu

den

t Serv

ices

Tech

no

logy

Other Departments


22

separation happens most frequently for community health educators, who might even be

funneled into colleges other than the College of Education. Some schools also separate adult

literacy from the other professional fields of adult education, funneling literacy educators into

curriculum and instruction departments while the rest remain in administration and policy

departments. Figure 2 demonstrates how a university, in this case University of South Florida,

separates adult literacy students from other types of adult education students. This instructional

divide between adult literacy and workforce and higher education will be discussed in more

detail in a later section of the findings.

Figure 2

University of South Florida: Separating students at the departmental level.

Note. Adapted from “Departments” 2009.

Several universities separate professional sectors at the level of programs. Program-level

packaging frequently involves separating human resources or higher education administration

from adult development and learning, as demonstrated by the University of Georgia and



Department of Adult, Career and Higher Education

Adult Education Other

Programs

Other Departments

Department of Childhood Education and Literacy Studies

Literacy Studies - Adolescent and Adult

Literacy Focus

Other Programs


23

Pennsylvania State University in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. The separated programs still

maintain their focus on administration, policy, and organizational learning since they are still

housed in administrative-oriented departments. Like students separated from each other at the

department level, students separated at the program level have different core curriculum and

elective course lists, but classes are much more likely to be cross-listed. When students from

different professional sectors are separated at the program level, they are much less likely to

require tracks within the programs. Students still take “core” and “elective” coursework but all

of the electives are geared towards the same professional sector. The coursework of University

of Michigan’s Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education Program, provided in Table 8, offers a

good example of this strategy.

Figure 3

University of Georgia: Separating students at the program level.

Note. “Academic programs – Adult Education, Learning and Organization Development Program,” n.d.

University of Georgia


Department of Lifelong Education, Administration, and

Policy (LEAP)

Adult Education, Learning and Organization Development

Program

Educational Administration

and Policy Program

Educational Leadership Program

Human Resource and Organization Development

Program

Qualitative Research Program

Other Departments


24

Figure 4

Pennsylvania State University: Separating students at the program level.

Note. “Department of Learning and Performance Systems,” 2013.



Other Departments

Department of Learning and Performance

Systems

Adult Education

Learning, Design, and Technology

Workforce Education and Development


25

Table 8

Michigan State University: Course offerings formatted for program-level separation. No tracks are

required because students from each professional sector are enrolled in different programs.

Coursework for MA in Higher, Adult, Lifelong Education at Michigan State University

Core Courses (6 credit hours):

EAD 840 Inquiry in Postsecondary Education

EAD 868 Pro-seminar in Higher and Adult Education

Electives (24 credit hours):

EAD 802 Building a Learning Organization

EAD 805 Administration in Higher Education

EAD 822 Approaches to Education Research (or its equivalent)

EAD 860 Concept of a Learning Society

EAD 861 Adult Learning

EAD 863 Training and Professional Development

EAD 864 Adult and Career Development

EAD 866 Teaching in Postsecondary Education

EAD 870 Foundations of Postsecondary Education

EAD 871 Collegiate Contexts for Teaching and Learning

EAD 876 Budgeting and Finance in Higher Education

EAD 877 Program Planning and Evaluation in Postsecondary Contexts

EAD 890 Independent Study

EAD 894 Field Experience Note. Adapted from “Curriculum,” 2011.

Universities that do not aggressively separate students at the program level separate them

through tracks within their adult education programs. In these cases, all students complete a core

curriculum before they are separated into two to four profession-specific tracks. The core usually

includes classes on adult development and learning, instructional design, and basic research

design. Some universities also include coursework related to technology-based learning and

multiculturalism in their core curriculum. Figure 5 illustrates the within-program tracking at

Northern Illinois University. It is followed by Table 9, which demonstrates how courses are

offered in a within-program tracking system.


26

Figure 5

Northern Illinois University: Separation of students within the program through tracks.

Note: “Adult and Higher Education,” 2013.

Northern Illinois University


Other Departments

Counseling, Adult, and Higher Education

Other Programs

Adult and Higher

Education Program

Adult Continuing Education

Community Development, International, and Popular Education

Human Resource

Development

Higher Education-

Student Affairs


27

Table 9

Northern Illinois University: Course offerings formatted for within-program separation.

Coursework for M.S.Ed in Adult and Higher Education

Core Courses

CAHA 500, Nature of Adult and Higher Education

CAHA 501, Adult Learning: Maturity through Old Age

CAHA 502, Educating Culturally Diverse Adults

Research Course (often ETR 520, Introduction to Educational Research)

CAHA 699, Thesis or Comprehensive Exam or Capstone Project

Electives

Area of Emphasis #1:

Adult Continuing

Education

CAHA 530,

Instructional Theory

and Practice in

Teaching Adults

CAHA 533, Learning

How to Learn: Applied

Theory for Adults

CAHA 540,

Curriculum/Program

Dev in Adult

Continuing Ed

CAHA 545,

Planning/Promoting

Non-Credit Adult

Continuing Ed

CAHA 570,

Organization/Administr

ation of Adult

Continuing Ed

CAHA 575, Policy

Studies in Adult

Continuing Education

CAHA 586, Internship

Experiences


Community

Development,

International, and

Popular Education

CAHA 575, Policy

Studies in Adult


CAHA 581,

Community Project

Dev and Adult

Education


Experiences

CAHA 722, Adult and

Higher Education in

Social Context

CAHA 760,

International Adult

Education

CAHA 761, Adult

Learning in Social

Movements


Human Resource

Development

CAHA 533, Learning

How to Learn: Applied

Theory for Adult


Experiences

CAHE 561, Human

Resource Development

CAHE 715, Strategic

Human Resource

Development

CAHA 716, Adult

Learning in the

Workplace

CAHA 770,

Leadership in Adult



Higher

Education/Student

Affairs

CAHA 555, Seminar in

the Community

College


Experiences

CAHE 509, Culture of

the College Student

CAHE 522, Student

Development:

Programs, Issues and

Practices

CAHE 572,

Assessment Methods in

Higher Education

CAHE 701, Personnel

Services in Higher

Education

CAHE 702, Student

Development:

Theory/Practice

CAHE 770, The

Administration of

Higher Education

Note. Adapted from “Master’s degrees in Higher and Adult Education,” 2013.


28

Ensure consistent image by aligning program curriculum with department

orientation.

Seven of the nine adult education programs studied are housed in departments that

possess an administration and policy focus. The exceptions to the rule are Pennsylvania State

University and Indiana University (Bloomington), online-only programs that are located in

departments made up of online-only degree programs. The administration and policy focus

works for programs heavily geared towards human resources and higher education, but becomes

problematic when discussing adult literacy, a field much more aligned with curriculum and

instruction.

In fact, adult literacy plays a limited role in the most of adult education programs studied.

Four of the programs offer no coursework in adult literacy while two offer a single elective

course and three offer literacy-related tracks. Table 10 shows how different universities provide

coursework in adult literacy courses. As discussed earlier, some choose to separate adult literacy

students from other adult education students at the departmental level.

Table 10

Availability of adult literacy courses.

University Adult literacy course(s)

available in the Adult

Education Program

Adult literacy courses offered

elsewhere (degree offered)

Northern Illinois University None

a Department of Literacy

Education (Certificate)b

Michigan State University Nonec

None

Indiana University

(Bloomington)

Noned

Department of Literacy,

Language and Culture (Ed.S.)e

University of Connecticut Nonef

None


(Tampa)

1 Elective

(Adult Basic Education)g

Department of Childhood

Education & Literacy Studies

(Ed.S)h

University of Georgia 1 Elective

(Teaching Reading to Low

No


29

Literate Adults)i


(University Park)

Track Availablej

(Adult Literacy)

N/A

Texas State University (San

Marcos)

Track Availablek

(Adult ESL)

N/A

Cleveland State University Track Availablel

(Adult Literacy)

N/A

a“Adult and Higher Education,” 2013. b”Certificates of graduate studies,” 2013. c”Welcome,” 2011. d”Departments-Instructional Systems Technology.” 2013. e”Degrees and programs: Literacy, Culture, and Language Education,” 2013. f”Department of Educational Leadership,” n.d. g”Departments,” 2009. h”Ed.S. program of study,” 2013. i“Academic programs – Adult Education, Learning and Organization Development Program,” n.d. j “Department of Learning and Performance Systems,” 2013. k ”Welcome to the Department of Counseling, Leadership, Adult Education, & School Psychology,” n.d. l“Adult Learning and Development – Master’s of Education in Adult Learning and Development,” 2011.

Discussion

The Branding of Adult Education Programs

The American Marketing Association defines a brand as a “name, term, sign, symbol or

design, or a combination of them intended to identify the goods and services of one seller…and

to differentiate them from those of other sellers” (Lake, 2013, para.1). The practice of branding

requires the producer to: (a) deliver a clear message, (b) connect with a target audience, (c)

demonstrate consistency and credibility, and (d) motivate the target to purchase the product or

service (Lake, 2013). The purpose of this comparative case study was to discern whether or not

adult education masters programs brand themselves and if so, what messages are being delivered

via the program websites. There has been no research done in this area; the few studies that have

been done across the adult education field focus on compliance with the CPAE Standards for

Graduate Programs in Adult Education rather than how programs project and organize

themselves.


30

Based on these findings, all nine adult education master’s programs seek to brand

themselves. First, they all deliver the clear message that their purpose is to provide practitioners

with continuing professional development. This message is consistent with the history of adult

education programs; since the first programs were opened in the 1930s, they have generally

served adult educators who study while continuing to work in the field (Merriam & Brocket,

2007). Moreover, all programs use terminology consistent with constructivism and

transformative and experiential learning, adding credibility to the messages by grounding them

language familiar to adult educators.

Second, all of the master’s programs target perspective students from specific

professional sectors. Program overviews explicitly list the professional sectors of interest to the

programs. The profession-specific themes are then carried through the organization of the

programs. Universities package curriculum under program and track names that are easily

recognizable to students from different professional sectors. Programs are housed in

departments that make sense based on the administrative or instructional leanings of the

program. Sometimes this means separating adult literacy from other adult education professions;

workforce and higher education administration students study within administrative-oriented

departments while adult literacy students remain in curriculum-oriented departments. With a

few exceptions, most university programs maintain a consistent program identity, from the

purpose statement to their targeted audiences to the way the program is structured.

Third, all master’s programs do their best to motivate perspective students to apply to the

programs. They reduce barriers to participation by offering flexible course formats and a variety

of degree completion options. Practitioners who might be intimidated by the idea of writing

theses rarely have to worry about doing so. Part-time student status is practically assumed.


31

Moreover, programs understand that most perspective students pursue graduate degrees for the

purposes of professional advancement. Most programs offer detailed, explicit, and specific

examples of how enrollment might positively affect career paths.

The findings not only suggest that programs brand themselves but that there are trends in

who programs wish to attract. Probably related to factors like regional market share, faculty

strengths, program history, and broader university agendas, each program has a slightly different

target audience. Nevertheless, a distinct orientation towards administration, policy, workforce,

and organizational learning is present in most of the programs studied. My findings are

consistent with previous research which also placed most adult education programs within

departments devoted to administration and leadership (Merriam & Brockett, 2007; Sonstrom,

2011). The presence of adult literacy within adult education programs is limited, sometimes

because these courses are offered in curriculum-oriented departments and sometimes because

they seem to be missing from universities altogether.

Study Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, there is no comprehensive list of adult education

master’s programs readily available. Besieged by dwindling relevance and budget cuts, the

traditional source of such information, Peterson’s graduate programs in business, education,

health, information studies, law &social work is becoming less reliable (Sanstrom, 2011). When

one researcher randomly selected 83 adult education programs from a Peterson’s guide, she

found that 14 had been closed for more than a year and seven more had never existed at all

(Harrison, 1995). Thus researchers rely on individual university websites, professional

organization listserves, and snowballing techniques to develop comprehensive lists of adult


32

education programs (Harrison, 1995; Sanstrom, 2011). While Sanstrom (2011) provides a recent

list of doctoral programs, there is no equivalent for master’s programs. I approached this

dilemma with the philosophy that I was not attempting to create a comprehensive list, but rather

a list from which I could obtain a purposeful sample of a yet-to-be-determined number of

programs. Sampling bias might have been introduced by using the American Association for

Adult and Continuing Education (AAACE) 61st Annual Conference Program Guide and the 2012

Human Resource Development Directory of Academic Programs in the United States as my

initial sources of programs. Specifically, I have concerns that I might have missed programs

with strong adult literacy presence because I did not include a source specific to adult literacy in

my initial search. Despite my concerns, the oversight did not seem to affect the outcome. The

nine universities handle adult literacy in diverse ways. Pennsylvania State University is the

home of an Institute for the Study of Adult Literacy (“Institute for the Study of Adult Literacy,”

2013). Several of the other universities also have strong adolescent and adult literacy offerings

but they are located within programs separate from the adult education program.

Moreover, although I developed criteria to help choose schools similar to VCU for this

study, I included two schools that did not meet my criteria: Texas State University (San Marcos)

and Cleveland State University. I did so because I wanted to see whether my criteria

significantly affected my resultant view of adult education programs. By including two non-

criteria schools, I could gauge what was happening outside my self-constructed box. I

discovered that there were many similarities between my “in-criteria” and “out-of-criteria”

schools, particularly in their messages and target audiences. Cleveland State University, with its

nine overlapping tracks, also offered an interesting counterexample of program structure. This


33

practice is not consistent with effective branding, and it would be interesting to study the benefits

and drawbacks of this program structure in comparison to the others.

The second limitation of my research relates to my complete dependence on university

websites for data. A university website is a form of discourse, a way for the university to

interact with prospective applicants, current students, alumni, faculty and staff, researchers,

community members and donors (Sumner, 2011). They play a special role in the student

recruitment process; studies of perspective graduate students show that a program’s website

content, organization, and architecture are very important in influencing their opinions of the

programs (Sumner, 2011).

There are few studies related to the transparency of university websites (Sonstrom, 2011).

Although university websites were the primary source of data for Sonstrom (2011), the

researcher found them inconsistent and unreliable, requiring her to contact 41% of the doctoral

programs she was studying for additional information. Having navigated 91 different university

websites in the course of this study, I agree with Sanstrom (2011) with some reservations. In

general, I found that master’s programs were described in much more detail than doctoral

programs. While master’s program information included application procedures, course

descriptions, and degree completion requirements, most websites only described the purpose of

the doctoral program and then required the reader to contact faculty directly. I concluded that

the difference in information quality might be related to the highly individualized nature of

doctoral studies as compared to master’s level studies. Nevertheless, this study would be

stronger if I had had the resources to contact each program directly to confirm the conclusions I

drew from the websites. This was, unfortunately, outside the scope of this independent study. If

this study were to continue, contacting faculty and administrators from each program would not


34

only allow for memberchecking but also for further insights into why certain organizational

decisions were being made.

Conclusions

I began this research as a doctoral student in the Virginia Commonwealth University

Urban Service Leadership /Adult Education program. I have since switched to a different

graduate program within the School of Education. While I enjoyed success within the VCU

Adult Education program, I had many unanswered questions about the field of adult education,

adult education training, and my current and future position in both of them. I realize now that

much of my dissatisfaction with the program was related to my previous educational experience

in a rigorously professionalized field; given my assumptional framework, I had difficulty

accepting a less professionalized field that functioned without stringent or obvious benchmarks,

branding, or best practices. Thus I started this journey as a quest for familiar educational

structures, something to make me comfortable within my own doctoral program. I chose to focus

on large, public research-oriented universities like my own, hoping to find answers that I could

apply to my own experience. Because of my personal framework, the research was initiated with

the assumption that branding is not only strategic but helpful to current students looking for

vocational identity and to the perspective student making decisions regarding potential

matriculation.

Even after bracketing my pre-existing preference for branded, highly structured

education, it appears to me that many adult education programs engage in branding practices. In

a knowledge society, students are consumers seeking efficiently packaged curriculum designed

to enhance their careers. Even branding critics concede that it may be impossible to avoid

branding in today’s commoditized educational climate (Natale & Doran, 2012). I am left to


35

wonder, however, if branding is in the best interest of the adult education field as a whole.

Despite Cervero’s (1992) statements to the contrary, the standardization, benchmarking, and

professionalization of the adult education field remains uncertain (Kasworm et al., 2010).

Professional standards have been set by the American Association of Adult and Continuing

Education but compliance is variable at best (Sonstrom, 2011). One of the barriers to

professionalization is the ongoing cultural drift that results from adult educators identifying more

with their separate professional sectors than the umbrella profession of “adult educator”

(Bierema, 2010). Using professional-sector separation to brand programs and target audiences

only encourages cultural drift, undermining attempts to create a unified vocational identity

among adult educators.

What I have presented in this report is a list of current practices among university adult

education practices. While they are not technically “best practices,” the connection between

these practices and the popular practice of branding may tempt some to see this as a list of best

practices, to be applied to all or most adult education programs. It is important to remember,

however, that the practices I describe developed organically as adult education programs

evaluated their positions within regional and national markets. These practices are not the result

of top-down dictates from the adult education professional leadership. They were not designed

with the intent to generalize beyond individual programs. Therefore, I caution against the

unquestioned use of best practice (or even current practice) lists, particularly in this relatively

unstandardized field. It can limit creativity and innovation, both of which are desperately needed

in higher education today.


36

References

About IU. (2013). In Indiana University Bloomington. Retrieved from

http://www.iub.edu/about/index.shtml

About MSU. (n.d.). In Michigan State University. Retrieved from

http://www.msu.edu/about/index.html

About NIU. (2013). In Northern Illinois University: Learning today, leading tomorrow.

Retrieved from http://www.niu.edu/about/index.shtml

About Texas State. (n.d.). In Texas State University San Marcos. Retrieved from

http://www.txstate.edu/about/index.html

About UConn. (n.d.). In UConn: University of Connecticut. Retrieved from

http://www.uconn.edu/about.php

About UGA. (n.d.). In The University of Georgia. Retrieved from http://www.uga.edu/

About USF. (2013). In USF: University of South Florida. Retrieved from

http://www.usf.edu/about-usf/index.aspx

Academic programs – Adult Education, Learning and Organization Development. (n.d.). In The

University of Georgia, College of Education, Department of Lifelong Education,

Administration and Policy. Retrieved from http://www.coe.uga.edu/leap/academic-

programs/adult-education/

Academic programs in the College of Education. (2013). In Michigan State University, College

of Education. Retrieved from http://education.msu.edu/academics/

Admissions information for perspective students. (2013). In Michigan State University, College

of Education, Department of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education. Retrieved from

http://education.msu.edu/ead/hale/documents/HALEMAAdmissionsInformationfall2013.

pdf

Adult and Higher Education. (2013). In Northern Illinois University, College of Education,

Department of Counseling, Adult and Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://cedu.niu.edu/cahe/ahe/

Adult Education, Learning and Organizational Development. (n.d.) In The University of Georgia,

College of Education, Department of Leadership, Educational Administration and Policy.

Retrieved from http://www.coe.uga.edu/leap/academic-programs/adult-education/

Adult Learning and Development – Master’s in Education in Adult Learning and Development.

(2011). In Cleveland State, College of Education and Human Services, ALD. Retrieved

from http://www.csuohio.edu/cehs/departments/CASAL/masterald.html


37

Adult Learning and Development program overview. (n.d.). In Cleveland State University,

College of Education and Human Services, ALD. Retrieved from

http://www.csuohio.edu/cehs/departments/CASAL/ald.html

Adult Learning: Careers in adult learning. (n.d.). In UConn, Neag College of Education,

Department of Educational Leadership. Retrieved from

http://edlr.education.uconn.edu/programs/adult-learning/alp/careers/

Adult Learning: Philosophy and mission. (n.d.). In UConn, Neag College of Education,

Department of Educational Leadership. Retrieved from

http://edlr.education.uconn.edu/programs/adult-learning/alp/mission/

American Association for Adult and Continuing Education. (2012). AAACE 61st Annual

Conference: Program guide and exhibitor directory.

American Education Association (AEA-USA)/American Association for Adult and Continuing

Education (AAACE) Records: An inventory of its records at Syracuse University. (n.d.).

In Syracuse University library finding aids. Retrieved from

http://library.syr.edu/digital/guides/a/aaace.htm

Axson, D. (2010). Best practices in planning and performance management: From data to

decisions (3rd

ed.), New York, NY: Wiley and Sons.

Best education programs. (2013). In U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved from http://grad-

schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-education-

schools/edu-rankings

Best online education graduate programs. (2013). In U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved

from http://www.usnews.com/education/online-education/education/rankings?int=d8a949

Bierema, L. (2010). Professional identity. In C. Kasworm, A. Rose, & J. Ross-Gordon (Eds.),

Handbook of adult and continuing education, 2010 edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Burrows, W., & Baker, B. (2009). Adult education: Branding the “best kept secret.” Leadership,

39(2), 34-35.

Certificates of graduate studies. (2013). In Northern Illinois University, College of Education,

Department of Literacy Education. Retrieved from

http://cedu.niu.edu/ltcy/programs/certification.shtml

Cervero, R. (1992). Adult and continuing education should strive for professionalization. In M.

Galbraith & B. Sisco (Eds.), Confronting controversies in challenging times. New

Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 54. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass


38

Chapleo, C. (2010). What defines “successful” university brands? International Journal of

Public Sector Management, 23(2), 169-183. doi: 10.1108/09513551011022519

Cleveland State University: About us. (2013). In Cleveland State University. Retrieved from

http://www.csuohio.edu/aboutcsu/

Commission of Professors of Adult Education (CPAE) Records: An inventory of its records at

Syracuse University. (n.d.). In Syracuse University library finding aids. Retrieved from

http:// library.syr.edu/digital/guides/c/cpae.htm

COE degree programs. (n.d.). In The University of Georgia, College of Education. Retrieved

from http://www.coe.uga.edu/degree-programs/

Course advice. (2011). In Michigan State University, College of Education, Department of

Educational Administration. Retrieved from

http://education.msu.edu/ead/hale/mahale/coursead.asp

Courses – Master in Education in Adult Education. (n.d.). In PennState online degrees and

certificates. Retrieved from http://www.worldcampus.psu.edu/degrees-and-

certificates/adult-education-masters/courses

Curriculum. (2011). In Michigan State University, College of Education, Department of

Educational Administration. Retrieved from

http://education.msu.edu/ead/hale/mahale/curriculum.asp

Degree outline. (n.d.). In Texas State University San Marcos, College of Education, Dept of

Counseling, Leadership, Adult Education, School Psychology. Retrieved from

http://www.txstate.edu/clas/Adult-Education/Degree-Outline.html

Degrees and programs: Adult Education. (2013). In Indiana University Bloomington, School of

Education, graduate programs. Retrieved from

http://education.indiana.edu/graduate/programs/adult-education/index.html

Degrees and programs: Literacy, Culture and Language (2013). In Indiana University

Bloomington, School of Education, graduate programs. Retrieved from

http://education.indiana.edu/graduate/programs/literacy-culture-language/index.html

DelGesso, D. (1995). American adult education doctoral programs in comparison to the

Commission of Professors of Adult Education standards for graduate programs in adult

education. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED386591)

Department of Educational Leadership. (n.d.). In UConn, Neag College of Education. Retrieved

from http://edlr.education.uconn.edu/

Department of Learning and Performance Systems. (2013). In Penn State College of Education.

Retrieved from http://www.ed.psu.edu/educ/lps/dept-lps


39

Departments-Instructional Systems Technologies. (2013). In Indiana University Bloomington,

School of Education. Retrieved from

http://education.indiana.edu/about/departments/instructional/index.html

Departments. (2009). In University of South Florida, College of Education. Retrieved from

http://www.coedu.usf.edu/main/departments.html

Ed.S. program of study. (2013). In University of South Florida, College of Education,

Department of Childhood Education and Literacy Studies, Literacy Studies. Retrieved

from http://www.coedu.usf.edu/main/departments/ce/literacy_studies/specialist-

program.php

Fully online courses. (n.d.). In University of South Florida, University College. Retrieved from

http://uc.usf.edu/online/fully.html

Grace, A., Rocco, T. & Associates. (2009). Challenging the professionalization of adult

education: John Ohliger and contradictions in modern practice. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Graduate degree programs: Master degree programs. (2010). In Cleveland State University:

Engaged learning. Retrieved from

http://www.engagecsuonline.com/MasterDegreeProgs.html

Gupta, M. & Singh, P. (2010). Marketing and branding higher education: Issues and challenges.

Review of Business Research, 10(1), 46-54.

HALE: Higher, Adult, Lifelong Education. (2011). In Michigan State University, College of

Education, Department of Educational Administration. Retrieved from

http://education.msu.edu/ead/hale/

Harrison, C. (1995). A survey of graduate adult education programs and the adult learning and

development curriculum. Adult Education Quarterly, 45, 197-212.

Houle, C. (1964). The emergence of graduate study in adult education. In G. Jensen, A.

Liveright, & W. Hallenbeck (Eds.), Adult education. Washington, D.C.: Adult Education

Association of the U.S.A.

Institute for the Study of Adult Literacy. (2013). In Pennsylvania State University, College of

Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.psu.edu/educ/isal.

Institution lookup. (n.d.). In Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved

from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/institution.php

Ivan, S. (2011). The new paradigm of higher education in the knowledge society. Journal Plus

Education, 7(2), 46-59.


40

Kasworm, C. (2011). The influence of the knowledge society: Trends in adult higher education.

Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59, 104-107. doi:

10.1080/07377363.2011.568830

Kasworm, C., Rose, A., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2010). Conclusion: Looking back, looking

forward. In C. Kasworm, A. Rose, & J. Ross-Gordon (Eds.), Handbook of adult and

continuing education, 2010 edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Knox, A. & Fleming, J. (2010). Professionalization of the field of adult and continuing

education. In C. Kasworm, A. Rose, & J. Ross-Gordon (Eds.), Handbook of adult and

continuing education, 2010 edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Lake, L. (2013). What is branding and how important is it to your marketing strategy? In

About.com: Marketing. Retrieved April 10, 2013,

http://marketing.about.com/cs/brandmktg/a/whatisbranding.htm?p=1

Larson, M. (1977). The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.

M.A. in Adult Education. (2009). In University of South Florida, College of Education,

Department of Adult, Career and Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://www.coedu.usf.edu/main/departments/ache/ade/adema.html

M.A. Plan of study. (n.d.). In UConn, Neag College of Education, Department of Educational

Leadership, Adult Learning. Retrieved from

http://edlr.education.uconn.edu/programs/adult-learning/current/ma-plan-of-study/

Master’s degrees in Adult and Higher Education. (2013). In Northern Illinois University,

College of Education ,Department of Counseling, Adult, and Higher Education.

Retrieved from http://cedu.niu.edu/cahe/ahe/masters.shtml

Merriam, S. & Brockett, R. (2007). The profession and practice of adult education: An

introduction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Mission. (n.d). In Texas State University San Marcos, College of Education, Dept of Counseling,

Leadership, Adult Education and School Psychology. Retrieved from

http://www.txstate.edu/clas/Adult-Education/Mission.html

Milton, J., Watkins, K., Studdard, S., & Burch, M. (2003). The ever widening gyre: Factors

affecting change in adult education graduate programs in the United States. Adult

Education Quarterly, 54, 23-41. doi: 10.1177/0741713603257012

Murk, P. & Ross, J. (1988). A review of adult development and learning courses taught at

twenty-four North American universities: A content analysis. Retrieved from ERIC

database. (ED319960)

Natale, S. & Doran, C. (2012). Marketization of Education: An ethical dilemma. Journal of

Business Ethics, 105, 187-196. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0958-y


41

Online and blended courses. (2013). In Northern Illinois University, NIU online. Retrieved from

http://www.niu.edu/niuonline/courses/index.shtml

Peterson’s graduate programs in business, education, health, information studies, law &

social work. (2010). Lawrenceville, NJ: Peterson’s.

Program overview college core. (2011). In Cleveland State University, College of Education and

Human Services, Department of Counseling, Leadership, Adult Education, and School

Psychology, Adult Learning and Development Master of Education. Retrieved from

http://www.csuohio.edu/cehs/departments/CASAL/masteraldcore.html

Robbins, I. (2009). Best practices on “Best Practices”: Legal education and beyond. Clinical

Law Review,16(1), 269-305.

Roberts, P. (Ed.). (2012). Human resource development director of academic programs in the

United States. Tyler, TX: University of Texas at Tyler Press

Sonstrom, W. (2011). The adult education doctorate in North America: The programs,

curricula, websites, and the Commission of Professors of Adult Education Standards.

Retrieved from ProQuest LLC. (ED529444)

Sonstrom, W., Rachal, J., & Mohn, R. (2012). The Commission of Professors of Adult

Education 2008 Standards as evidenced in the curricula of doctoral education in North

America. Adult Education Quarterly, 20(10), 1-18. doi: 10.1177/074173612447855

Study anywhere. (n.d.). In Texas State University San Marcos, Division of Student Affairs.

Retrieved from http://www.studyanywhere.txstate.edu/

Sumner, C. (2011). The power of the virtual pen and the development of college freshmen:

Exploring the impact of university website messaging on the situated identities of first-

year college students. Retrieved from ProQuest LLC. (ED528121)

Waerass, A., & Solbakk, M. (2009). Defining the essence of a university: lessons from higher

education branding. Higher Education, 57, 449-462. doi: 10.1007/s10734-0089155-z

Welcome. (2011). In Michigan State University, College of Education, Department of

Educational Administration. Retrieved from http://education.msu.edu/ead/

Welcome to Penn State’s fact book. (n.d.). In Penn State University Budget Office. Retrieved

from http://www.budget.psu.edu/factbook/

Welcome to the Department of Counseling, Leadership, Adult Education and School

Psychology. (n.d.). In Texas State University San Marcos, College of Education,

Department of Counseling, Leadership, Adult Education and School Psychology.

Retrieved from http://www.txstate.edu/clas/


42

Welton, M. Histories of adult education: Constructing the past. In C. Kasworm, A. Rose, & J.

Ross-Gordon (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education, 2010 edition. Los

Angeles, CA: Sage.

branding and professionalization in u.s. adult education master's programs

Documents

adult education programs

field of adult education

university programs

studentcentered education

university practices

program branding

outcomebased education

adult education18