motivations and barriers of undergraduate - Repositories

MOTIVATIONS AND BARRIERS OF UNDERGRADUATE NONTRADITIONAL STUDENTS IN THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES AND NATURAL

RESOURCES AT TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY

By

ASHLEY QUIGGINS, B.S

A THESIS

In

AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Approved

Jonathan Ulmer, Ph.D Chairperson of the Committee

Scott Burris, Ph.D

Rudy Ritz, Ph.D

Ryan Van Dusen, Ph.D

Dominick Casadonte, Ph.D Interim Dean of the Graduate School

May, 2013

Copyright 2013, Quiggins

Texas Tech University, Ashley Quiggins, May 2013

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

“Congratulations! Today is your day. You’re off to Great Places! You’re off and away!

You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself any

direction you choose. You’re on your own. And you know what you know. And YOU

are the guy who’ll decide where to go.”

-Dr. Seuss Life provides so many twists and turns, growing up I would never imagined

myself in Lubbock, Texas attending graduate school. I am truly blessed and forever

grateful for all the opportunities, friendships, and memories gained throughout this

process.

First, I would like to thank my family. Packing up my life in Kentucky and

moving 16 hours away to begin graduate school in Texas was a change, not only for me,

but for them as well. Your support, confidence, strength, and love have allowed me to

succeed. Thank you for believing in me, when at times I did not believe in myself. Mom

and Dad, your words of encouragement have pushed me to reach my goals throughout the

years. Blake, I could not ask for a more supportive, funny, and caring brother. You

remind me not to take life so serious at times and have fun. Adam, I am so blessed to call

you my fiancé. Your support and encouragement allowed me to see the light at the end

of the tunnel.

I would like to thank my committee. Dr. Ulmer, thank you for the support and

guidance. I will always remember the comic relief and talks in your office when I was

stressed to the max. Thank you for serving as my chair and sharing your expertise in


iii

agricultural education! Dr. Burris, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to work

with you and your classes. I have learned so much from your classroom instruction and

educational philosophy. Thank you for not leaving me behind in Costa Rica! Dr. Ritz,

thank you for your support and encouraging words throughout this entire process.

I would also like to thank the rest of the professors and staff in the Agricultural

Education and Communications Department for their support, kindness, and making Tech

my home away from home. I will cherish all the memories and laughs for the rest of my

life.

To my fellow graduate students, THANK YOU! I will cherish the football

games, lunches, and work days in the office for years to come. I am grateful to have

made so many friendships and I am eager to see all the amazing things each one of you

will accomplish in the future. I will never forget you or the wonderful memories! I am

grateful for the support and guidance not only for my thesis, but throughout my entire

master’s program.


vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... ii ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................ix I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Background Information ..................................................................................................1 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework ........................................................................ 2 Need for Study................................................................................................................. 3 Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................. 5 Definitions ........................................................................................................................5 Assumptions..................................................................................................................... 6 Limitations ........................................................................................................................7 Chapter Summary .............................................................................................................7 II.LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................................................8 Overview .................................................................................................................. .........8 Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................8 Knowles Theory of Andragogy ...................................................................................8 Houles Typology .........................................................................................................9 Donaldson and Graham Model of College Outcomes..................................................9 Adult Learner Motivation.................................................................................................13 Intrinsic Motivation....................................................................................................13 Extrinsic Motivation...................................................................................................14 Adult Learner Barriers......................................................................................................14 Chapter Summary.............................................................................................................17 III. METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................19 Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 19 Research Objectives........................................................................................................ 19 Research Design.............................................................................................................. 19 Population and Sample ................................................................................................... 20 Instrumentation ................................................................................................................20 Pilot Testing................................................................................................................21 Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 22 Data Analysis Procedure ................................................................................................ 23 Chapter Summary.............................................................................................................24 IV. FINDINGS..................................................................................................................25 Research Objectives...........................................................................................................25


ii

Population................................................................................................................... .......25 Findings for Objective One .............................................................................................25 Findings for Objective Two ..............................................................................................33 Findings for Objective Three ............................................................................................46 Chapter Summary............................................................................................................. 49 V.SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................... 50 Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................... 50 Limitations....................................................................................................................... 50 Design of Study.................................................................................................................50 Population................................................................................................................... .......51 Data Collection..................................................................................................................51 Data Analysis Procedure....................................................................................................51 Conclusions Related to Objective One..............................................................................52 Conclusions Related to Objective Two..............................................................................52 Conclusions Related to Objective Three............................................................................55 Recommendations..............................................................................................................56 Practitioners ..................................................................................................................56 Research.........................................................................................................................57 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................58 APPENDICES A. PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTER............................64 B. INSTRUMENT............................................................................................................65 C. PILOT TEST RECRUITMENT LETTER...................................................................73 D. RECRUITMENT E-MAIL..........................................................................................74 E. THANK YOU/FOLLOW UP E-MAIL........................................................................75


iii

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to determine the motivations and barriers of

nontraditional undergraduate students in the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural

Resources (CASNR) at Texas Tech University. The accessible population consisted of

all undergraduate nontraditional students enrolled in CASNR (N = 139) during the Fall

semester of 2012. Participation was voluntary and no incentives were given to complete

the research study. Forty four responded to the questionnaire, and two were removed by

the researcher due to partial completion, resulting in 42 (n = 42) complete responses.

This was a census study; therefore, undergraduate nontraditional students enrolled in

CASNR were considered to be representative of undergraduate nontraditional students in

previous semesters or thereafter.

Results indicated that nontraditional students in CASNR are intrinsically and

extrinsically motivated within their specific major. Nontraditional students have the

support from family and friends in their decision to continue education, but need more

assistance with obtaining financial aid and graduation information. The results will

facilitate possible areas of research.


ix

LIST OF TABLES

1. Demographic Characteristics of Students.................................................................... 27 2. Age of Participating Students.......................................................................................28 3. Income of Participating Students...................................................................................29 4. Work Traits of Participating Students...........................................................................30 5. Enrollment Status of Participating Students..................................................................31 6. Student Department Enrollment within CASNR...........................................................31 7. Military Service of Participating Students.....................................................................32 8. Decision to Continue Education ..................................................................................33 9. Subscale of Intrinsic Motivation....................................................................................35 10. Subscale of Extrinsic Motivation.................................................................................37 11. Subscale of Task Value...............................................................................................39 12. Subscale of Control of Learning Beliefs......................................................................41 13. Subscale of Self-Efficacy.............................................................................................43 14. Subscale of Test Anxiety.............................................................................................45 15. Frequency and Variability of Participant’s Barriers...................................................48


1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background Information

The latest report from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (2012) has shown the

situation that Americans of all ages are facing, a national unemployment rate of 8.1%.

The consequences of working or searching for a job, under the current economic

pressures, have driven adult learners to remain “marketable and competitive” (Milheim,

2005, p. 120). The transformation in the job market has led many adults to return to

school. While this could account for a major portion of adult students entering higher

education, there are other factors. Some factors to consider include: value in continuing

education, advancement for career, retirement plans, and job losses (Kenner &

Weinerman, 2011).

First, it is imperative to define the meaning of an adult learner or nontraditional

student. This can be a definition that varies from campus to campus. However, a review

of the literature indicates that many nontraditional students are categorized by age, 25

years or older, delayed enrollment into higher education, military service, employment

status, enrollment status at the university, and dependents other than a spouse (Bye,

Pushkar, & Conway, 2007; Senter & Senter, 1998; Scott & Lewis, 2012; Wyatt, 2011).

Nontraditional students now make up approximately 43% of the student population

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). Within the student population,


2

nontraditional students have the highest increase in enrollment since the 1980’s

(Compton, Cox, & Laanan, 2006).

With the increase in enrollment patterns from nontraditional students research

related to this student population continues to grow. Although limited, past research

indicates that nontraditional students are a very diverse population. Donaldson and

Graham (1999) concluded that nontraditional students learn differently. Various studies

describe nontraditional students. Kasworm (2008) revealed nontraditional students are

motivated differently to attend college than their younger classmates; identify different

support systems (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Donaldson & Graham; 1999); and experience

institutional, informational, situational, or psychological barriers (Darkenwald &

Merriam, 1982). Institutions of higher education must acknowledge the shift in student

populations (Scott & Lewis, 2012) and begin to serve this “increasing segment of college

students” (Wyatt, 2011, p. 11). This quantitative study examined the motivations and

barriers of undergraduate nontraditional students enrolled in the College of Agricultural

Sciences and Natural Resources (CASNR) at Texas Tech University.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Prior to the 1970’s, adult educators assumed that all members of a classroom

learned the same. Since then, there has been a great deal of effort by researchers to

identify how adult learners interact in the classroom, and how they should be instructed.

While there is no single theory that fully explains adult learning, there are many models

that build a solid foundation for educators. The most notable theory on adult learning

was proposed by Malcolm Knowles. Knowles labeled the concept andragogy, or “the art


3

and science of helping adults learn” (p.43). Knowles Theory of Andragogy (1980) is

based off four original assumptions (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). The

four original assumptions developed by Knowles were (as cited in Merriam et al., 2007):

1. As a person matures his or her self-concept moves from that of a dependent

personality toward one of a self-directing human being.

2. An adult accumulates a growing reservoir of experience, which is a rich

resource for learning.

3. The readiness of an adult to learn is closely related to the developmental tasks

of his or her social role.

4. There is a change in time perspective as people mature—from future

application of knowledge to immediacy of application. Thus, an adult is more

problem centered than subject centered in learning, [Merriam, et al., 2007]

The two additional assumptions are as follows:

5. The most potent motivations are internal rather than external

(Knowles & Associates, 1984, p. 12).

6. Adults need to know why they need to learn something (Knowles, 1984).

While some of these assumptions often mirror the process of learning for early learners,

experience coincides better with adult learners (Merriam & Cafarella, 1999).

Need for the Study

The study of nontraditional students is a fairly new area of research; therefore it is

important to note that there are limited studies and theories associated with adult learners

(Jinkens, 2009). Furthermore, research pertaining to nontraditional undergraduate


4

students enrolled in agriculture courses is very limited. It is evident though that

nontraditional students have a variety of experiences that “adds academic validity” to the

classroom (Scott & Lewis, 2012, p. 2).

Inside the classroom nontraditional students, not only bring experience, but also

differences in motivation and barriers, when compared to traditional college students.

Kasworm (2003) indicted that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for learning is high

in adult students. Additionally, Murphy and Roopchand (2003) discovered that between

traditional and nontraditional students, nontraditional students reported higher levels of

intrinsic motivation. While these studies provide some insight to the motivations of

nontraditional students, Justice and Dornan (2001) found that “few studies have

examined nontraditional students’ motivation to achieve once enrolled in college” (p.

237).

While nontraditional students are motivated, what challenges and barriers do they

face while pursuing a degree? Darkenwald and Merriam (1982) propose that barriers can

be categorized into institutional, informational, situational, or physiological. Institutional

barriers focus around instruction and educational planning. Situational barriers pertain to

issues such as transportation, and childcare (Brassett-Grundy, 2002). Each of these

barriers should be taken into the account. Wyatt (2011) states:

The increase in the number of nontraditional students returning to college

campuses has resulted in a need for college and universities to look at the

various factors and attributes of this population of students and what institutions

need to do in order to serve their unique needs (p. 10).


5

These unique needs must be addressed by faculty, staff, and administration. If

institutions of higher education are still placing focus on the traditional student and the

number of nontraditional students continues to rise, the gap for what adult learners need

will continue to widen.

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this study was to determine the motivations and barriers of


Resources at Texas Tech University. The following research objectives were used to

guide the study:

1. Describe undergraduate nontraditional students enrolled in the College of

Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas Tech University.

2. Determine undergraduate nontraditional student motivations in the College

of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas Tech University.

3. Determine undergraduate nontraditional student barriers in the College of

Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas University.

Definitions

Nontraditional Student: Also referred to as adult learner. 25 years or older, delayed

enrollment into higher education, military service, employment status, enrollment status

at the university, dependents other than a spouse (Bye, Pushkar, & Conway, 2007; Senter

& Senter, 1998; Wyatt, 2011; Scott & Lewis, 2012).

Texas Tech University: referred to as TTU. A four-year public institute of higher

education located in Lubbock, Texas.


6

College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources: referred to as CASNR.

CASNR is a college within Texas Tech University.

Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics: referred to as AAEC. Department

within CASNR offering the following undergraduate degrees: agribusiness, agricultural

and applied economics, agricultural and applied economics/general business.

Department of Agriculture Education and Communications: referred to as AEC.

Department within CASNR offering the following undergraduate degrees: agricultural

communications and interdisciplinary agriculture.

Department of Animal and Food Sciences: referred to as AFS. Department within

CASNR offering the following undergraduate degrees: animal science and food science.

Department of Landscape Architecture: referred to as LA. Department within CASNR

offering the following undergraduate degree: landscape architecture.

Department of Natural Resources Management: referred to as NMS. Department within

CASNR offering the following undergraduate degree: natural resource management.

Department of Plant and Soil Science: referred to as PSS. Department within CASNR

offering the following undergraduate degrees: horticulture, turf-grass management,

environmental crop and soil sciences.

Assumptions

For the purposes of this study the following were assumed:

1. All students have internet access.

2. E-mails that were provided are accurate and currently in use.

3. Participants answered the items honestly and accurately.


7

Limitations

The study is limited to the responses of nontraditional students who replied to

recruitment e-mails. Responses were completely anonymous to allow for privacy and

confidentiality. It can be difficult to draw conclusions from a census study.

Chapter Summary

Chapter I served as an introduction to this research study. A brief background

and context for the study was given. Insight into the theoretical and conceptual

framework was provided. The need for the study was demonstrated through previous

research, while acknowledging current limitations. The research objectives were

established to set goals for this study and provide a basis for the remaining chapters.

Definitions of terms were given to increase understanding and the author addressed

limitations and assumptions of the study.


8

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview

This chapter serves to identify the supporting research that led to the development

of this study. The literature review provided insight to foundational research of adult

education and set the stage for the context of this study. More specifically, information

regarding nontraditional student motivations and barriers was explored.

Theoretical Framework

Knowles Theory of Andragogy.

Higher education institutions received an inflation of nontraditional students, after

the military increased educational benefits at the end of the Vietnam War (Morstain &

Smart, 1974). With the changing classroom environment, educators began to address the

issues surrounding adult learners. Malcolm Knowles discovered that there are

differences between adult learners and their younger classmates. These differences lie

within the life experiences that adults use throughout their education. Knowles (1984)

made it clear that adult learners use prior experiences and approach learning in a way that

can be directly applied to daily activities.

According to Merriam (2001), andragogy was a turning point in education, as

educators were trying to distinguish differences throughout all areas of education.

During the 1970’s and early 1980’s there was discussion about the truth behind

andragogy. Through discussion and debate, andragogy is now being defined by the

learning situation (Merriam, 2001).


9

Houle’s Typology.

One of the assumptions provided in the explanation of andragogy focuses on

motivation. Motivation of adult learners can be intrinsic or extrinsic in nature. One of

the earliest studies conducted on adult motivation was by Houle (1961). This qualitative

study consisted of twenty-two adults and explored their experiences with learning, and

their perceptions of themselves as learners. The data yielded three learning categories:

goal-oriented learners, activity-oriented learners, and learning-oriented learners (Merriam

et al., 2007). These categories are known as Houle’s Typology. The early work of Houle

opened the door for future research. In the late 1960’s, Boshier conducted an extensive

study of Houle’s Typology. This led to the development of the Educational Participation

Scale (EPS). The EPS focuses on adult learner motivation. This allowed Boshier to

identify seven categories of Houle’s Typology: improvement of communications skills

(written and verbal); social contact; remedial education; professional development;

family; social stimulation; and cognitive interests (Boshier, 1991; Merriam et al., 2007).

Houle’s Typology is foundational in the study of adult learner motivation. The most

notable and advanced research has been administered by Boshier (Merriam et al., 2007).

Donaldson and Graham’s Model of College Outcomes.

“Donaldson and Graham’s (1999) Model of College Outcomes for adults, is a

synthesis of key early research studies on adult learning and persistence” (Samuels,

Beach, & Palmer, 2011, p. 352). This model accounts for the diversity of nontraditional

students through six pieces (Samuels et al., 2011). These components include: prior

experiences/biographies; adults’ psycho-social and value orientations; the connecting


10

classroom; complex adult cognition; life-world environments; and concludes with

outcomes (Samuels et al., 2011). This model, shown in Figure 1, illustrates how each

piece builds upon the other and interacts with the next component.

Figure 1. Donaldson and Graham Model of College Outcomes for Adult Students (1999,

p. 28).

Prior Experiences.

This component encompasses nontraditional students’ unique experiences and

biographies. These experiences “influence self-efficacy, motivation, and responsibility,

and impact adult students’ approach to their educational experiences” (Samuels et al.,

2011, p. 353). Donaldson, Graham, Martindill, and Bradley (2000) highlighted that these

experiences range from “inauthentic, to simulated, to authentic” (p. 3). Adult learners


11

will use prior experiences to “make meaning of their experiences in college” (Donaldson

& Graham, 1999).

Psycho-social and Value Orientations.

The psycho-social and value orientation portion of the model is influenced by the

prior experiences and personal biographies of adult learners (Donaldson & Graham,

1999). The way adult learners perceive themselves influences their collegiate experience.

Previous studies indicated that adult learners make up for lack of confidence in their skill

set by working harder than their younger classmates (Sheehan, McMenamin, &

McDevitt, 1992). Adult learners also tend to focus more on their academics, while

traditional college students value the social aspects of college (Kasworm & Blowers,

1994).

Connecting Classroom.

It is very important that adult learners feel connected to the classroom because

this is the main area that they utilize to connect to the university (Donaldson & Graham,

1999). Adult learners are less involved in activities on campus (Cupp, 1991). Kasworm

(1995) indicated that adult students are often too busy with other life roles to be involved

in extracurricular activities on campus.

The classroom environment plays an integral role in adult learners’ satisfaction

and collegiate experience. Graham and Long (1998) concluded that interactions with

faculty members and the quality of instruction was more important than activities outside

of the classroom. If there is a lack of communication with faculty and staff, adult

learners will lean on the support from their family and friends, while traditional students


12

will focus on social interactions outside of the classroom (Donaldson & Graham, 1999).

Donaldson and Graham (1999) placed the classroom as the “fulcrum of the collegiate

experience for adults” (p.31). When the classroom is placed as the focal point of their

collegiate experience it is important for faculty members to meet the needs of adult

learners.

Adult Cognition.

This component of the model incorporates “adults prior experiences, connection

to the classroom, and life-world environment” (Donaldson & Graham, 1999, p. 31).

Within this area there are three forms of cognition that allow adults to modify new

information so that it aligns with prior experiences. These areas include: “declarative and

procedural knowledge structures, metacognitive or self-regulatory processes, and

cognitive operations” (Donaldson & Graham, 1999, p. 32). The development of these

cognitive skills enables adult learners to assess their educational experience. More

specifically adults can determine their learning approaches, motivation level, and how to

directly apply what they have learned in day to day activities.

Life-World Environment.

This component focuses on adult learners’ daily life. For adult learners, it is vital

they have a strong support system to guide them through their collegiate experience. If a

support system is not in place, it can “detract from elements of the psychosocial and

value orientations component when adults engage in their collegiate experiences”

(Donaldson & Graham, 1999, p. 34).


13

College Outcomes for Adults.

The final component of the model looks specifically at the outcomes that are

developed from the college experience. These outcomes can focus on cognitive level,

satisfaction, motivations, and application of knowledge gained (Donaldson & Graham,

1999; Kasworm, 1995). Cupp (1991) discovered that higher education can alter the

attitudes of adult learners. These changes can make adult learners aspire to reach their

goals. This portion of the model allows researchers the opportunity to focus on many

issues and make connections through adult learners colligate experiences.

Adult Learner Motivation

Research on college entry has been conducted, but “few studies have examined

nontraditional students’ motivation to achieve once enrolled in college” (Justice &

Dornan, 2001, p. 237). Kasworm (2003) analyzed adult learners’ comprehension of their

learning experiences in higher education and found that older adult students show higher

degrees of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

Intrinsic Motivation.

“Intrinsic motivation is defined as the doing of an activity for its inherent

satisfactions rather than for some separable consequence” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 56).

Bye, Pushkar, and Conway (2007) indicate that a student who is intrinsically motivated

will show characteristics of “autonomy and employ self-initiated exploratory strategies”

(p.144). Ryan and Deci (2000) believe that intrinsic motivation occurs between the

person and certain activities.


14

Justice and Dornan (2001), focusing on metacognition and motivation of

nontraditional and traditional students, found “only older female students reported higher

levels of intrinsic motivation” (p. 245). Conversely, Bye et al. (2007) concluded that

most nontraditional students reported higher levels of intrinsic motivation than their

younger classmates.

Extrinsic Motivation.

Ryan and Deci (2000) stated that “extrinsic motivation is a construct that pertains

whenever an activity is done in order to attain some separable outcome” (p. 60). This

area of motivation can become more ambiguous in nature. For example, students who

are completing assignments for a grade or to avoid certain undesirable consequences are

extrinsically motivated. These students are completing the assigned task for reasons that

are not associated with internal factors. Students who are extrinsically motivated often

want answers to procedural questions and not questions based off class content (Sansone

& Smith, 2000). With the concept of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, there have been

studies conclude that extrinsic motivation can in fact change an individuals’ intrinsic

motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). Knowing the impact these motivational

constructs can have on how adult learners approach a task, can provide faculty members

with tools to utilize in the classroom.

Adult Learner Barriers

The transition to college can be difficult for many students, but for nontraditional

students there are additional barriers to overcome. After an extensive literature review on

nontraditional students there are numerous barriers in higher education. Senter and


15

Senter (1998) recognize the needs of nontraditional students have not been reviewed.

After determining that adult learners are more intrinsically motivated and want more

control over their learning activities than their younger classmates, it was suggested that

institutions of higher education are hesitant to meet the needs of the growing

nontraditional student population. This hesitation could be related to administration’s

fear of the cost associated with meeting the needs of these students (Senter & Senter,

1998).

Nontraditional student needs should also be addressed. Thon (1984) determined

many institutions of higher education were not adapting programs to meet the needs of

nontraditional students, but expected students to modify their behaviors to fit into the

more traditional programs. After analyzing data from a stratified sample of student

administrators, Thon (1984), offered some recommendations that would be beneficial for

universities to incorporate. The first recommendation included increasing institutional

awareness and needs of adult students. Embedded in the foundations of Knowles Theory

of Andragogy, adult students do not learn the same as their younger students.

Universities need to gain all the information they can about nontraditional students and

try to meet their needs (Thon, 1984). The second recommendation focused on

establishing a liaison or spokesperson for adult students. This person could assist adult

learners with daily activities on campus and their overall needs. The final

recommendation that could be beneficial in the current college atmosphere includes

incorporating nontraditional students’ family members into campus activities. When

events are being held on campus for traditional students, make an effort to involve


16

nontraditional students’ families. If they are involved and take an active role in the

education of their family member, then they will be more supportive and the transition

will be easier.

Family relationships are a critical barrier for nontraditional students returning to

higher education (Donaldson, 1999). Many nontraditional students recognize the balance

between family responsibilities, academics, and work (Compton & Schock, 2000).

Family members need to understand the reason they are continuing education and the

impact a college degree can have on not only their future, but the future of the family

(Justice & Dornan, 2001). The opportunity to plan a class schedule that meets the

demands of child care services and is flexible to coincide with a spouses schedule is

another barrier that nontraditional students face.

While family relationships are vital, financial resources are always a concern.

Often, adult learners are returning to school to increase income, gain a certification,

obtain a higher degree, or for self satisfaction (Milheim, 2005). Family can influence the

decision to return to school, continue education, or drop out. Financial stresses are

usually subsided with part-time or full-time employment (Donaldson, 1999).

Similar to traditional students, adult learners are attending class and are employed

on or off campus. Planning academic schedules that will work with family obligations

and work can be challenging. Nontraditional students have difficulty enrolling in classes

that are offered during regular times (Daniel, 2000). Offering evening classes and

weekend classes can alleviate the stress that nontraditional students’ face when preparing

semester schedules. Institutions of higher education should also offer classes that can be


17

accessed via distance or satellite (Vangen, 1998). Providing students with flexibility in

educational planning can assist nontraditional students through their collegiate

experience.

Within the classroom setting nontraditional students often face anxiety and many

emotions that traditional students do not. According to Bishop-Clark and Lynch (1992)

nontraditional students have a discomfort with younger and older classmates and find it

hard to connect to faculty members. The classroom environment plays a major role in

adult learners’ collegiate experience. This idea is parallel with Donaldson and Graham

Model of College Outcomes (1999) that indicates the classroom is the center point of

nontraditional students’ collegiate experience. If nontraditional students feel comfortable

in the classroom environment they can add to the classroom by offering their experiences

and real world approaches. Scott and Lewis (2012) state:

Allowing the experiences of nontraditional students to become an additive to class

discussions will not only foster an environment that also provides realistic

applications to the content, but also encourage experiential learning for older

students to increase their participation level (p. 3).

It is important that faculty members recognize the benefits of having adult learners in

class and learn how to incorporate their experiences into the classroom. The transition to

college can be difficult for students of all ages and backgrounds; however adult learners

face numerous challenges from family obligations, financial resources, educational

planning, and classroom interaction. Adult learners’ previous experiences allow them to

view situations through a much different lens than traditional stude


18

Chapter Summary

This chapter served as a review of literature and previous research to support this

study. Knowles Theory of Andragogy (1984), Houle’s Typology (1961), and Donaldson

and Grahams Model of College Outcomes (1999) served as the framework for this study.

Each of these components is foundational to the understanding of adult education.

Motivation of adult learners was addressed through previous studies; though

limited research has been conducted it is evident that adult learners are intrinsically

motivated to achieve in higher education. Extrinsic motivation is also present and can

have an effect on intrinsic motivation.

For adult learners there are numerous barriers to overcome in order to be

successful. Faculty, staff, and administrators must realize these needs and learn to adapt

programs to meet the growing nontraditional student population. By understanding the

motivations and barriers surrounding nontraditional students, institutions of higher

education can provide them with assistance and be proactive in planning programs.


19

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to determine the motivations and barriers of


Resources at Texas Tech University.

Research Objectives

The following research objectives were used to guide the study:



2. Determine undergraduate nontraditional student motivations in the College of


3. Determine undergraduate nontraditional student barriers in the College of


Research Design

This investigation was a census study. Oliver and Hinkle (1982) recognize that

information might only be attainable from certain individuals at a given time and can be a

representative sample of that population over time. Therefore, in this study,

undergraduate nontraditional students enrolled in CASNR were considered to be

representative of undergraduate nontraditional students in previous semesters or

thereafter. Approval from the Human Research Protection Program at Texas Tech

University was obtained before the research project began (see Appendix A).


20

Population and Sample

The accessible population consisted of all undergraduate nontraditional students

enrolled in CASNR (N = 139) during the Fall semester of 2012. The sampling frame was

obtained from the Bill Bennett Student Success Center within CASNR. The frame was

constructed based upon age (25 years or older). Participation was voluntary and no

incentives were given to complete the research study. For this study, 44 responded to the

questionnaire, and two were removed by the researcher due to partial completion.

Dillman, Smyth, and Christian (2009) stated 25% response rate is acceptable with online

survey research.

Instrumentation

The first section pertained to selected personal demographics. Twelve questions

were developed to collect information regarding gender, age, marital status, ethnicity,

employment status, income, enrollment in department within CASNR, decision to

continue education, current enrollment status, work hours per week, distance to work, and

military service.

The second section utilized The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

(Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991). The instrument was modified to be used

online rather than paper-based and questions were adapted from a specific course to the

students’ college experience within their major. Only the first 31 motivation questions

were used, and data analysis was conducted on all subscales (intrinsic motivation,

extrinsic motivation, task value, learning beliefs, self-efficacy, and test anxiety).


21

Students rated themselves on a seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “not at all

true of me” (1) to “very true of me” (7).

The third section included 11 questions that focused on the barriers nontraditional

students face, based off the review of literature. The barriers include, financial aid for

students, planning academic schedules, preparation for college, graduation requirements,

family support, and university support. In order to be consistent with the second section

of the instrument a seven-point Likert-type scale was used ranging from “not at all true

of me” (1) to “very true of me” (7).

The three part instrument was originally developed online using Qualtrics, due to

licensing requirements with TTU, Qualtrics was replaced as a source for data collection

requiring the instrument to be placed on Survey Monkey. Participation was voluntary

and anonymous. Participants could skip questions or stop at anytime during the process

(see Appendix B).

Pilot Testing.

A pilot study was conducted with undergraduate nontraditional agriculture

students at a four year institution in the Midwest. The questionnaire was administered to

23 individuals, with 13 completing the questionnaire. Gall, Gall, and Borg (2007) state

that “a pilot study involves small-scale testing of the procedures that you plan to use in

the main study, and revising the procedures based on what the testing reveals” (p. 56).

Participants were contacted via email and recruited with a script and link to the

questionnaire (see Appendix C). Participants were asked to complete the survey, but

could skip questions or stop at anytime during the process.


22

At the conclusion of the pilot study, a reliability analysis was conducted using the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 18.0 for windows. The overall

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for items that were modified from the Motivated Strategies

for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich et. al., 1991) was .89. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient

was also conducted on the subscales: intrinsic motivation was .85, extrinsic motivation

was .62, task value was .86, control of learning beliefs was .35, self-efficacy for learning

was .68, and test anxiety was .83. In comparison to previously reported Cronbach alpha

levels all subscales were close or parallel to results (Pintrich et. al., 1991). While

extrinsic motivation, control of learning beliefs, and self-efficacy were not in the

acceptable range for reliability subsequent changes were made to increase reliability.

Additionally, reliability was tested on the barriers of nontraditional students that were

developed from the review of literature. The Cronbach alpha coefficient was .70 which is

in the acceptable range for reliability. Overall, the instrument was found to be reliable.

Data Collection

Data collection began on October 12, 2012 and continued until November 16,

2012. All undergraduate nontraditional students enrolled in CASNR during the fall

semester of 2012 received an e-mail requesting their participation in the research study.

Participants were contacted by a faculty member requesting their participation from the

researcher (see Appendix D). An initial email was sent on October 12, 2012 and then

two additional reminder/thank you emails were sent on October 22, 2012, and November

2, 2012 (see Appendix E). According to Ary, Jacobs, and Sorensen (2011), web-based

surveys have a number of advantages which include: fast completion and are less


23

expensive than mail questionnaires. The researcher incorporated methods to make the

participants feel comfortable and willing to participate, by utilizing a web-based delivery

system and e-mailing the link to potential participants. Ary et al. (2011) recommends

that if participants receive a prior e-mail notification they are more willing to complete

the questionnaire. Since mail surveys are still prominent in survey research, information

is lacking on procedures for internet based research; therefore for this study follow-up e-

mails were followed as prescribed by Ary et. al (2011) for follow-up mailings. Ary et. al

(2011) stated, “If a questionnaire has not been returned in a week or 10 days after the

initial mailing, send a postcard to the respondent” (p. 407). The initial e-mail was sent on

October 12, 2012, the researcher waited 10 days to send the next reminder, then an

additional 10 days to send the third and final follow-up. According to Dillman et al.

(2009), “one has no control over what time mail is delivered to sample members, but e-

mail messages will likely arrive in the respondent’s inboxes within minutes or even

seconds of being sent” (p. 280). With this in mind, the researcher did not send multiple

e-mails during the day or week. Dillman et al. (2011) suggests e-mail questionnaires

should be sent in the morning before individuals are distracted with daily tasks. The

initial e-mail and follow-up e-mails were sent during the morning hours to increase

response rate. Due to the anonymity of the study, the researcher could not account for

non-responders, this should be considered as a limitation of the study.

Data Analysis Procedure

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)

version 18.0. Demographic information and descriptive statistics were reported for


24

measures of central tendency and variability. Scores were summated for the 31 items

under the motivation construct, as well as the subscales. Frequencies and percentages as

well as the overall means and standard deviations were reported for each.

Chapter Summary

This chapter serves as a review of the methods and procedures used for this study.

This was a census study of undergraduate nontraditional CASNR students enrolled in the

Fall 2012 semester. Data were electronically collected through Survey Monkey and

consisted of demographic questions, a modified version of the Motivated for Learning

Strategies Questionnaire (Pintrich et al., 1991), and questions based on the barriers that

were derived from the literature review. In order to test for reliability, a pilot test was

conducted and compared to previous Cronbach’s alpha figures, then adjustments were

made and the questionnaire was distributed via e-mail to potential participants. Data

were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 18.0.


25

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

Research Objectives



Resources at Texas Tech University. For this study the following research objectives

were used to guide the study:



2. Determine undergraduate nontraditional student motivations enrolled in the

College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas Tech University.

3. Determine undergraduate nontraditional student barriers enrolled in the College of


Population

This was a census study; therefore, undergraduate nontraditional students enrolled

in CASNR were considered to be representative of undergraduate nontraditional students

in previous semesters or thereafter. 139 current undergraduate nontraditional students

enrolled in CASNR were contacted via e-mail, 44 responded. Following data collection,

the data set was cleaned eliminating empty cases, resulting in 42 (n = 42) participants.

Findings for Objective One

Research objective one sought to describe undergraduate nontraditional students

enrolled in the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas Tech


26

University. Twelve questions were asked as a way to describe the participating

nontraditional students on the demographic variables of gender, age, marital status,

ethnicity, employment status, income, enrollment in department within CASNR, decision

to continue education, current enrollment status, work hours per week, distance to work,

and military service. Categorical demographic data of the students were reported in

frequencies and percentages (see Table 1). The majority of participants were female (n =

25, 59.5%) in comparison to male students (n = 17, 40.5%). Thirty-five (83.3%) of the

participants were Caucasian, followed by Hispanic/Latino (n = 4, 9.5%), Multiracial (n =

2, 4.8%), and other (n = 1, 2.4%). When asked about their current marital status the

majority of participants were married (n = 21, 50.0%), followed by single (never married)

(n = 16, 38.1%), and divorced (n = 5, 11.9%). The current employment status of

participants was, employed part-time (n = 17, 40.5%), employed full-time (n = 12,

28.6%), unemployed (n = 7, 16.7%), and other (n = 6, 14.3%).


27

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of Students (n = 42)

Characteristic Frequency Percent

Gender

Female 25 59.5

Male 17 40.5

Ethnicity

Caucasian, White 35 83.3

Hispanic/Latino 4 9.5

Multiracial 2 4.8

Other 1 2.4

Marital Status

Married 21 50.0

Single, (never married) 16 38.1

Divorced 5 11.9

Employment Status

Employed, part-time 17 40.5

Employed, full-time 12 28.6

Unemployed 7 16.7

Other 6 14.3 Note. Gender mode = Female; Ethnicity mode = Caucasian, White; Marital Status mode = Married; Employment Status mode = Employed, part-time. Table 2 indicates the age of participants based off categories that were provided.

When asked to select their age based off the categories provided, participants most


28

frequently selected 25 - 27 years (n = 19, 45.2%), 28 - 30 years (n = 8, 19.0%), 31 - 33

years (n = 3, 7.1%), 37 - 39 years (n = 2, 4.8%), 40 - 42 years (n = 1, 2.4%), 43 - 45 years

(n = 1, 2.4%), 46 - 48 years (n = 3, 7.1%), 49 - 51 years (n = 2, 4.8%), and 52 – 54 years

(n = 3, 7.1%).

Table 2

Age of Participating Students (n = 42)

Age Frequency Percent

25-27 19 45.2

28-30 8 19.0

31-33 3 7.1

37-39 2 4.8

40-42 1 2.4

43-45 1 2.4

46-48 3 7.1

49-51 2 4.8

52-54 3 7.1 Note. Not all age categories were represented leaving gaps in the sequence. Age mode = 25-27 years. Income of participants is presented in Table 3. Participants were asked to select

the category that best represents their income. Participants most frequently reported an

income of $10,000- $19,999 (n = 9, 21.4%), followed by $9,999 or less (n = 7, 16.7%).

The fewest amount of respondents had an income of $90,000 - $99,999 (n = 1, 2.4%) and

$125,000 - $149,999 (n = 1, 2.4%).


29

Table 3

Income of Participating Students (n = 40)

Income Frequency Percent

$9,999 or less 7 16.7

$10,000 - $19,000 9 21.4

$20,000 - $29,999 2 4.8

$30,000 - $39,999 3 7.1

$40,000 - $49,999 5 11.9

$50,000 - $59,999 2 4.8

$60,000 - $69,999 3 7.1

$70,000 - $79,999 2 4.8

$90,000 - $99,999 1 2.4

$100,000 - $124,999 2 4.8

$125,000 - $149,999 1 2.4

$150,000 or more 3 7.1 Participants were asked how many hours a week they worked and the amount of

time it takes to travel to their work location. Data on work information is presented in

Table 4. Participants most frequently work 10 - 20 hours per week (n = 13, 31.0%),

followed by over 40 hours per week (n = 8, 19.0%), 35 - 40 hours per week (n = 6,

14.3%), 30 - 35 hours per week (n = 4, 9.5%), 25 - 30 hours per week (n = 3, 7.1%), and

concluding with 20 - 25 hours per week (n = 2, 4.8%). The time it takes to reach their

work location was split with 18 (42.9%) working on campus, 17 (40.5%) traveling 30

minutes, and one (2.4%) traveling one hour and 30 minutes.


30

Table 4

Work Traits of Participating Students (n = 36)


Work hours per week

10-20 13 31.0

20-25 2 4.8

25-30 3 7.1

30-35 4 9.5

35-40 6 14.3

Over 40 8 19.0

Time of travel to work

On Campus 18 42.9

30 minutes 17 40.5

1 hour and 30 minutes 1 2.4 Note. Work hours per week mode = 10-20 hours; Time of travel to work mode = on campus. The current enrollment status of nontraditional students in CASNR at TTU is

displayed in Table 5. The majority of students are enrolled full time (n = 31, 73.8%),

while 11 (26.2%) are enrolled part time.


31

Table 5

Current Enrollment Status of Participating Students (n = 42)


Full Time 31 73.8

Part Time 11 26.2 Note. Enrollment status mode = full time. Participants were asked to identify which department they were currently enrolled

in within CASNR (see Table 6). It is important to note that all departments within

CASNR were represented. Eighteen (42.9%) are enrolled in the Plant and Soil Science

department, followed by eight (19.0%) in Natural Resources Management, six (14.3%) in

Animal and Food Sciences, four (9.5%) in Agricultural and Applied Economics, three

(7.1%) in Agricultural Education and Communications, and three (7.1%) in Landscape

Architecture.

Table 6

Student Department Enrollment within CASNR (n = 42)

Department Frequency Percent

Plant and Soil Science 18 42.9

Natural Resources Management 8 19.0

Animal and Food Sciences 6 14.3

Agricultural and Applied Economics 4 9.5

Agricultural Education and Communications 3 7.1

Landscape Architecture 3 7.1 Note. Department mode = Plant and Soil Science


32

Participants were asked about their service in the military. Thirty-one (73.8%)

responded no, while 11 (26.2%) has served in the military. Data is displayed on military

service in Table 7.

Table 7

Military Service of Participating Students (n = 42)

Military Service Frequency Percent

No 31 73.8

Yes 11 26.2 Note. Military Service mode = no. When asked about their decision to continue education, participants were asked to

select all that apply (see Table 8). Thirty-three (78.6%) are continuing their education to

obtain a higher degree, 31 (73.8%) for personal satisfaction, 25 (59.5%) to improve their

income, 18 (42.9%) to learn a new occupation, 12 (28.6%) to improve job skills, 11

(26.2%) to meet job requirements, and concluded with four (9.5%) to obtain or maintain

certification.


33

Table 8

Decision to Continue Education (n = 42)

Statement Frequency Percent

Obtain a Higher Degree 33 78.6

Personal Satisfaction 31 73.8

Improve my income 25 59.5

Learn a New Occupation 18 42.9

Improve Job Skills 12 28.6

Meet Job Requirements 11 26.2

Obtain or Maintain Certification 4 9.5 Note. Respondents were instructed to check all that apply. Findings for Objective Two

Objective two sought to determine undergraduate nontraditional student

motivations in the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas Tech

University. Means, standard deviations, frequency counts, and percentages were

calculated to report on this objective. The motivations of nontraditional students were

determined utilizing the Motivated for Learning Strategies Questionnaire (Pintrich et al.,

1991). The first 31 questions were used, that include six subscales; intrinsic motivation,

extrinsic motivation, task value, control of learning beliefs, self-efficacy, and test anxiety.

Questions were based on a seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from not at all true of

me to very true of me. For clarity on the findings the researcher categorized the averages

and will be reported as follows: 1 – 2.49 = not true of me, 2.50 – 3.49 = hardly ever true


34

of me, 3.50 – 4.49 = occasionally true of me, 4.50 – 5.49 = sometimes true of me, 5.50 –

6.49 = almost always true of me, and 6.50 – 7 = very true of me.

The subscale of intrinsic motivation is displayed in Table 9. Four statements were

asked that pertained to the area of intrinsic motivation. All four statements had an

average that fell in the category of almost always true of me. Participants reported the

highest average (M = 6.12, SD = 0.94) on the statement “the most satisfying thing for me,

in my major, is trying to understand the content as thoroughly as possible”, followed by

“in my classes I prefer course material that arouses my curiosity, even if it is difficult to

learn” (M = 6.10, SD = 1.09). Also reported, “in my major, I prefer course material that

really challenges me, so I can learn new things” (M = 5.86, SD = 1.22), and concluded

with “when I have the opportunity I choose course assignments that I can learn from even

if they do not guarantee a good grade” (M = 5.60, SD = 1.36). The summated average

was 5.94 with a standard deviation of 0.91. The summated average for intrinsic

motivation fell into the category almost always true of me.


35

Table 9

Subscale of Intrinsic Motivation (n = 42) Not at all

true of me 2 3 4 5 6 Very true

of me

Statement M SD f % f % f % f % f % f % f % The most satisfying thing for me, in my major, is trying to understand the content as thoroughly as possible. (n = 42)

6.12 0.94 - - - - - - 2 4.8 10 23.8 11 26.2 19 45.2

In my classes I prefer course material that arouses my curiosity even if it is difficult to learn. (n = 42)

6.10 1.09 - - - - 1 2.4 1 2.4 10 23.8 11 26.2 19 45.2

In my major, I prefer course material that really challenges me so I can learn new things. (n = 42)

5.86 1.22 - - 1 2.4 1 2.4 3 7.1 9 21.4 12 28.6 16 38.1

When I have the opportunity, I choose course assignments that I can learn from, even if they do not guarantee a good grade. (n = 42).

5.60 1.36 - - 2 4.8 - - 6 14.3 9 21.4 10 23.8 13 31.0

Summate score for subscale 5.94 .91 Note. The dashes represent items that had no responses. The scale was anchored on each end, Not at all true of me = 1; Very true of me = 7.


36

Table 10 displays the subscale for extrinsic motivation. For this subscale four

questions were asked that related to extrinsic motivation. The two statements with the

highest average reported fell into the category of almost always true of me. The highest

average was reported with the statement “if I can, I want to receive better grades than

most of the students in my class” (M = 5.74, SD = 1.59), followed by “receiving good

grades is the most satisfying thing for me right now” (M = 5.52, SD = 1.37). The final

two statements fell into the category of sometimes true of me. When asked “I want to do

well in my classes because it is important to show my ability to my family, friends, or

others” (M = 5.37, SD = 1.98), concluding with “the most important thing for me right

now is improving my overall GPA, so my main concern is getting a good grade in each

class” (M = 5.24, SD = 1.75). On the subscale of extrinsic motivation the summated

values were (M = 5.24, SD = 1.20). The summated average for extrinsic motivation fell

into the category of sometimes true of me.


37

Table 10

Subscale of Extrinsic Motivation (n = 42) Not at all


of me

Statement M SD f % f % f % f % f % f % f % If I can, I want to receive better grades than most o the other students, in my classes.. (n = 42)

5.74 1.59 2 4.8 - - 1 2.4 6 14.3 5 11.9 9 21.4 19 45.2

Receiving good grades is the most satisfying thing for me right now. (n = 42)

5.52 1.37 1 2.4 - - - - 9 21.4 11 26.2 7 16.7 14 33.3

I want to do well in all my classes because it is important to show my ability to my family, friends, or others. (n = 41)

5.37 1.98 4 9.5 2 4.8 1 2.4 3 7.1 5 11.9 10 23.8 16 38.1

The most important thing for me right now is improving my overall GPA, so my main concern is getting a good grade in each class. (n = 42).

5.24 1.75 2 4.8 2 4.8 2 4.8 7 16.7 8 19.0 7 16.7 14 33.3

Summated score for subscale 5.45 1.20 Note. The dashes represent items that had no responses. The scale was anchored on each end, Not at all true of me = 1; Very true of me = 7.


38

The subscale of task value is displayed in Table 11. Six statements were asked

that pertained to the area of task value. The first five statements had an average that fell

in the category of almost always true of me. Participants reported the highest average (M

= 6.24, SD = 1.30) on the statement “I am very interested in the content area of the

classes, in my major”, followed by “it is important for me to learn the course material in

each class” (M = 6.24, SD = 1.12). Also reported, “I think the course material in my

classes, in my major, is important for me to learn” (M = 5.90, SD = 1.28), “understanding

the subject matter in each course is very important to me” (M = 5.83, SD = 1.13), “when I

think about the classes, in my major, I will be able to use what I learn in other classes”

(M = 5.80, SD = 1.12). The final statement fell into the category sometimes true of me, “I

like the subject matter of all my major courses” (M = 5.26, SD = 1.61). The summated

average was 5.79 with a standard deviation of 0.94. The summated average for task

value fell into the category of almost always true of me.


39

Table 11

Subscale of Task Value (n = 42) Not at all


of me

Statement M SD f % f % f % f % f % f % f % I am very interested in the content area of my classes, in my major. ( n = 42)

6.24 1.30 - - 2 4.8 1 2.4 - - 5 11.9 8 19.0 26 61.9

It is important for me to learn the course material in each class. (n = 42)

6.24 1.12 - - 1 2.4 - - 5 11.9 6 14.3 9 21.4 24 57.1

I think course material in my classes, in my major, is useful for me to learn. (n = 41)

5.90 1.28 - - 1 2.4 1 2.4 4 9.5 7 16.7 10 23.8 18 42.9

Understanding the subject matter in each course is very important to me. (n = 40)

5.83 1.13 - - - - 1 2.4 4 9.5 11 26.2 9 21.4 15 35.7

When I think about my classes, in my major, I will be able to use what I learn in other classes. (n = 41)

5.80 1.12 - - - - 1 2.4 5 11.9 9 21.4 12 28.6 14 33.3

I like the subject matter of all my major courses. (n = 42)

5.26 1.61 1 2.4 2 4.8 3 7.1 6 14.3 9 21.4 9 21.4 12 28.6

Summated score for subscale 5.79 .94 Note. The dashes represent items that had no responses. The scale was anchored on each end, Not at all true of me = 1; Very true of me = 7.


40

Table 12 displays the subscale for control of learning beliefs. For this subscale

four questions were asked that related to control of learning beliefs. All four statements

fell into the category of almost always true of me. The highest average was reported with

the statement “if I try hard enough then I will understand the material in each class” (M =

6.24, SD = 1.30), followed by “it is my own fault if I do not learn the material in each

class” (M = 6.24, SD = 1.12). When asked “if I do not understand the course material in

a class, it is because I did not try hard enough” (M = 5.90, SD = 1.28), concluding with

“if I study in appropriate ways, I will be able to learn the material in all my classes” (M =

5.80, SD = 1.12). On the subscale for control of learning beliefs the summated values

were (M = 5.57, SD = 1.08). The summated average for control of learning beliefs fell

into the category of almost always true of me.


41

Table 12

Subscale of Control of Learning Beliefs (n = 42) Not at all


of me

Statement M SD f % f % f % f % f % f % f % If I try hard enough, then I will understand material in each class. (n = 42)

6.24 1.30 - - - - 1 2.4 5 11.9 8 19.0 10 23.8 18 42.9

It is my own fault if I do not learn the material in my classes. (n = 42)

6.24 1.12 - - 1 2.4 3 7.1 5 11.9 8 19.0 13 31.0 12 28.6

If I do not understand the course material in a class, it is because I didn’t try hard enough. (n = 42)

5.90 1.28 5 11.9 4 9.5 4 9.5 7 16.7 6 14.3 6 14.3 10 23.8

If I study in appropriate ways, I will be able to learn the material in all my classes. (n = 41)

5.80 1.12 - - - - - - 1 2.4 5 11.9 12 28.6 23 54.8



42

The subscale of self-efficacy is displayed in Table 13. Eight statements were

asked that pertained to the area of self-efficacy. The first four statements had an average

that fell in the category of almost always true of me. Participants reported the highest

average (M = 6.38, SD = 0.91) on the statement “I’m confident I can learn the basic

concepts taught in each class, in my major”, followed by “I expect to do well in my

classes” (M = 5.38, SD = 1.40). Also reported, “I am certain I can master the skills being

taught in my classes, in my major” (M = 5.64, SD = 1.14), “I’m confident I can

understand the most complex material, presented by my instructors, in my major” (M =

5.59, SD = 1.22). The final four statements fell into the category sometimes true of me,

“I’m confident I can do an excellent job on assignments and tests in each class” (M =

5.44, SD = 1.48), “I am certain I can understand the most difficult material presented in

the readings, in my major” (M = 5.33, SD = 1.30), “considering the difficulty of classes,

the teachers, and my skills, I think I will do well this semester” (M = 5.31, SD = 1.47),

and concluded with “I believe I will receive excellent grades in my classes” (M = 5.17,

SD = 1.49). The summated average was 5.61 with a standard deviation of 1.10. The

summated average for self-efficacy fell into the category almost always true of me


43

Table 13

Subscale of Self- Efficacy (n = 42) Not at all


of me

Statement M SD f % f % f % F % f % f % f % I’m confident I can learn the basic concepts taught in each class, in my major. (n = 42)

6.38 0.91 - - - - 1 2.4 - - 6 14.3 10 23.8 25 59.5

I expect to do well in my classes. (n = 42) 5.83 1.40 - - - - 2 4.8 6 14.3 6 14.3 9 21.4 19 45.2

I’m certain I can master the skills being taught in my classes, in my major. (n = 42)

5.64 1.14 - - - - 2 4.8 4 9.5 13 31.0 11 26.2 12 28.6

I’m confident I can understand the most complex material presented by my instructors, in my major. (n = 41)

5.59 1.22 - - 1 2.4 1 2.4 6 14.3 8 19.0 15 11.9 10 23.8

I’m confident I can do an excellent job on assignments and tests in each class. (n = 41)

5.44 1.48 - - 2 4.8 2 4.8 8 19.0 6 14.3 10 23.8 13 31.0

I am certain I can understand the most difficult material presented in the readings, in my major. (n = 42)

5.33 1.30 - - 1 2.4 2 4.8 9 21.4 9 21.4 12 28.6 9 21.4

Considering the difficulty of classes, the teachers, and my skills, I think I will do well this semester (n = 42)

5.31 1.47 - - 2 4.8 4 9.5 5 11.9 10 23.8 10 23.8 11 26.2

I believe I will receive excellent grades in my classes. (n = 42).

5.17 1.49 - - 2 4.8 5 11.9 6 14.3 9 21.4 11 26.2 9 21.4



44

Table 14 displays the subscale for test anxiety. For this subscale five questions

were asked that related to test anxiety. The first four statements fell into the category of

sometimes true of me. Participants reported, (M = 4.95, SD = 2.12), on the statement,

“when I take tests I think of the consequences of failing” followed by “I become very

anxious when I take an exam” (M = 4.95, SD = 2.26). When asked “while taking a tests I

think about items on other parts that I can’t answer” (M = 4.69, SD = 1.94), “I have an

uneasy upset feeling when I take an exam” (M = 4.57, SD = 2.30). The final statement

fell into the category occasionally true of me, “when I take a test I think about how

poorly I am doing compared to other students” (M = 3.55, SD = 2.07). On the subscale

for test anxiety the summated values were (M = 4.53, SD = 1.70). The summated average

for test anxiety fell into the category sometimes true of me.


45

Table 14

Subscale of Test Anxiety (n = 42) Not at all


of me

Statement M SD f % f % f % f % f % f % f % When I take tests I think of the consequences of failing. (n = 41)

4.95 2.12 6 14.3 2 4.8 1 2.4 3 7.1 9 21.4 7 16.7 13 31.0

I become very anxious when I take an exam. (n = 42)

4.95 2.26 6 14.3 3 7.1 2 4.8 5 11.9 3 7.1 6 14.3 17 40.5

While taking a test, I think about items on other parts of the test I can’t answer. (n = 42)

4.69 1.94 3 7.1 4 9.5 5 11.9 6 14.3 8 19.0 5 11.9 11 26.2

I have an uneasy, upset feeling when I take an exam. (n = 42)

4.57 2.30 7 16.7 3 7.1 5 11.9 4 9.5 4 9.5 5 11.9 14 33.3

When I take a test I think about how poorly I am doing compared with other students. (n = 42)

3.55 2.07 11 26.2 5 11.9 4 9.5 7 16.7 6 14.3 5 11.9 4 9.5



46

Findings Objective Three

Objective three sought to determine undergraduate nontraditional student barriers

in the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas Tech University.

The barriers of nontraditional students were determined through the review of literature

and questions were developed that align with previous study results. Means, standard

deviations, frequency counts, and percentages were calculated to report on this objective.






Table 15 displays barriers of nontraditional students. Eleven statements were

asked that pertained to barriers. The first statement had an average that fell in the

category of very true of me. Participants reported the highest average (M = 6.60, SD =

0.73) on the statement “My family and friends support my decision to further my

education”. The next three statements fell into the category of sometimes true of me, “I

attended orientation and was prepared for college” (M = 5.22, SD = 2.09), “I am able to

meet with Professors when needed” (M = 4.92, SD = 2.11), “an office for nontraditional

students would be beneficial at the university” (M = 4.78, SD = 2.19). The next three

statements fell into the category occasionally true of me, “I would benefit for a

mentoring/tutoring program in my major” (M = 4.24, SD = 2.36), “having a

nontraditional support group on campus would assist in my educational experience (M =

3.93, SD = 2.40), “I need more guidance about financial aid for students my age” (M =


47

3.88, SD = 2.28). The following three statements fell into the category hardly ever true

of me, “I need help learning about graduation requirements” (M = 3.29, SD = 2.11), “I

need help when planning classes around my work schedule” (M = 2.85, SD = 1.89), and

“I need assistance with learning how to transfer prior credits” (M = 2.62, SD = 2.00). The

final statement fell into the category of not true of me, “I would benefit from assistance

with childcare services” (M = 1.90, SD = 1.89).


48

Table 15

Frequency and Variability of Participant’s Barriers (n = 42) Not at all


of me

Statement M SD f % f % f % f % f % f % f % My family and friends support my decision to further my education. (n = 42)

6.60 0.73 - - - - - - - - 6 14.3 5 11.9 31 73.8

I attended orientation and was prepared for college. (n = 41)

5.22 2.09 5 11.9 - - 5 11.9 2 4.8 5 11.9 7 16.7 17 40.5

I am able to meet with Professors when needed. (n = 41)

4.92 2.11 3 7.1 6 14.3 2 4.8 3 7.1 7 16.7 5 11.9 15 35.7

An office for nontraditional students at the University would be beneficial. (n = 41)

4.78 2.19 5 11.9 5 11.9 1 2.4 5 11.9 5 11.9 7 16.7 13 31.0

I would benefit from a mentoring/tutoring program in my major. (n = 42)

4.24 2.36 10 23.8 3 7.1 3 7.1 3 7.1 7 16.7 6 14.3 10 23.8

Having a nontraditional support group on campus would assist in my educational experience. (n = 41)

3.93 2.40 11 26.2 4 9.5 2 4.8 5 11.9 8 19.0 1 2.4 10 23.8

I need more guidance about financial aid for students my age. (n = 41)

3.88 2.28 9 21.4 8 19.0 1 2.4 4 9.5 7 16.7 4 9.5 8 19.0

I need help learning about graduation requirements. (n = 42)

3.29 2.11 14 33.3 5 11.9 5 11.9 2 4.8 7 16.7 7 16.7 2 4.8

I need help when planning classes around my work schedule. (n = 41)

2.85 1.89 16 38.1 6 14.3 3 7.1 5 11.9 6 14.3 5 11.9 - -

I need assistance with learning how to transfer prior credits. (n = 42)

2.62 2.00 20 47.6 7 16.7 - - 6 14.3 4 11.9 1 2.4 3 7.1

I would benefit from childcare services. (n = 42) 1.90 1.89 33 78.6 - - 1 2.4 3 7.1 1 2.4 1 2.4 3 7.1


49

Chapter Summary

This chapter serves as a review of the findings. This was a census study;

therefore, in this study, current undergraduate nontraditional students enrolled in CASNR

were considered to be representative of undergraduate nontraditional students in previous

semesters or thereafter. One hundred thirty-nine current undergraduate nontraditional

students enrolled in CASNR were contacted via e-mail, 44 responded. Following data

collection, the data set was cleaned eliminating empty cases, resulting in 42 (n = 42)

participants. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

(SPSS) version 18.0 computer program for windows. Findings were presented on

objective one, objective two, and objective three.


50

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Purpose and Objectives



Resources at Texas Tech University. For this study the following research objectives

were used to guide the study:



2. Determine undergraduate nontraditional student motivations enrolled in the

College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas Tech University.

3. Determine undergraduate nontraditional student barriers enrolled in the College of


Limitations

The study is limited to the responses of nontraditional students who replied to

recruitment e-mails. Responses were completely anonymous to allow for privacy and

confidentiality. It can be difficult to draw conclusions from a census study.

Design of the Study

This investigation was a census study. Oliver and Hinkle (1982) recognize that

information might only be attainable from certain individuals at a given time and can be a

representative sample of that population over time. Therefore, in this study,

undergraduate nontraditional students enrolled in CASNR were considered to be


51

representative of undergraduate nontraditional students in previous semesters or

thereafter.

Population

This was a census study. Therefore, undergraduate nontraditional students

enrolled in CASNR were considered to be representative of undergraduate nontraditional

students in previous semesters or thereafter. 139 current undergraduate nontraditional

students enrolled in CASNR were contacted via e-mail, 44 responded. Following data

collection, the data set was cleaned eliminating empty cases, resulting in 42 (n = 42)

participants.

Data Collection

Data collection began on October 12, 2012 and continued until November 16,

2012, through the online survey instrument, Survey Monkey. All undergraduate

nontraditional students enrolled in CASNR during the fall semester of 2012 received an

e-mail, with the electronic link to the questionnaire, requesting their participation in the

research study.

Data Analysis Procedure

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)

version 18.0 computer program for windows. For demographic information descriptive

statistics were reported for measures of central tendency and variability. Scores were

summated for the 31 items under the motivation construct, as well as the subscales, and

the construct pertaining to barriers. Frequencies and percentages as well as the overall

means and standard deviations were reported for each.


52

Conclusions Related to Objective One

The purpose of this objective was to describe undergraduate nontraditional

students enrolled in the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas

Tech University.

A greater amount of females (n = 25, 59.5%) responded to the questionnaire as

compared to male students (n = 17, 40.5%). In comparison, the 1998 study conducted by

Senter and Senter yielded similar results as 68.9% of undergraduate nontraditional

respondents were female and 31.1% were male. The majority of participants were

Caucasian, white (n = 35, 83.3%), while the fewest amount of participants were

Hispanic/Latino (n = 4, 9.5%), Multiracial (n = 2, 4.8%), and other (n = 1, 2.4%). When

asked about marital status 50 percent reported being married. Participants reported more

frequently being employed part-time (n = 17, 40.5%), and worked a total of 10 – 20 hours

per week (n = 13, 31.0%). When asked to identify the category of their age, most

students fell into the category of 25 – 27 (n = 19, 45.2%). Nontraditional students within

CASNR at TTU are returning to school to obtain a higher degree (n = 33) and for

personal satisfaction (n = 31). All departments within CASNR were represented with the

greatest portion being in the Plant and Soil Science Department (n = 18, 42.9%).

Conclusions Related to Objective Two

The purpose of objective two was to determine the motivations of undergraduate

nontraditional students in the College of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources at

Texas Tech University. The motivations of nontraditional students were determined

utilizing the Motivated for Learning Strategies Questionnaire (MLSQ) (Pintrich et al.,

1991). The first 31 questions were used, that include six subscales; intrinsic motivation,


53

extrinsic motivation, task value, control of learning beliefs, self-efficacy, and test anxiety.






Four statements were asked that pertained to the area of intrinsic motivation. All

four statements had an average that fell in the category of almost always true of me. Bye

et. al (2007) concluded that “nontraditional students report significantly higher levels of

intrinsic motivation than traditional students” (p. 152). It can be concluded that

nontraditional students are motivated by inner forces and personal satisfactions.

On the subscale of extrinsic motivation, four questions were asked to rate on the

seven-point Likert-type scale. The two statements with the highest average reported fell

into the category of almost always true of me. The highest average was reported with the

statement “if I can, I want to receive better grades than most of the students in my class,”

followed by “receiving good grades is the most satisfying thing for me right now.” The

final two statements fell into the category of sometimes true of me. On the subscale of

extrinsic motivation the summated values were (M = 5.24, SD = 1.20). The findings

indicate that nontraditional students within CASNR are extrinsically motivated for a

portion of the time, but are motivated to receive better grades than their classmates for the

majority of the time. This is consistent with Bye et. al (2007) which reported that

nontraditional students are extrinsically motivated on the extrinsic motivation subscale of

the MSLQ. It is important to consider the impact of the classroom on the overall college


54

experience of nontraditional students. Donaldson and Graham (1999) indicated the

classroom is the center of the college experience. Therefore, conditions in the classroom

should promote success and connect to the collegiate experience, which will motivate

students extrinsically.

Six statements were asked that pertained to the area of task value. The first five

statements had an average that fell in the category of almost always true of me.

Participants reported the highest average on the statement “I am very interested in the

content area of the classes, in my major”, followed by “it is important for me to learn the

course material in each class.” The final statement fell into the category sometimes true of

me. The summated average was 5.79 with a standard deviation of 0.94. Nontraditional

students within CASNR find information to be learned important for them and can be

applicable to other areas. These individuals are task orientated and value the information

from each class.

The next subscale focused on nontraditional students’ control of learning beliefs.

All four statements fell into the category of almost always true of me. On the subscale

for control of learning beliefs the summated values were (M = 5.57, SD = 1.08). It can be

concluded that nontraditional students believe they are in control of their learning.

Eight statements were asked that pertained to the area of self-efficacy. The first

four statements had an average that fell in the category of almost always true of me. The

final four statements fell into the category sometimes true of me. The summated average

was 5.61 with a standard deviation of 1.10. Nontraditional students’ within CASNR are

confident in their abilities in the classroom and college.


55

The final subscale within motivation related to test anxiety. The first four

statements had an average that fell into the category of sometimes true of me. The final

statement fell into the category occasionally true of me. On the subscale for test anxiety

the summated values were (M = 4.53, SD = 1.70). It can be concluded that nontraditional

students within CASNR can become anxious when it pertains to assessments in college.

Conclusions Related to Objective Three

The purpose of this objective was to determine the barriers of undergraduate

nontraditional students within the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural

Resources at Texas Tech University. The barriers of nontraditional students were

determined through the review of literature and questions were developed that align with

previous study results. Means, standard deviations, frequency counts, and percentages

were calculated to report on this objective. Questions were based on a seven-point

Likert-type scale, ranging from not at all true of me to very true of me. For clarity on the

findings the researcher categorized the averages and will be reported as follows: 1 – 2.49

= not true of me, 2.50 – 3.49 = hardly ever true of me, 3.50 – 4.49 = occasionally true of

me, 4.50 – 5.49 = sometimes true of me, 5.50 – 6.49 = almost always true of me, and 6.50

– 7 = very true of me.

Eleven statements were asked that pertained to barriers. The first statement had

an average that fell in the category of very true of me. Participants reported the highest

average (M = 6.60, SD = 0.73) on the statement “My family and friends support my

decision to further my education”. The next three statements fell into the category of

sometimes true of me, “I attended orientation and was prepared for college” (M = 5.22,

SD = 2.09), “I am able to meet with Professors when needed” (M = 4.92, SD = 2.11), “an


56

office for nontraditional students would be beneficial at the university” (M = 4.78, SD =

2.19). The next three statements fell into the category occasionally true of me, “I would

benefit for a mentoring/tutoring program in my major” (M = 4.24, SD = 2.36), “having a

nontraditional support group on campus would assist in my educational experience (M =

3.93, SD = 2.40), “I need more guidance about financial aid for students my age” (M =

3.88, SD = 2.28). The following three statements fell into the category hardly ever true

of me, “I need help learning about graduation requirements” (M = 3.29, SD = 2.11), “I

need help when planning classes around my work schedule” (M = 2.85, SD = 1.89), and

“I need assistance with learning how to transfer prior credits” (M = 2.62, SD = 2.00). The

final statement fell into the category of not true of me, “I would benefit from assistance

with child care services” (M = 1.90, SD = 1.89). It can be concluded that nontraditional

students within CASNR at TTU have support from their family and friends. Assistance

could be provided to nontraditional students through a campus office and tutoring group

in their major. Information should be readily available to students on financial aid and

graduation requirements. From the results students’ are prepared with educational

planning as it pertains to course scheduling and transferring prior credits.

Recommendations

Recommendations for this study are divided into categories: recommendations for

practitioners and recommendations for future research.

Practitioners.

A recommendation for practitioners would be to provide students the support they

need to be successful in the classroom and reach graduation. Since the classroom is the

center of the collegiate experience for nontraditional students, professors and instructors


57

need to guide students in the right direction for questions regarding financial aid and

graduation requirements for their major.

Nontraditional students would benefit from a specific office to meet their needs.

While this might not be cost-effective, CASNR could train current personnel to assist

nontraditional students.

Departments as well as universities should consider the possibility of a virtual

office. Professors and instructors could then guide students down the correct path for

assistance and support.

Research.

It is recommended to conduct a comparative study between nontraditional

students and traditional students at Texas Tech University, or within the College of

Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas Tech University. A comparison

should also be conducted with an institution that is a leader in nontraditional students.

When using the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich

et al., 1991) then researchers should anchor all measurements in the seven point Likert-

type scale, instead of just the end points, to increase readability for participants of the

questionnaire.

It is also recommended to conduct a qualitative study on nontraditional students to

gain a deeper understanding concerning their motivations and barriers within the College

of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas Tech University.


58

REFERENCES

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8 ed.). Wadesworth Publishing. Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55, 485-540. Bishop-Clark, C., & Lynch, J. (1992). The mix-age college classroom. College Teaching,

40,(3), 114. Boshier, R. (1991). Psychometric properties of the alternative form of the education participation scale. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(3), 150-167. Retrieved from http://aeq.sagepub.com Brassett-Grundy, A. (2002). Parental perspectives of family learning: Wider benefits of

learning research report. London: Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning.

Bureau of Labor and Statistics (2012). http://www.bls.gov/cps/ Retrieved 10/4/12. Bye, D., Pushkar, D., & Conway, M. (2007). Motivation, interest, and positive affect in traditional and nontraditional undergraduate students. Adult Education Quarterly,

57(2), 141-158. doi: 10.1177/0741713606294235 Cupp, L. (1991, October). Acquiring new perspective: The impact of education on adult

students in a traditional university. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Adult and Continuing Education, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Compton, J. I., Cox, E., & Laanan, F. S. (2006). Adult learner in transition. New

Directions for Student Services, 114, 73-80. Compton, M., & Schock, C. (2000). The non-traditional student in you. Women in

Business, 52(4), 14.


59

Daniel, E. (2000). A review of time-shortened courses across disciplines. College Student

Journal, 34(2), 298. Darkenwald, G., & Merriam, S. (1982). Adult education: Foundations of practice. New York: Harper and Row. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological

Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668. Donaldson, J.F., & Graham, S., (1999). A model of college outcomes for adults. Adult

Education Quarterly, 50(1), 24-40. Donaldson, J.F., Graham, S., Martindill, W., & Bradley, S. (2000). Adult undergraduate students: How do they define their experiences and their success? The Journal of

Continuing Higher Education, 48(2), 2-11. doi: 10.1080/07377366.2000.10400400 Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., & Christian, L.M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode

surveys: the tailored design method. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction.

Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Graham, S., & Long, S. (1998, April). The role of college involvement for adult

undergraduate students. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association National Conference, San Diego, CA. Jinkens, R. C. (2009). Nontraditional students: Who are they? College Student Journal,

43(4), 979-987. Justice, E. M., & Dornan, T. M. (2001). Metacognitive differences between traditional- age and nontraditional-age college students. Adult Education Quarterly, 51(3), 236-249. doi: 10.1177/074171360105100305


60

Houle, C. O. (1961). The inquiring mind: A study of the adult who continues to learn. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. Kasworm, C. E. (1995, November). Outcome assessment of adult undergraduates. Paper presented at American Association of Adult and Continuing Education Conference, Kansas City, MO. Kasworm, C. E. (2003). Adult meaning making in the undergraduate classroom. Adult

Education Quarterly, 53(2), 81-98. doi: 10.1177/07417136022338905 Kasworm, C. E. (2008). Emotional challenges of adult learners in higher education. New

Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 120, 27-34. Kasworm, C. E., & Blowers, S. (1994, June). Adult undergraduate students: Patterns of

involvement. Final research report to U.S Department of Education. Knoxville, TN: College of Education, University of Tennessee. Kenner, C. & Weinerman, J. (2011). Adult learning theory: Applications to nontraditional college students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(2), 87- 96. Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Merriam, S.B (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3-13. Merriam, S.B, Cafferella, R.S., & Baumgartner, L.M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A

comprehensive guide (3 ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive

guide (2 ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Milheim, K. (2005). Identifying and addressing the needs of adult students in higher education. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 45(1), 118-128.


61

Morstain, B. R., & Smart, J. C. (1974). Reasons for participation in adult education courses: A multivariate analysis of group differences. Adult Education Quartely,

24(2), 83-98. Retrieved from http://www.jstore.org Murphy, H., & Roopchand, N. (2003). Intrinsic motivation and self-esteem in traditional and mature students at a post-1992 University. Educational Studies, 29(2/3), 243- 259. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Digest of education statistics, 2002.

Retrieved from http://www.nces.ed.gov/epubs/2002/168 Oliver, J. D., & Hinkle, D. E. (1982). Occupational education research: Selecting statistical procedures. Journal of Studies in Technical Careers, 10(3), 199-208. Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MLSQ). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 Samuels, W., Beach, A. L., Palmer, L.B. (2011). Persistence of adult undergradutates on a traditionally-oriented university campus: Does Donaldson and Graham’s model of college outcomes for adult students still apply? Journal of College Student

Retention, 13(3), 351-371. doi: 10.2190/CS.13.3.e Sansone, C., Smith, J. (2000). The how of goal pursuit: Interest and self-regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 306-309. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1449627 Senter, M.S., & Senter, R. (1998). A comparative study of traditional and nontraditional students’ identities and needs. NASPA Journal, 35(4), 270-280. Retrieved from http://journals.naspa.org


62

Scott, L.M., & Lewis, C.W. (2012). Nontraditional college students: Assumptions perceptions, and directions for meaningful academic experience. The

International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 6(4). Sheehan, E. P., McMenamin, N., & McDevitt, T. M. (1992). Learning styles of traditional and nontraditional university students. College Student Journal, 26(4), 489-490.

Thon, A. J. (1984). Responding to the non-academic needs of adult students. NASPA

Journal, 21, 28-34.

Vangen, C. (1998). The new golden rule. Buildings, 92(3). 68.

Wyatt, L.G. (2011). Nontraditional student engagement: Increasing adult student success and retention. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59, 10-20. doi: 10.1080/07377363.2011.544977


63

APPENDIX A

PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTER


64

APPENDIX B

INSTRUMENT


65


66


67


68


69


70


71


72

APPENDIX C

PILOT TEST RECRUITMENT E-MAIL

Hello, my name is Ashley Quiggins and I am a graduate student in the department of Agricultural Education and Communications at Texas Tech University. I am researching the motivations and barriers of undergraduate nontraditional students and would like your participation in a quick questionnaire. The questionnaire will take approximately 15 minutes. Questions regard motivations and barriers within your undergraduate program. Also, there are questions that refer to age, gender, and ethnicity. Your responses to these questions will be used to identify the motivations and needs of undergraduate nontraditional students. You may skip any of the questions or withdraw from the questionnaire at anytime. You will remain anonymous and all information will be confidential. If you are willing to participate in this study, please copy and paste the link into a new window, and begin the questionnaire. The questionnaire can be accessed at: If you have any questions please contact me, via e-mail [email protected]. Thank you,

mailto:[email protected]


73

APPENDIX D

RECRUITMENT E-MAIL

Hello, my name is ________________________, and I am a staff member of __________________________at Texas Tech University. I am contacting you on behalf of Ashley Quiggins. Ashley is researching the motivations and barriers of undergraduate nontraditional students at Texas Tech University. She would like your participation in a quick questionnaire. The questionnaire will take approximately 15 minutes. Questions regard motivations and barriers within your undergraduate program at Texas Tech. Also, there are questions that refer to age, gender, and ethnicity. Your responses to these questions will be used to identify the motivations and needs of undergraduate nontraditional students. You may skip any of the questions or withdraw from the questionnaire at anytime. You will remain anonymous and all information will be confidential. If you are willing to participate in this study, please copy and paste the link into a new window, and begin the questionnaire. The questionnaire can be accessed at: https://www.research.net/s/3GKCTL6 If you have any questions please contact Ashley, via e-mail [email protected]. Thank you,



74

APPENDIX E

THANK YOU/FOLLOW UP E-MAIL

Good Afternoon, I am contacting you in regards to the e-mail that was sent 10 days ago, asking you to participate in an online questionnaire. If you have completed the questionnaire I greatly appreciate your time. If you have not completed the questionnaire please follow the link below. The results of the questionnaire will be very useful to the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas Tech University. We are writing again because of the importance your questionnaire has for helping get accurate results. Responses from nearly everyone will aid that the results are truly representative. The questionnaire will take approximately 15 minutes. Questions regard motivations and barriers within your undergraduate program at Texas Tech. Also, there are questions that refer to age, gender, and ethnicity. Your responses to these questions will be used to identify the motivations and barriers of undergraduate nontraditional students. You may skip any of the questions or withdraw from the questionnaire at anytime. You will remain anonymous and all information will be confidential. If you are willing to participate in this study, please copy and paste the link into a new window, and begin the questionnaire. The questionnaire can be accessed at: https://www.research.net/s/3GKCTL6 If you have any questions please contact Ashley, via e-mail [email protected]. Thank you

https://www.research.net/s/3GKCTL6


Documents

motivations and barriers of undergraduate - Repositories