View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

'When We Design for Adult Learners with Disabilities, Everyone Benefits': Adaptable-Inclusive-Motivated (AIM) Model for Adult Educators to Include Adult Learners with Disabilities

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: 'When We Design for Adult Learners with Disabilities, Everyone Benefits': Adaptable-Inclusive-Motivated (AIM) Model for Adult Educators to Include Adult Learners with Disabilities
Language: English
Authors: Adam L. McClain (ORCID 0009-0002-7388-4292), Kevin J. Mallary (ORCID 0000-0001-6312-0497)
Source: Adult Education Quarterly: A Journal of Research and Theory. 2025 75(4):269-290.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 22
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Adult Education
Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Adult Educators, Adult Education, Students with Disabilities, Teacher Competencies, Accessibility (for Disabled), Adult Students, Knowledge Level, Teaching Skills, Higher Education, Inclusion, Self Efficacy
DOI: 10.1177/07417136251316259
ISSN: 0741-7136
1552-3047
Abstract: This study focuses on understanding how adult education faculty in higher education develop their knowledge and skills to accommodate adult learners with disabilities (ALDs). It explores how these educators learn about the accessibility needs of ALDs and their willingness to create inclusive learning environments. Adult education faculty were surveyed from various United States higher education institutions. Findings indicate that adult education faculty vary in accessibility knowledge and skills and are more willing to include ALDs when notified of their enrollment. Further, respondents desire greater institutional resources and training for developing inclusive practices. This study yielded an adaptable-inclusive-motivated (AIM) model for including adult learners with disabilities. The AIM model offers a comprehensive framework for understanding how adult education faculty navigate the interplay among institutional support, personal awareness, professional development, and proactive information-seeking. Findings contribute valuable insights for adult education faculty and higher education institutions to include ALDs more fully.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1489703
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGgnxPkuMkwK3zCzm8269n3AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJvC6cTIPp7W-MOJNwIBEICBm51mdzWzJv0asVHidUoiLTBLykF4KIR2jnfP8YVSkyjqh_mJZlehNAyyKTw7ySt2gS9U2JxIh_9Fc2yf6ZE9wIW_HmPuynV1zk258vG5eT8Wmc117cFB1Q34I2qKmcsgJhstx9gKtw36kgNrECJKnizVCaiZRMcLNQNhnVm5CHFeKkaX8hUNw2h5qDha8IvSmcixQW9ZLYooqN5A
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0189325497;adq01nov.25;2025Nov18.00:27;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0189325497-1">"When We Design for Adult Learners With Disabilities, Everyone Benefits": Adaptable-Inclusive-Motivated (AIM) Model for Adult Educators to Include Adult Learners With Disabilities </title> <p>This study focuses on understanding how adult education faculty in higher education develop their knowledge and skills to accommodate adult learners with disabilities (ALDs). It explores how these educators learn about the accessibility needs of ALDs and their willingness to create inclusive learning environments. Adult education faculty were surveyed from various United States higher education institutions. Findings indicate that adult education faculty vary in accessibility knowledge and skills and are more willing to include ALDs when notified of their enrollment. Further, respondents desire greater institutional resources and training for developing inclusive practices. This study yielded an adaptable-inclusive-motivated (AIM) model for including adult learners with disabilities. The AIM model offers a comprehensive framework for understanding how adult education faculty navigate the interplay among institutional support, personal awareness, professional development, and proactive information-seeking. Findings contribute valuable insights for adult education faculty and higher education institutions to include ALDs more fully.</p> <p>Keywords: adult learners; with disabilities; information practices; higher education; adaptable-inclusive-motivated (AIM) model; inclusion</p> <hd id="AN0189325497-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The demographic landscape of higher education is continually evolving, with a notable increase in adult learners, including those with disabilities. This change highlights the critical need to recognize and cater to the distinct educational requirements of these learners ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref1">31</reflink>]). Extensive research in adult education has delved into how adult learners with disabilities (ALDs) can be better integrated into the educational system. Existing studies have emphasized these learners' diverse abilities and preferences in understanding course materials, completing assignments, and interacting with instructors and peers ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref2">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref3">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref4">31</reflink>]). However, ALDs often perceive that educators lack familiarity with or the ability to design learning environments that are truly inclusive of their diverse needs ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref5">29</reflink>]). This perception highlights a significant educator preparedness gap and the need for more comprehensive training and awareness in creating accessible educational environments.</p> <p>While there is research focused on integrating ALDs into teaching and learning environments, much of it remains theoretical and rarely captures the practical experiences of adult education faculty working with this population ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref7">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref8">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref9">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref10">37</reflink>]). Without a direct understanding of how adult education faculty learn about the variable needs of ALDs and their willingness to include ALDs, these learners may be unable to receive information and learn equitably. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to better understand how adult education faculty learn about the accessibility needs of ALDs and these educators' willingness to include ALDs in teaching and learning environments. The two research questions that guided the study were:</p> <p> <emph>RQ1: How do adult education faculty build accessibility knowledge and skills needed to include adult learners with disabilities?</emph> </p> <p> <emph>RQ2: Do adult education faculty's accessibility knowledge and skills translate into their willingness to include adult learners with disabilities?</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0189325497-3">Theoretical Framework</hd> <p>To understand how adult education faculty members build knowledge and skills for including ALDs, the researchers borrowed theoretical elements from information practices ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref11">35</reflink>]) and the Theory of Planned Behavior ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>]). Information practices are "... the lens through which it is possible to identify and explore the full gamut of actions, activities, behaviors, situations and context that result in an individual becoming informed" ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref13">16</reflink>], p. 2). Specifically, information practices refer to how people seek, use, and share information within social and cultural contexts to accomplish everyday tasks and solve problems ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref14">34</reflink>]). Seeking information involves actively searching for helpful resources, while using information is synonymous with applying those resources to address concerns ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref15">7</reflink>]). Sharing information means distributing knowledge among community members to solve mutual problems ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref16">35</reflink>]). No matter if community members are seeking, using, or sharing information, their information practices depend on tools (e.g., devices or technologies) and resources (e.g., information or people) to address their concerns ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref17">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) posits that three key constructs—(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>) attitude toward the behavior, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>) subjective norms, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>) perceived behavioral control—along with (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref21">4</reflink>) intention to perform the behavior, help in predicting a wide range of behaviors. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>] framework also considers (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref23">5</reflink>) the behavior itself; however, our survey specifically focused on the first four constructs to assess adult education faculty's intentions towards inclusive practices. Given that our study did not measure the actual behaviors of educators, the fifth construct, behavior itself, was not evaluated.</p> <p>Since adult education faculty's attitudes toward accessibility and willingness to include ALDs are essential to the present study, the theoretical framework combines elements of information practices and TPB (Figure 1). Accordingly, the researchers measured respondents' attitudes toward accessibility; subjective norms influencing their information-seeking, information use, and information-sharing practices; perceived ability to include ALDs; and intention to include ALDs. When studying how people seek information to accomplish everyday tasks, it is important to understand their attitudes toward addressing problems, their perceived ability to locate resources, and their willingness to identify solutions ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref24">23</reflink>]). People must possess favorable attitudes toward solving their problems, believe in their ability to solve them and be willing to apply what they have learned to address problems ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>]). Lastly, sharing information requires that people have a collaborative attitude, believe in the value of their contributions, and be encouraged and willing to share ideas with peers ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref26">35</reflink>]). Rarely has past research investigated the willingness of individuals to engage in information practices ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref27">20</reflink>]). This study of adult education faculty members' willingness to seek, use, and share information for including ALDs advances the proposed theoretical framework.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Adult education faculty members' willingness to include adult learners with disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0189325497-4">Related Literature</hd> <p>This study and related literature focus on adult education faculty working in adult education programs within higher education, specifically examining their interactions with adult students rather than traditional-aged college students. It explores faculty attitudes and information practices related to accessibility, as well as their willingness to support ALDs. Since adult educators and ALDs operate within the broader framework of higher education, understanding the disability and accommodation processes in these institutions is essential for fostering accessibility and inclusion. The legal and institutional responsibilities outlined in higher education provide the foundation for supporting ALDs and highlight the critical role of faculty in meeting these needs.</p> <hd id="AN0189325497-5">Higher Education and Disability</hd> <p>The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref28">43</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref29">44</reflink>]) and the Rehabilitation Act ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref30">42</reflink>]) require higher education institutions to ensure equitable access to learning environments for ALDs. Institutions must offer reasonable accommodations to ALDs, empowering them to receive and use the same services as nondisabled students (e.g., attending classes, studying, engaging in extracurriculars, etc.) ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref31">27</reflink>]). This legislative framework underscores the responsibility of higher education stakeholders (e.g., administrators, faculty, and staff members) to design accessible and inclusive services, supporting the accessibility needs of ALDs ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref32">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Before ALDs can receive accommodations, they must disclose their accessibility needs to disability support services ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref33">11</reflink>]). Students unfamiliar with the accommodation process or available services may receive less beneficial support ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref34">38</reflink>]). Upon receiving accommodations, students may disclose their needs to instructors, which can cause psychological and social challenges due to perceived discrimination ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref35">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref36">21</reflink>]). ALDs have reported that some instructors are unwilling to accept accommodations since they can be perceived as disadvantageous to students without disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref37">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research by [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref38">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref39">9</reflink>]) and [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref40">36</reflink>] delves into the complexities of disability and identity disclosure in educational settings, highlighting both the inherent risks and the active resistance by students. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref41">36</reflink>] details how disclosure can lead to systemic marginalization and stigmatization, while [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref42">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref43">9</reflink>]) employs critical pedagogy to reflect on their experiences with developing and teaching Critical Disability Studies (CDS) and Mad Studies. The CDS and Mad Studies approaches are intended to uncover and eliminate injurious assumptions and practices toward disability, which may be reflected in standardized assessments, inflexible teaching methods, and inaccessible learning materials ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref44">18</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref45">40</reflink>] contribute to this conversation around disruptive pedagogical practices, advocating for a departure from traditional teaching and learning models towards more inclusive and responsive frameworks. Higher education is thus called to rethink its policies and processes surrounding accommodations for learners with disabilities, with the objective being improved staff training and service delivery to more fully support all students ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref46">11</reflink>]). While higher education broadly addresses accessibility challenges, adult education programs face unique demands tied to the diverse needs of ALDs. These challenges underscore the importance of faculty adopting inclusive practices to better support ALDs.</p> <hd id="AN0189325497-6">Adult Education and Disabilities</hd> <p>Higher education institutions offer programs designed for adult learners, including ALDs, to pursue continuing education, workforce development, and professional studies (National Center for College Students with Disabilities, 2024). Adult education programs are uniquely positioned to address these needs, but the success of such efforts relies heavily on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of adult education faculty. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref47">10</reflink>] highlights the oversight in adult education literature's failure to integrate disability studies, advocating for a deeper interdisciplinary connection that views disability as a socially constructed phenomenon to improve educational practices and enrich research in adult learning contexts. This challenges deficit-based models by emphasizing how societal structures contribute to marginalization and requires educators to foster inclusive learning environments that accommodate diverse worldviews while critically examining constructions of disability ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>]). Integrating disability studies into adult education encourages educators to critically examine exclusionary practices and embrace diverse needs as central to learning ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref49">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref50">36</reflink>]). By addressing intersectionality and fostering inclusive practices, this approach enriches research and improves educational outcomes for adult learners with disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref51">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>Within adult education, ALDs vary in how they participate in teaching and learning environments. ALDs with learning disabilities, for example, may request alternative materials (e.g., audiobooks, presentations, videos) to comprehend information more fully ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref52">12</reflink>]). When completing academic tasks, ALDs have benefited from using accommodations and assistive technologies such as flexible assignment deadlines, speech-to-text applications, and writing fluency software ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref53">13</reflink>]). Communicating with peers can be strengthened through text-based and video-conferencing modalities ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref54">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Adult learners with disabilities have expressed concern that adult education faculty lack a thorough understanding of their accessibility needs and, in some instances, are incapable of designing inclusive teaching and learning environments ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref55">33</reflink>]). Though instructional strategies theoretically support inclusivity, many adult education faculty feel unprepared to support ALDs effectively, and research shows they often lack a clear understanding of their legal responsibilities to provide accommodations ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref56">29</reflink>]). For instance, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref57">39</reflink>] suggest that some instructors possess limited knowledge in this area. Further compounding this issue, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref58">4</reflink>] found that a significant majority of instructors (76%) reported they had never received professional development training specifically aimed at including ALDs. This lack of formal training suggests that while not all instructors may lack knowledge of ADA requirements, a considerable proportion might not be fully equipped to fulfill their legal responsibilities effectively.</p> <p>This empirical study aims to bridge the gap in current research by exploring the knowledge, skills, and readiness of adult education faculty to incorporate ALDs into their teaching practices, a crucial aspect often overlooked in the predominantly theoretical focus of previous studies on disability in adult education ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref59">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref60">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref61">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref62">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref63">37</reflink>]). Adult educators can enhance the inclusion of ALDs by adopting inclusive teaching and learning frameworks. These frameworks help identify and address inaccessible practices, ensuring ALDs have equitable learning opportunities.</p> <hd id="AN0189325497-7">Inclusive Teaching and Learning Frameworks</hd> <p>Adult education faculty members can employ frameworks such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to create inclusive teaching environments ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref64">6</reflink>]). UDL has advocated for teaching ALDs as these learners are diverse in their accessibility needs, lived experiences, and learning preferences ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref65">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref66">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref67">33</reflink>]). UDL refers to how instructors can provide multiple means of representation (i.e., providing materials in alternative formats), engagement (i.e., permitting students to engage with peers in different modalities), and action and expression (i.e., allowing students to complete assignments that reflect their learning preferences) ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref68">24</reflink>]). UDL provides additional context for how adult education faculty can conceptualize and implement accessibility in their teaching practices. UDL provides a relevant backdrop for understanding faculty awareness of diverse learner needs and their strategies for fostering inclusivity ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref69">5</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189325497-8">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189325497-9">Sampling</hd> <p>The researchers surveyed 355 adult education faculty from adult education programs in higher education throughout the United States. Researchers gathered contact information via the American Adult and Continuing Education membership directory, the Commission of Professors in Adult Education email Listserv, and 40 other adult education programs, journals, and professional associations' websites. Respondents who fully completed the survey were eligible for a randomized drawing for one of ten $50.00 Amazon gift cards. Amazon invisibly captured email addresses typed into the Qualtrics survey to prevent the disclosure of respondents' identities.</p> <hd id="AN0189325497-10">Data Collection</hd> <p>After receiving Institutional Research Board (IRB) approval, the researchers distributed a survey to discover how adult education faculty acquire accessibility knowledge and their willingness to include ALDs in teaching and learning environments. Before starting the survey, respondents completed an IRB-approved electronic consent form. Respondents completed a survey that included a demographic section followed by four thematic sections designed to explore their practices for developing accessibility knowledge and skills and their readiness to support students with ALDs. The sections were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What Do You Know About Accessibility in Higher Education?</item> <p></p> <item> How Do You Build Knowledge and Skills Concerning Accessibility?</item> <p></p> <item> What Do You Currently Do to Include Students with Disabilities?</item> <p></p> <item> What Might You Do?</item> </ulist> <p>The grouping of questions into these sections provided a structured framework for addressing both current and potential accessibility practices. Previous research on information practices, TPB, and disability framed the survey ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref71">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref72">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref73">45</reflink>]). The survey sample items below include the response scale utilized for the 20 closed-ended questions and the format for the four open-ended questions at the conclusion of each section.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> I am confident in including disabled students in learning environments. (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)</item> <p></p> <item> I actively search for online resources (e.g., articles, blogs, videos) to learn about accessibility. (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)</item> <p></p> <item> Is there anything else you want to share about what you currently do to include adult learners with disabilities? (open-ended)</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0189325497-11">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Closed-ended items were first analyzed by calculating distributions (e.g., frequencies, means, standard deviations) ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref74">15</reflink>]). Then, the researchers conducted an exploratory factor analysis to cluster significantly correlated items (Eigenvalues greater than 1) into components and determine the relationships among those components ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref75">28</reflink>]). Factor analysis is useful for underlying variables, or factors, that explain correlations among survey data ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref76">17</reflink>]). Principal Component Analysis and Varimax rotation were used to identify distinct factors. Two items did not load onto any factor ("Including adult learners with disabilities is important to my institution's mission," "I actively provide materials in alternative formats [e.g., handouts, lecture slides, readings, videos]"), so they were excluded from further analysis. Results from the exploratory factor analysis allowed the researchers to evaluate the relationships between respondents' information practices and willingness to include ALDs. A series of simple linear regressions determined the theoretical relationships among the components. In the survey, the four sections ended with the open-ended question: <emph>Is there anything else you want to share about what you currently do to include ALDs</emph>? This enabled participants to share qualitative insights into their inclusive practices, challenges, and personal experiences, deepening our understanding of their approaches to accessible education. These qualitative responses proved invaluable, enriching our analysis and adding context and depth to the quantitative data.</p> <hd id="AN0189325497-12">Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189325497-13">Validating Responses and Analysis</hd> <p>Due to the purpose of this research, which focuses on adult education faculty in higher education institutions, 355 adult education faculty received emails via the American Adult and Continuing Education membership directory, the Commission of Professors in Adult Education email Listserv, and 40 other adult education programs, journals, and professional associations' websites. Despite the sample population's size of 355, the statistically significant response rate of 28.3%––supported by Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (<emph>Χ<sups>2</sups></emph> [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref77">136</reflink>, _I_N _i_= 85] = 498.16, <emph>p </emph><.001) and a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value of 0.68 ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref78">28</reflink>])––indicates that the dataset is reasonably suitable for factor analysis. The factor analysis of survey data revealed that closed-ended items possessed strong internal consistency and reliability (<emph>α </emph>=.80). This combination of a suitable response rate, appropriate KMO value, and strong internal consistency led us to conclude that factor analysis was an appropriate statistical method to rigorously analyze the responses in the context of disability-focused educational research (Table 1). Of note in Table 1 is that 13 respondents did not disclose demographic data; however, they completed the remaining survey items.</p> <p>Table 1. Respondents' Institution Types, Years of Teaching, Number of Students Accommodated, and Interactions with Disability Support Coordinators.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="(" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Demographic</th><th align="left">Frequency</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="2">Type of Institution</td></tr><tr><td>Public College or University</td><td>55 (64.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>Private College or University</td><td>17 (20.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Undisclosed</td><td>13 (15.3%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2">Years of teaching experience</td></tr><tr><td>Less than 1 year</td><td>2 (2.4%)</td></tr><tr><td>1–5 years</td><td>12 (14.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>6–10 years</td><td>17 (20.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>11–15 years</td><td>11 (12.9%)</td></tr><tr><td>16–20 years</td><td>9 (10.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>More than 20 years</td><td>21 (24.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>Undisclosed</td><td>13 (15.3%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2">Number of students provided accommodations in a typical semester</td></tr><tr><td>1–5 students</td><td>48 (56.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>6–10 students</td><td>13 (15.3%)</td></tr><tr><td>More than 10 students</td><td>3 (3.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td>7 (8.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Unsure</td><td>1 (1.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Undisclosed</td><td>13 (15.3%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2">Interactions with disability support coordinators in a typical semester</td></tr><tr><td>1–5 interactions</td><td>52 (61.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>6–10 interactions</td><td>3 (3.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>More than 10 interactions</td><td>1 (1.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Never</td><td>16 (18.8%)</td></tr><tr><td>Undisclosed</td><td>13 (15.3%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0189325497-14">Findings from the Exploratory Factor Analysis</hd> <p>Prior to conducting the EFA, our extensive literature review on accessibility practices in education highlighted adaptability, inclusiveness, and motivation as key factors influencing educators' engagement with students with ALDs. To operationalize these components, we crafted specific survey items aligned with our review's conceptual definitions. We then employed exploratory factor analysis to verify that the data clustered into these three components, confirming their relevance and distinctiveness. The three components from the exploratory factor analysis were <emph>Adaptable</emph>, <emph>Inclusive</emph>, and <emph>Motivated</emph> (Table 2). The <emph>Adaptable</emph> component measured respondents' willingness to make courses accessible to ALDs with or without institutional support. The <emph>Inclusive</emph> component measured respondents' current accessibility practices. The <emph>Motivated</emph> component measured respondents' realization of the benefits of including ALDs.</p> <p>Table 2. Components from Exploratory Factor Analysis.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="(" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Component</th><th align="center">Loadings</th><th align="center">Survey item</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic> (SD)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Adaptable</td><td>0.85</td><td>1. I am more likely to make my courses accessible when I am informed by the institution that disabled students are enrolled.</td><td>3.45 (1.56)</td></tr><tr><td>0.81</td><td>2. I am more likely to provide flexibility with assignments and materials when students disclose disabilities to me.</td><td>3.49 (1.59)</td></tr><tr><td>0.73</td><td>3. With additional institutional training on accessibility and disability topics, I would feel more prepared to mentor disabled students.</td><td>4.30 (0.92)</td></tr><tr><td>0.70</td><td>4. With additional institutional training on accessibility and disability topics, I would be more proactive in revising assignments and materials to make courses inclusive of disabled students.</td><td>4.31 (1.00)</td></tr><tr><td>0.67</td><td>5. With additional institutional training on accessibility and disability topics, I would be more confident in developing inclusive learning environments for adult learners with disabilities.</td><td>3.95 (1.10)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Inclusive</td><td>0.79</td><td>6. I am confident in including disabled students in learning environments.</td><td>4.06 (1.01)</td></tr><tr><td>0.73</td><td>7. I am comfortable speaking with disabled students about their accommodations.</td><td>4.53 (0.80)</td></tr><tr><td>0.67</td><td>8. I am flexible with accommodations for assignments and examinations.</td><td>4.84 (0.48)</td></tr><tr><td>0.64</td><td>9. I know the accessibility needs of disabled students.</td><td>4.07 (0.86)</td></tr><tr><td>0.61</td><td>10. I clearly state an accessibility policy in my syllabi.</td><td>4.70 (0.72)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Motivated</td><td>0.72</td><td>11. I actively attend professional conferences and training seminars to learn about accessibility.</td><td>3.54 (1.31)</td></tr><tr><td>0.72</td><td>12. I actively ensure that materials are accessible to students using assistive technologies (e.g., captioning, screen-reading, magnification, note-taking tools, etc.).</td><td>3.94 (1.23)</td></tr><tr><td>0.72</td><td>13. I actively search for online resources (e.g., articles, blogs, videos) to learn about accessibility.</td><td>3.54 (1.24)</td></tr><tr><td>0.70</td><td>14. I actively engage my institution's disability services.</td><td>3.59 (1.34)</td></tr><tr><td>0.57</td><td>15. I actively engage my institution's instructional design resources.</td><td>3.87 (1.27)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0189325497-15">Findings from the Simple Linear Regressions</hd> <p>Six simple linear regressions determined the theoretical directions of the <emph>Adaptable</emph>, <emph>Inclusive</emph>, and <emph>Motivated</emph> components:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The first regression model showed that the <emph>Adaptable</emph> and <emph>Inclusive</emph> components predicted the <emph>Motivated</emph> component: <emph>Motivated </emph>= −1.84 (Intercept) + 0.35 (<emph>Adaptable</emph>) + 0.90 (<emph>Inclusive</emph>). The first regression proved statistically significant: <emph>R<sups>2 </sups></emph>= 0.32, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>, 63) = 15.11, <emph>p </emph><.001. The <emph>Adaptable</emph> (<emph>β </emph>= 0.19, <emph>p </emph>=.003) and <emph>Inclusive</emph> (<emph>β </emph>= 0.47, <emph>p </emph><.001) components were significant predictors of the <emph>Motivated</emph> component.</item> <p></p> <item> A second regression model determined that the <emph>Adaptable</emph> and <emph>Motivated</emph> components were bidirectional: <emph>Adaptable </emph>= 3.32 (Intercept) + 0.20 (<emph>Motivated</emph>). The second regression was statistically significant: <emph>R<sups>2 </sups></emph>= 0.13, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref80">1</reflink>, 64) = 9.51, <emph>p </emph>=.003.</item> <p></p> <item> The third regression model found that the <emph>Motivated</emph> component significantly predicted the <emph>Inclusive</emph> component: <emph>Inclusive </emph>= 3.55 (Intercept) + 0.29 (<emph>Motivated</emph>). The third regression was statistically significant: <emph>R<sups>2 </sups></emph>= 0.29, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref81">1</reflink>, 64) = 26.60, <emph>p </emph><.001. This model indicates a bidirectional relationship between the <emph>Inclusive</emph> and <emph>Motivated</emph> components.</item> <p></p> <item> A fourth regression indicated that the <emph>Adaptable</emph> component significantly predicted the <emph>Inclusive</emph> component: <emph>Inclusive </emph>= 3.18 (Intercept) + 0.35 (<emph>Adaptable</emph>). The fourth regression was statistically significant: <emph>R<sups>2 </sups></emph>= 0.13, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref82">1</reflink>, 64) = 9.72, <emph>p </emph>=.003.</item> <p></p> <item> The fifth and final regression showed a bidirectional relationship between the <emph>Adaptable</emph> and <emph>Inclusive</emph> components: <emph>Adaptable </emph>= 2.32 (Intercept) + 0.37 (<emph>Inclusive</emph>). The final regression indicated that the <emph>Inclusive</emph> component was a significant predictor of the <emph>Adaptable</emph> component: <emph>R<sups>2 </sups></emph>= 0.13, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref83">1</reflink>, 64) = 9.72, <emph>p </emph>=.003.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0189325497-16">Adaptable-Inclusive-Motivated (AIM) Model for Including Adult Learners with Disabilities</hd> <p>The findings from the exploratory factor analysis and five simple linear regressions led the researchers to develop the A<emph>IM model</emph> (Figure 2).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Adaptable-Inclusive-Motivated (AIM) model for including ALDs.</p> <hd id="AN0189325497-17">Adaptable and Inclusive</hd> <p>Survey responses illustrated the bidirectional relationship between <emph>Adaptable</emph> and <emph>Inclusive</emph> components. Adult education faculty whose institutions provide accessibility training and resources can more confidently include ALDs in teaching and learning environments (<emph>M </emph>= 3.95; SD= 1.10). One respondent stated: "Our university does a really great job of educating instructors and providing resources to ensure our courses are accessible to students with disabilities." Adult education faculty have applied their accessibility knowledge and skills to provide course materials in alternative formats (e.g., handouts, lecture slides, readings, videos) (<emph>M </emph>= 4.33; SD= 0.86). For instance: "I have trained in Universal Design for Instruction and for Learning, and I have included tons of multimodal and multimedia options for students." Other adult education faculty expressed skepticism of institutional support for ALDs, a perception illustrated by one respondent:</p> <p>I think that older students, such as veterans or returning adult learners, seem to struggle more with this than traditional-aged students. My older students have often said that the support offices seem reluctant to help them and have some ageism issues, meaning there can be a double whammy of ableism as well as ageism.</p> <p>Although adult education faculty may clearly state accessibility policies in syllabi (<emph>M </emph>= 4.70; SD= 0.72) and perhaps engage disability support services (<emph>M </emph>= 3.59; SD= 1.34), there might be uncertainty regarding the proper delivery of accommodations. For example: "Students can have more time to complete assignments, but there are no parameters around this statement." Respondents have felt comfortable speaking with ALDs about their accessibility needs (<emph>M </emph>= 4.53; SD= 0.80). However, respondents in some institutions have been prohibited from discussing accommodations with ALDs, requiring instructors to direct their inquiries to disability support coordinators. This restrictive policy can impede the delivery of inclusive instruction, a respondent shared:</p> <p>At my institution, all I get is a form letter about what accommodations a student needs which arrives after term starts. Students are told not to speak to faculty, it seems, and the form letter is not relevant to all courses and instructional experiences. Since the student does not speak to me about their disability and needs, I am limited in what I can do. I would like to have these conversations. I think the whole class might benefit from some unique or nontraditional way of delivering or experiencing course content that arises out of a creative session with the student.</p> <p>Some adult education faculty conveyed a willingness to be inclusive of ALDs despite a perceived lack of institutional support. Respondents willing to be inclusive have communicated with ALDs (if permitted) to discuss accommodations, assignments, technology needs, and other concerns. "I am available for phone calls, Zoom [meetings], texts, and emails when I am not sleeping," a respondent shared. Adult education faculty members who have directly communicated with ALDs about their accommodations indicated a willingness to be inclusive (<emph>M </emph>= 3.49; SD= 1.59). When institutions notify adult education faculty that ALDs have been enrolled in their courses, the faculty are more likely to be inclusive (<emph>M </emph>= 3.45; SD= 1.56). Respondents have made efforts to ensure the compatibility of course materials with assistive technologies (e.g., captioning, screen-reading, magnification, note-taking tools, etc.) (<emph>M </emph>= 3.94; SD= 1.23). While the average response indicates that respondents have generally made efforts to ensure the compatibility of course materials with assistive technologies, the qualitative feedback reveals significant challenges. For example, one educator noted that "The task of converting materials to screen-readable, accessible digital formats is time-consuming and falls on the individual instructor." Additionally, efforts to enable the use of devices by all students to prevent singling out those with disabilities were mentioned to sometimes dampen the quality of class discussions. These statements highlight the complexities and trade-offs in implementing accessibility measures in educational settings. They are caveats to the larger claim, illustrating that while there is a general trend towards adapting materials, the process is fraught with practical difficulties that can impact the teaching environment.</p> <hd id="AN0189325497-18">Adaptable and Motivated</hd> <p>Survey items captured the bidirectional relationship between adult education faculty's <emph>Adaptable</emph> and <emph>Motivated</emph> responses. Faculty members' institutions differ regarding their policies and practices toward ALDs. One respondent highlighted the lack of accessibility coverage in their institution's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policy: "In my institution's mission, there is nothing directly listed about abilities. DEI information omits ability." Some adult education faculty members reported scarce accessibility resources and training, restrictive accommodations policies, and limited technical assistance. A faculty member stated: "My institution has been slow to add software options to current learning system platforms." Another respondent advocated more accessible instructional technologies: "For an online instructor, Universal Design must be automatically built into the learning management system." Respondents firmly indicated that enhanced resources (e.g., learning management systems) and training (e.g., disability awareness, legal compliance, Universal Design) would motivate them to become more proactive in revising assignments and materials (<emph>M </emph>= 4.31; SD= 1.00). One respondent articulated the perceived need for better resources and training:</p> <p>I think that Universal Design and concerns related to this topic need to be included in teaching [professional development] for faculty, as I have had to work with undergraduate faculty who are not especially supportive of these learners or seem annoyed that they need to provide accommodations.</p> <hd id="AN0189325497-19">Inclusive and Motivated</hd> <p>The bidirectional relationship between <emph>Inclusive</emph> and <emph>Motivated</emph> was evident throughout the survey responses. Survey respondents who have made their courses more inclusive of ALDs shared a desire to develop their accessibility knowledge and skills further: "I have learned a great deal about formatting documents and PowerPoints, using teaching strategies that invite and create space for all learners, etc." Adult education faculty reported building accessibility knowledge and skills by advancing their professional pathways. Respondents have consulted instructional designers in their institutions (<emph>M </emph>= 3.87; SD= 1.27), and they have attended conferences and training seminars through professional associations (e.g., the Association on Higher Education and Disability) (<emph>M </emph>= 3.54; SD= 1.31). One respondent developed a campus disability awareness organization during their graduate studies and now mentors ALDs professionally. Adult education faculty members have also sought information online (e.g., articles, blogs, videos) to build accessibility knowledge and skills (<emph>M </emph>= 3.54; SD= 1.24). Respondents have read articles in scholarly and popular journals and followed faculty members and instructional designers on social media platforms. One respondent described the value of online information-seeking: "Much of what I learn is based on my knowledge-seeking online. For example, I often search for ways to improve accessibility for online learners via academic and non-academic resources." Adult education faculty members highlighted the importance of personal connections to accessibility and disability through relatives and friends. For example:</p> <p>I am the mother of a disabled child, so the lens through which I look at ableism and disability has been influenced by this. I guarantee without this personal connection, I would have done what I felt was good accessibility work, but ultimately, would have been the bare minimum—which I see so many of my colleagues do.</p> <p>Another respondent shared: "I have personal relationships with various colleagues who have accessibility issues. In addition to my institution's resources and online information, friendships with them are important to me."</p> <hd id="AN0189325497-20">Discussion</hd> <p> <emph>RQ1: How do adult education faculty members build accessibility knowledge and skills to include adult learners with disabilities?</emph> </p> <p>Research question one examined how adult education faculty members build accessibility knowledge and skills to include ALDs. The survey results in relation to research question one offered five valuable insights—<emph>institutional support</emph>, <emph>inclusive practices</emph>, <emph>professional pathways</emph>, <emph>awareness</emph>, and <emph>resourcefulness—</emph>into how adult education faculty members' information practices (i.e., seeking, using, and sharing information) can enable them to foster inclusive teaching and learning environments for ALDs.</p> <p>The first insight, <emph>institutional support</emph>, showcases the enabling effects of higher education policies and practices on the information practices of adult education faculty. Policies and practices in higher education that influence the information practices of respondents include accessibility policies, DEI statements, accommodation delivery, and accessible instruction ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref84">11</reflink>]). Assuming institutional policies and practices are inclusive of ALDs, survey respondents (<emph>M </emph>= 3.95; SD= 1.10) are willing to solicit resources from disability support services, deliver accommodations, and share materials in alternative formats, among other actions ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref85">4</reflink>]). Hence, institutional policies and practices can significantly enhance the information practices of adult education faculty members, supporting the inclusion of ALDs.</p> <p>The second insight, <emph>inclusive practices</emph>, reveals activities undertaken by adult education faculty to include ALDs. Survey respondents indicated a general confidence (<emph>M </emph>= 4.06; SD= 1.01) in their knowledge of ALDs' accessibility needs ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref86">39</reflink>]). They include accessibility policies in their course syllabi (<emph>M </emph>= 4.70; SD= 0.72), request guidance from disability support services (<emph>M </emph>= 3.59; SD= 1.34), and deliver needed accommodations (<emph>M </emph>= 4.84; SD= 0.48) ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref87">4</reflink>]). When permissible, respondents may communicate directly with ALDs to discuss accommodations ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref88">37</reflink>]). One respondent highlighted the value of participating in a disability awareness coalition and how it enabled them to learn inclusive practices from colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref89">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>The third insight, <emph>professional pathways</emph>, highlights the significance of specialized training and professional development opportunities for building accessibility knowledge and skills. Respondents (<emph>M </emph>= 3.45; SD= 1.56) indicated that they typically learn about inclusive practices from instructional designers in their institutions ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref90">41</reflink>]). Some faculty members shared a willingness to participate in professional associations focused on disability awareness and inclusive practices ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref91">4</reflink>]). Training and professional development opportunities, such as those described by respondents, can encourage the exchange of accessibility knowledge and evidence-based practices among colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref92">30</reflink>]). These findings highlight the importance of engaging with and learning from more experienced colleagues within and beyond their institutions, which can help develop adult education faculty members' confidence in their proficiencies in designing inclusive teaching and learning environments ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref93">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>The fourth insight, <emph>awareness</emph>, concerns adult education faculty members' perceptions of the social significance of accessible and inclusive practices. In the survey, respondents recognized the importance of including ALDs through formalized education (e.g., elementary, higher, and special education). Some respondents described personal connections to disability, which could include having children or parents with disabilities. This personal connection instilled in them the value of including ALDs ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref94">32</reflink>]). Faculty members who may have disabled friends can help reinforce the values of accessibility and inclusion. These sources of awareness can prompt adult education faculty to translate their accessibility knowledge into inclusive practices.</p> <p>The fifth insight, <emph>resourcefulness</emph>, refers to the information practices employed by adult education faculty members to build knowledge and skills with the needs of ALDs. Survey respondents (<emph>M </emph>= 3.54; SD= 1.24) indicated that online information-seeking is valuable for building accessibility knowledge and skills ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref95">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref96">29</reflink>]). These proficiencies are developed by reading scholarly and popular press articles, following instructional designers on social media platforms, and subscribing to disability-related blogs.</p> <p> <emph>RQ2: Do adult education faculty members' accessibility knowledge and skills translate into their willingness to include adult learners with disabilities?</emph> </p> <p>Research question two examined the influence of adult education faculty members' accessibility knowledge and skills on their willingness to include ALDs. Respondents' willingness to include ALDs indicated their likelihood of accommodating and supporting these learners. Findings from the <emph>Adaptable</emph> component of the survey indicated that various factors influenced adult education faculty members' willingness to make courses accessible. Notably, respondents reported a moderate willingness (<emph>M </emph>= 3.45; SD= 1.56) to make courses accessible when informed by the institution that disabled students have been enrolled. Thus, institutional policies and practices may influence faculty members' information practices. Additionally, respondents indicated a willingness (<emph>M </emph>= 3.49; SD= 1.59) to provide flexibility with assignments and materials when students disclose disabilities, which indicates a level of responsiveness to each ALD's needs. This willingness by respondents to accommodate is slightly higher than when institutions communicate that disabled students have been enrolled (<emph>M </emph>= 3.45; SD= 1.56). The survey results reveal that adult education faculty members are highly receptive to additional institutional training on accessibility and disability topics. Respondents indicated a strong desire to be more proactive in revising assignments and materials (<emph>M </emph>= 4.31; SD= 1.00), feeling more confident in developing inclusive learning environments (<emph>M </emph>= 3.95; SD= 1.10) and feeling more prepared to mentor ALDs (<emph>M </emph>= 4.30; SD= 0.92). Findings from the <emph>Adaptable</emph> component suggest that respondents recognize the value of institutional resources and training for developing accessibility proficiencies.</p> <p>Findings from the <emph>Inclusive</emph> component reveal that while instructors may possess limited knowledge of their legal obligations to provide accommodations ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref97">39</reflink>]), most adult education faculty members in our survey are engaged in inclusive practices. Survey results show that many respondents routinely provide materials in alternative formats (<emph>M</emph> = 4.33; SD = 0.86), discuss accommodations comfortably with disabled students (<emph>M</emph> = 4.53; SD = 0.80), and demonstrate flexibility in accommodations for assignments and examinations (<emph>M</emph> = 4.84; SD = 0.48). Moreover, many respondents state an accessibility policy in their syllabi, indicating a commitment to inclusivity in their learning environments (<emph>M </emph>= 4.70; SD= 0.72). Findings from the survey indicate general confidence in understanding ALDs' accessibility needs ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref98">39</reflink>]); however, a noticeable portion indicated a need for additional resources and training to enhance their expertise (<emph>M </emph>= 4.3; SD=.92) and confidence (<emph>M</emph> = 3.95; SD = 1.10) in these domains. This suggests a disparity in preparedness among respondents, where those expressing a need for more support may benefit from targeted training programs to bolster their skills. As one educator aptly noted, "While we've come a little of the way, we still have a long way to go."</p> <p>Findings from the <emph>Motivated</emph> component of the survey reveal that adult education faculty members actively engage with various resources and support systems related to accessibility. They attend professional conferences, engage with disability services, utilize instructional design resources, and actively seek online resources to learn about accessibility. This motivation to stay informed and involved in accessibility-related activities reflects a proactive approach among educators. One noteworthy aspect of their proactive approach is their attendance at professional conferences (<emph>M </emph>= 3.54; SD= 1.31). These conferences can provide updates on the latest trends, best practices, and innovations in accessible design. Additionally, respondents demonstrate a commitment to inclusivity by actively collaborating with disability support services within their institutions (<emph>M </emph>= 3.59; SD= 1.34). These collaborations allow adult education faculty to understand ALDs' needs better and tailor their instruction accordingly. Furthermore, online resources play a vital role in the continuous learning process; adult education faculty members are no exception. Survey respondents (<emph>M </emph>= 3.54; SD= 1.24) indicated that online information-seeking is valuable for building accessibility knowledge and skills ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref99">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref100">29</reflink>]). They actively search for online resources related to accessibility, demonstrating a desire to expand their knowledge and teaching capabilities. <emph>Motivation</emph> showcased respondents' active engagement with various support networks and resources to remain engaged in accessibility-related activities is a testament to their dedication to fostering inclusive environments for every adult learner.</p> <hd id="AN0189325497-21">Implications</hd> <p>The implications of the <emph>AIM model</emph> support a philosophical shift from a traditional, deficit approach to a capability perspective, embracing the strengths of ALDs and fostering an inclusive educational environment that values diversity and individual potential. While existing frameworks for including ALDs might be theoretically effective, scholars have yet to validate their practical utility in adult education contexts empirically. The study's findings reveal bidirectional relationships between the <emph>Adaptable</emph>, <emph>Inclusive</emph>, and <emph>Motivated</emph> components, suggesting that these aspects of inclusivity are interconnected. The <emph>AIM model</emph>, which is statistically valid and reliable, has addressed the broader practical limitations of previous frameworks. The <emph>AIM model</emph> suggests that adult education faculty members' accessibility knowledge and skills positively influence their willingness to include ALDs. Its <emph>Adaptable</emph>, <emph>Inclusive</emph>, and <emph>Motivated</emph> components can offer practical guidance for institutions to comprehensively address the accessibility needs of ALDs, fostering an equitable and inclusive culture for all adult learners.</p> <p>The practical implications of the <emph>AIM model</emph> are threefold: First, by promoting attendance at workshops, participation in conferences, and consultations with instructional designers, institutions can not only enhance adult education faculty members' willingness but also their capacity to include ALDs, underscoring the critical role of institutional support and training in creating inclusive learning environments. Second, standardizing accessibility policies and facilitating open communication between educators and ALDs can further encourage inclusive practices. Leveraging personal connections to disability is also important. Finally, institutional support and policies significantly impact the ability of faculty to include ALDs. Thus, institutions should continue to provide accessible online resources related to disability support and inclusive teaching, aligning with the prevalent practice of using online resources to build accessibility knowledge and skills among educators. These practical implications offer guidance to higher education institutions, policymakers, and scholars to advance inclusivity in adult education programs.</p> <hd id="AN0189325497-22">Limitations and Future Research</hd> <p>When considering the broader applicability of the <emph>AIM model</emph>, it is essential to acknowledge the limitation of the study's sample size. The sample size of 85 respondents demonstrated statistical power with a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value of 0.68 ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref101">28</reflink>]), and the closed-ended survey items exhibited strong internal consistency and reliability (<emph>α </emph>= 0.80). While the data collected from the respondents is valuable, caution is needed when generalizing the results to a more extensive and diverse population of educators in higher education. Future research endeavors should focus on improving response rates by implementing effective outreach and engagement strategies. Expanding the study to encompass a more extensive and diverse pool of educators in higher education is essential to ensure the broader relevance and applicability of the <emph>AIM model</emph>. This expansion would enable researchers to capture a broader range of experiences, perspectives, and practices, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing inclusive practices among adult education faculty.</p> <p>Furthermore, in-depth qualitative research is imperative to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the five insights—institutional support, inclusive practices, professional pathways, awareness, and resourcefulness—influencing inclusive information practices among adult education faculty members and ALDs. Such research would delve deeper into the experiences, perspectives, and challenges that adult education faculty and ALDs face, shedding light on the nuanced aspects of their roles and interactions. This qualitative approach would provide valuable insights into how accessibility training, institutional support, and personal connections to disability affect inclusive practices. Moreover, it could uncover additional variables and contextual factors that impact these dynamics, thus enriching understanding of this crucial area of research.</p> <p>Considering the variability in survey respondents' accessibility knowledge and skills, future research should explore the long-term effects of accessibility training, institutional support, and personal connections to disability (e.g., relatives, friends, colleagues) on the inclusive practices of adult education faculty members. The findings indicated that respondents would strongly consider mentoring ALDs; however, few faculty members addressed mentorship in their open-ended responses. Opportunities for additional research exist to explore further the qualities of a healthy mentoring relationship for ALDs. This work might investigate the qualities of a willing mentor (e.g., experience with ALDs, personal disability connection, time spent mentoring, etc.) and a willing mentee (e.g., self-advocacy skills, openness to guidance, time invested, etc.).</p> <hd id="AN0189325497-23">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study effectively links its findings to the initial problem and purpose statements, offering a comprehensive response to the observed gaps in the existing literature on including ALDs in teaching and learning environments. While prior research has largely been theoretical and has not sufficiently captured the experiences of adult education faculty members, this study delves into how educators acquire knowledge about the variable needs of ALDs and their readiness to incorporate this knowledge into their teaching practices. By introducing the <emph>AIM model</emph>, the study outlines critical factors—such as institutional support, inclusive practices, professional development pathways, awareness, and resourcefulness—that influence educators' efforts to create inclusive environments. Each component of the <emph>AIM model</emph> addresses a specific aspect of how adult education faculty members can enhance their skills and commitment to inclusivity, providing a detailed roadmap for effectively supporting ALDs. Ultimately, this research not only deepens our understanding of the dynamics at play in educational inclusivity but also equips both educators and institutions with practical strategies to ensure that all learners, especially those with disabilities, receive equitable educational opportunities.</p> <ref id="AN0189325497-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref12" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ajzen I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ajzen I. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(4), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.195</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref20" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Alfred M. (2002). Linking the personal and the social for a more critical democratic adult education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2002(96), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.82</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref21" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Becker S., Palladino J. (2016). Assessing faculty perspectives about teaching and working with students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(1), 65–82. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1107476.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref23" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Black J., Moore E. (2019). UDL navigators in higher education: A field guide. CAST Professional Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Carr-Chellman D. J., Kroth M., Rogers-Shaw C. (2022). Human flourishing and adult education. In Adult Education Research Conference Proceedings, Norman, OK. https://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2022/papers/2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref15" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Case D. O., Given L. M. (2016). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref38" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Castrodale M. A. (2016). Critical disability studies and mad studies: Enabling new pedagogies in practice. Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 29(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.56105/cjsae.v29i1.5357</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref39" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Castrodale M. A. (2018). Teaching (with) dis/ability and madness. In Jeffress M. S. (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching with disability: Overcoming obstacles and enriching lives (pp. 187–204). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark M. A. (2006). Adult education and disability studies, an interdisciplinary relationship: Research implications for adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 56(4), 308–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713606289661</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dolmage J. (2017). Academic ableism: Disability and higher education. University of Michigan Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gerber P. J. (2012). The impact of learning disabilities on adulthood: A review of the evidenced-based literature for research and practice in adult education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411426858</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gregg N. (2012). Increasing access to learning for the adult basic education learner with learning disabilities: Evidence-based accommodation research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411426855</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hansen K. D., Dawson D. L. (2020). "We can do better": Community college faculty preparedness for teaching students with learning disabilities. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 13(4), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000142</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes A. F. (2020). Statistical methods for communication science. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Irvine-Smith S. (2017). Information through the lens: Information research and the dynamics of practice. Information Research, 22(1). <ulink href="http://www.webcitation.org/6oJcSe4kO">http://www.webcitation.org/6oJcSe4kO</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kline P. (2014). An easy guide to factor analysis (1st ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis B, Ali A., & Russell, J. (2025). Introducing mad studies. In B. Lewis, A. Ali, & J. Russell (Eds.), Mad studies reader (pp. 1–16). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003148456</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Libaque-Saenz C. F., Chang Y., Kim J., Park M.-C., Rho J. J. (2016). The role of perceived information practices on consumers' intention to authorize secondary use of personal data. Behavior & Information Technology, 35(5), 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2015.1128973</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Libaque-Saenz C. F., Wong S. F., Chang Y., Bravo E. R. (2021). The effect of Fair information practices and data collection methods on privacy-related behaviors: A study of mobile apps. Information & Management, 58(1), 103284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2020.103284</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindsay S., Cagliostro E., Alberici M., Morarji N., Karon L. (2018). A systematic review of the benefits of hiring people with disabilities. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 28(1), 634–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-018-9756-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mamboleo G., Dong S., Anderson S., Molder A. (2020). Accommodation experience: Challenges and facilitators of requesting and implementing accommodations among college students with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 53(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-201084</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKenzie P. J. (2003). A model of information practices in accounts of everyday-life information seeking. Journal of Documentation, 59(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410310457993</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer A., Rose D. H., Gordon D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for College Students with Disabilities. (2024). Adult learners. Retrieved October 2024 from https://nccsd.ici.umn.edu/clearinghouse/campus-life-and-identity/adult-learners</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicolini D. (2013). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olivas M., Gajda A. (2016). The law and higher education: Cases and materials on colleges in court (4th ed.). Carolina Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osborne J. W. (2014). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis. CreateSpace.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park T. W., Mohney K. D., Moore E. R., Rogers-Shaw C. (2022). A model for becoming an inclusive adult educator: Designing for disability. In Proceedings of the Adult Education Research Conference (Virtual). https://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2022/roundtables/12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park T. W., Roberts K., Delise D. (2017). The effects of professional development on universal design for instruction on faculty perception and practice. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(2), 123–139. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1153546</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers-Shaw C., Carr-Chellman D., Choi J. (2018). Universal design for learning: Guidelines for accessible online instruction. Adult Learning, 29(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159517735530</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers-Shaw C., Kroth M., Carr-Chellman D. (2022). Developing Profoundabilities: A new model for adult educators. In Adult Education Research Conference Proceedings, Norman, OK. https://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2022/roundtables/11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ross-Gordon J. M., Procknow G. (2020). Adult education and disability. In Rocco T. S., Smith M. C., Mizzi R. C., Merriweather L. R., Hawley J. D. (Eds.), The handbook of adult and continuing education (1st ed., pp. 392–400). Stylus Publishing, LLC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savolainen R. (2008). Everyday information practices: A social phenomenological perspective. Scarecrow Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savolainen R. (2017). Information sharing and knowledge sharing as communicative activities. Information Research, 22(3). <ulink href="http://www.webcitation.org/6tTRz0IcS">http://www.webcitation.org/6tTRz0IcS</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shanouda F. (2019). The violent consequences of disclosure ... and how disabled and mad students are pushing back. In Whitburn B., McMaster C. (Eds.), Disability and the university: A disabled students' manifesto (pp. 1–29). Peter Lang US.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheward K., Rogers-Shaw C., Park T. W. (2022). Creating connection by design: Supporting adult learners by building inclusive online academic communities. In Adult Education Research Conference Proceedings, Norman, OK. https://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2022/papers/27</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith S. A., Woodhead E., Chin-Newman C. (2021). Disclosing accommodation needs: Exploring experiences of higher education students with disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(12), 1358–1374. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1610087</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sniatecki J. L., Perry H. B., Snell L. H. (2019). Faculty attitudes and knowledge regarding college students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 14(2), 259–275. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1083837</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snyder S. N., Pitt K. A., Shanouda F., Voronka J., Reid J., Landry D. (2019). Unlearning through mad studies: Disruptive pedagogical praxis. Curriculum Inquiry, 49(4), 485–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2019.1664254</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stephens M. L., Lowney J., Ybarra C. M., Stephens S. (2022). Adult learning facilitators in any setting, instructional designers' roles as the adult learner and educator, and their perceived knowledge construction when preparing graduate faculty for teaching online: An interpretive study. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 34(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20319</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United States Department of Justice. (1973). Rehabilitation Act of 1973.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United States Department of Justice. (1990). Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United States Department of Justice. (2008). Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Revised 2008).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhong H., Han Z., Hansen P. (2023). A systematic review of information practices research. Journal of Documentation, 79(1), 245–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2022-0044</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0189325497-25"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Adam L. McClain https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7388-4292 Kevin J. Mallary https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6312-0497</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Adam L. McClain and Kevin J. Mallary</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Adam L. McClain serves as an Assistant Professor and Coordinator for the Master of Science in Adult Education program at North Carolina A&T State University in Greensboro, North Carolina. His research focuses on transformative learning theory, autoethnography, and narrative methodologies, promoting equitable access and inclusion for learners with disabilities in adult education, adult learning and development, artificial intelligence in adult education, and emotional well-being in adult education.</p> <p>Kevin J. Mallary serves as Instructional Design Specialist at Kennedy Krieger Institute and Adjunct Faculty at Johns Hopkins University School of Education in Baltimore, Maryland. His research and practice focus on creating accessible, engaging, and inclusive teaching and learning environments in adult and continuing education.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib136" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref94"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1489703
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: 'When We Design for Adult Learners with Disabilities, Everyone Benefits': Adaptable-Inclusive-Motivated (AIM) Model for Adult Educators to Include Adult Learners with Disabilities
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Adam+L%2E+McClain%22">Adam L. McClain</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7388-4292">0009-0002-7388-4292</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kevin+J%2E+Mallary%22">Kevin J. Mallary</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6312-0497">0000-0001-6312-0497</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Adult+Education+Quarterly%3A+A+Journal+of+Research+and+Theory%22"><i>Adult Education Quarterly: A Journal of Research and Theory</i></searchLink>. 2025 75(4):269-290.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 22
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Adult+Education%22">Adult Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adult+Educators%22">Adult Educators</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adult+Education%22">Adult Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Competencies%22">Teacher Competencies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accessibility+%28for+Disabled%29%22">Accessibility (for Disabled)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adult+Students%22">Adult Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Skills%22">Teaching Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/07417136251316259
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0741-7136<br />1552-3047
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study focuses on understanding how adult education faculty in higher education develop their knowledge and skills to accommodate adult learners with disabilities (ALDs). It explores how these educators learn about the accessibility needs of ALDs and their willingness to create inclusive learning environments. Adult education faculty were surveyed from various United States higher education institutions. Findings indicate that adult education faculty vary in accessibility knowledge and skills and are more willing to include ALDs when notified of their enrollment. Further, respondents desire greater institutional resources and training for developing inclusive practices. This study yielded an adaptable-inclusive-motivated (AIM) model for including adult learners with disabilities. The AIM model offers a comprehensive framework for understanding how adult education faculty navigate the interplay among institutional support, personal awareness, professional development, and proactive information-seeking. Findings contribute valuable insights for adult education faculty and higher education institutions to include ALDs more fully.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1489703
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1489703
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/07417136251316259
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 22
        StartPage: 269
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Adult Educators
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adult Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Competencies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accessibility (for Disabled)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adult Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: 'When We Design for Adult Learners with Disabilities, Everyone Benefits': Adaptable-Inclusive-Motivated (AIM) Model for Adult Educators to Include Adult Learners with Disabilities
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Adam L. McClain
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kevin J. Mallary
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0741-7136
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1552-3047
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 75
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Adult Education Quarterly: A Journal of Research and Theory
              Type: main
ResultId 1