MEASURING THE PERCEPTION OF MATTERING FOR ADULT STUDENTS AT
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
Anthony Paul Lucas
B.S., San Jose State University, 1993
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirement for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
EDUCATION
(Higher Education Leadership)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
FALL
2009
© 2009
Anthony Paul Lucas
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
MEASURING THE PERCEPTION OF MATTERING FOR ADULT STUDENTS AT
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
A Thesis
by
Anthony Paul Lucas
Approved by:
, Committee Chair
Francisco C. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
, Second Reader
Geni Cowan, Ph.D.
Date
iii
Student: Anthony Paul Lucas
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
Geni Cowan, Ph.D.
, Graduate Coordinator
Date
Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies
iv
Abstract
of
MEASURING THE PERCEPTION OF MATTERING FOR ADULT STUDENTS AT
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
by
Anthony Paul Lucas
Brief Literature Review
Adult learners are returning to higher education to pursue their higher education
aspirations in increasing numbers (Pusser et al., 2007). For many adult learners, the
pursuit of their educational aspirations is just one of several activities that compete for
their time. Families, jobs, hobbies, friends and other obligations place burdens on the
time and resources of adult learners and often create conflicting demands. Even with the
realization that a higher education degree is frequently a good investment, many adult
learners can lose sight of this goal.
To accommodate and increase the persistence to graduation of this growing group
of nontraditional learners, institutions of higher learning need to evaluate their
approaches to support and invest in structured, systematic approaches to supporting this
significant body of students (Engstrom & Tinto, 2008). The degree to which students
believe they matter to someone else (whether right or wrong) and that others care about
them and appreciate them is referred to as “Mattering” (Schlossberg et al., 1989). The
v
literature has shown that incrementally adjusting the delivery and accessibility of services
to improve the perception of mattering for adult services may positively affect retention
and persistence to graduation.
Statement of the Problem
There are two main research questions addressed in this study:
1. What is the perception of availability of student support services by adult students
at Sacramento State?
2. What is the perception of mattering by adult students at Sacramento State?
Methodology
The sample for this study consisted of 75 respondents from a pool of 400 students
who were randomly selected adult undergraduate students over the age of 25 attending
classes full-time at Sacramento State. A quantitative method of study was utilized using a
digital survey instrument. The survey instrument contained questions from the Mattering
in Higher Education (MHE) survey and was administered with permission from the
Office of the Vice President for Center for Lifelong Learning, American Council on
Education. The goal of this nationally-normed survey instrument was to measure the
perception of mattering for adult students at Sacramento State with the hope that the
results of the study would provide the university with information that can be used to
improve the retention and persistence of adult students.
vi
Conclusions and Recommendations
Studies have shown that students who feel they are cared about and connected to a
campus have higher retention (Astin, 1993). If the student perceives a sense of
connection or significance, this student will have a higher rank in mattering. If the
perceptions are those of disconnection or insignificance, the sense of marginality exists
(Schlossberg, 1989). After analyzing the data, the participants of this study perceived that
they did not matter in two of five dimensions to Sacramento State as a function of the
services and service availability.
The lack of accessible student services may unfortunately send the message to
typical adult students that their support needs are not as important or that they do not
matter to Sacramento State. Although the focus of this study is not on retention, a
summary of Tinto’s (1975) principles of effective retention provides a framework for
understanding the role institutions play in helping students succeed.
Adult student persistence will benefit from universities that consider their
administrative, academic, and financial interactions. Schlossberg (1989) wrote that
institutions that focus on mattering and greater student involvement will be more
successful in creating campuses where students are motivated to learn, where their
retention is high, and ultimately, where their institutional loyalty for the short- and longterm is ensured.
Sacramento State University has the opportunity and the duty to consider its adult
learners’ perception of mattering. Reflecting on these perceptions and conducting a
vii
review of the services that affect the adult learners’ perception of mattering will position
Sacramento State to adjust delivery and accessibility of critical support services.
, Committee Chair
Francisco C. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, I wish to thank my friends and colleagues from the MA Education, Higher
Education Leadership, Student Affairs (MEHELSA) Cohort. The friendships we created
are meaningful and will be life-long. The MEHELSA Cohort’s passion for student
success is inspiring and the energy each brought to our field is reassuring. This program
came at a difficult time for me personally and without the support and friendship of the
cohort, this thesis may not have been possible.
I would also like to thank Dr. Francisco C. Rodriguez for his significant insight,
patient guidance, and his obvious passion for imparting knowledge. The MEHELSA
Cohort and I personally gained so much from his perspectives on alignment and the
setting of our moral compass.
And finally, my family deserves special recognition. They provided me with the
encouragement to start this study and the support to complete my Master’s degree. For
the many weeknights and weekends that I spent locked away while you patiently carried
more than your fair share, I thank you.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................ ix
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. xii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Background ........................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................. 3
Definition of Terms........................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study .................................................................................. 7
Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 7
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................................................................... 9
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 9
Adult Students in Higher Education ............................................................... 10
Adult Student Persistence and Attrition Models ............................................. 12
The Role of Financial Aid in Supporting Adult Students ............................... 17
Mattering and the Adult Student ..................................................................... 21
Rationale for the Study ................................................................................... 27
Summary ......................................................................................................... 28
3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 31
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 31
Sampling Procedures ...................................................................................... 32
Setting ............................................................................................................. 32
Population and Sample ................................................................................... 33
Design of Study............................................................................................... 33
Data Collection ............................................................................................... 34
Instrumentation ............................................................................................... 37
Limitations ...................................................................................................... 38
x
4. DATA ANALYSIS & FINDINGS ........................................................................ 39
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................ 39
Presentation of the Data .................................................................................. 40
Interpretation of the Data .................................................................................86
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .........................96
Summary ..........................................................................................................96
Conclusions ......................................................................................................99
Recommendations ..........................................................................................100
Suggestions for Future Research ...................................................................102
Appendix A: Online Mattering in Higher Education Questionnaire (MHE) .............105
Appendix B: Participant Consent Form .....................................................................113
Appendix C: Permission to Utilize MHE Questionnaire ...........................................115
References ................................................................................................................. 116
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
The university’s policy of transfer credit penalizes non-traditional
Page
students ........................................................................................................... 42
2
My advisor doesn't seem to remember things we have discussed before ....... 43
3
I will have a hard time finishing my degree because of time limits on
completing course requirements ..................................................................... 44
4
The administration seems to consider adult student priorities as important
as traditional student priorities ........................................................................ 45
5
I get support from my classmates when I need it............................................ 46
6
My questions seem to put faculty members on the defensive ........................ 47
7
The faculty and administrators are sensitive to my other responsibilities ...... 48
8
I sometimes feel alone and isolated at the university ..................................... 49
9
The administrative rules and regulations are clear to me ................................50
10
My professors interpret assertiveness as a challenge to their authority ...........51
11
The administration sets things up to be easy for them, not the students ......... 52
12
It's hard for me to go back to the school environment .................................... 53
13
If my advisor did not know the answer to my questions, I'm sure he or
she would seek out the answers ...................................................................... 54
14
The classroom atmosphere encourages me to speak out in class.................... 55
15
I feel my classmates react positively to my experience and knowledge ......... 56
16
My professors seem to recognize the younger students but not me ............... 57
17
I do not have time to complete the administrative tasks this institution
requires…. ....................................................................................................... 58
18
There has always been someone on campus who could help me when
I had a question or problem ............................................................................59
19
I feel like I fit in my classes ............................................................................60
20
The administration offices are not open at times when I need them ...............61
xii
21
The administration makes efforts to accommodate adult students ..................62
22
I have a good relationship with my younger classmates .................................63
23
Sometimes I feel out of date in the classroom ................................................64
24
The University does not commit enough resources to off-campus
Courses .............................................................................................................65
25
There has always been an adviser available to talk with me if I need
to ask a question ..............................................................................................66
26
My classmates would help me catch up to the new technologies if I
needed it ...........................................................................................................67
27
My experience-based comments are accepted by my professors ...................68
28
It takes too long to register or correct registration problems ..........................69
29
Administrative staff are helpful in answering my questions ..........................70
30
Fellow students do not seem to listen to me when I share my life
Experiences ......................................................................................................71
31
Unless I have another student my age in class, no one really understands
how hard it is to be here ...................................................................................72
32
The university offers alternatives to the traditional semester length course
(like weekends) ................................................................................................73
33
I have had adequate opportunities to get to know fellow students .................74
34
Campus rules and regulations seem to have been made for traditional-age
students ............................................................................................................75
35
My age sometimes gets in the way of my interaction with fellow
Students ...........................................................................................................76
36
Some of the jokes my professors tell make me feel uncomfortable ................77
37
Classes are offered at times that are good for me ...........................................78
38
As an adult student, I feel welcome on campus ..............................................79
39
The desks weren't made for adults ..................................................................80
40
I feel my activities fees are spent in a way that is meaningful to me ..............81
xiii
41
My advisor has office hours at times that I am on campus .............................82
42
Departmental rules sometimes make my goals difficult or impossible ...........83
43
The school newspaper doesn't discuss adult student issues ............................84
44
My professors sometimes ignore my comments or questions ........................85
45
I sometimes feel my professors want me to hurry up and finish speaking ......86
46
Aggregated Results of the MHE Survey Questions .........................................87
47
Aggregated Results of the MHE Survey Questions .........................................97
xiv
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Access without support is not opportunity. That institutions do not intentionally
exclude students from college does not mean that they are including them as fully
valued members of the institution and providing them with support that enables
them to translate access into success. (Engstrom & Tinto, 2008, p.50)
America’s historically-thriving economy has allowed many Americans to enjoy a
comfortable living without the necessity of having a baccalaureate degree. With the rise
of global competition and increasing reliance on technology, these days are rapidly
coming to an end. The information economy and global industrial production have made
it necessary for Americans to attain a higher degree of education in order to enjoy a
comfortable living (Pusser, Breneman, Gansneder, Kohl, Levin, Milam, & Turner, 2007).
Significant numbers of adult learners are returning to school to pursue their higher
education aspirations (Pusser et al., 2007). For many adult learners, the pursuit of their
educational goals is just one of several activities that compete for their time. Families,
jobs, hobbies, friends and other obligations place burdens on the time and resources of
adult learners and often create conflicting demands. While the value proposition is
frequently in favor of pursuing and completing a higher education degree, many can lose
sight of this in the face of the conflicting demands.
2
To remain relevant and increase the persistence of nontraditional adult learners,
institutions of higher learning need to evaluate their support systems and invest in
structured approaches to supporting this significant body of nontraditional students
(Engstrom & Tinto, 2008).
The traditional college student of the past was 18 to 22 years old, lived on
campus, attended college full-time, and enrolled in college directly from high school.
This thesis will explore the nontraditional student defined as students between the ages of
25-29. Many researchers have attempted to define the nontraditional student and there are
several generally accepted definitions. Hruby (1995) described the nontraditional students
as either students over 25 years of age, students who have a break in their college
attendance for more than one academic year, students who require special services to
attain the degree, or any combination of these factors. According to Dill and Henley
(1998), a nontraditional student is one who has multiple roles and one for whom at least
one year has elapsed between high school and college. Cross (1980) defined
nontraditional students as adults who return to school part-time or full-time while
simultaneously managing other responsibilities, such as career or family. Using any of
these definitions, it is clear that the term nontraditional student could be used to describe
a significant number of students at Sacramento State.
Most of the definitions of the nontraditional student characterize the age of the
nontraditional student to be over age 25. This body of students has grown from 8 to 12
percent between 1970 and 2005. For students aged 30-34, the percentage moved from 4
3
to 7 percent (Planty, Provasnik, Hussar, Snyder, Kena, & Hampden-Thompson, 2007).
Interestingly, first-generation college students are more likely to be 24 years of age or
older than their college peers (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). The term,
“nontraditional student,” has been used frequently to describe the large and growing
group of individuals who now make up the other 83% of the college student population
(Kerka, 1995).
Statement of the Problem
Adult learners are returning to higher education to pursue their higher education
aspirations in increasing numbers (Pusser et al., 2007). For many adult learners, the
pursuit of their educational aspirations is just one of several activities that compete for
their time. Families, jobs, hobbies, friends and other obligations place burdens on the
time and resources of adult learners and often create conflicting demands. Even with the
realization that a higher education degree is frequently a good investment, many adult
learners can lose sight of this in the face of the conflicting demands.
To accommodate and increase the persistence to graduation of this growing group
of nontraditional learners, institutions of higher learning need to evaluate their
approaches to support and invest in structured, systematic approaches to supporting this
significant body of students (Engstrom & Tinto, 2008).
There were two main research questions addressed in the study:
4

What is the perception of availability of student support services by adult students
at Sacramento State?

What is the perception of mattering by adult students at Sacramento State?
Working adult students have difficulty in accessing conventional campus services
unless they physically come to campus Monday through Friday during traditional
business hours. The typical adult student works a day job, comes to class later in the day
or in the evening and spends very little time on campus. Most campuses structure their
student support services for the traditional student who comes to class during the day
with little support being offered during the evenings or weekends. The lack of accessible
student services may unfortunately send the message to the typical adult students that
their support needs are not as important or that they do not matter to Sacramento State.
Literature has shown that adult learners who opt out tend to do so because of
difficulties associated with accessing financial aid and difficulties associated with time
and scheduling. Studies have shown that students who feel they are cared about and
connected to a campus have higher retention (Astin, 1993).
Institutions of higher education have the ability to create environments that are
supportive of traditional students. Colleges and universities have invested resources into
creating academic and administrative student support centers and the research suggests
that these centers have the effect of increasing retention and persistence to graduation for
traditional students. While the literature has proven that these approaches are sound ways
to increase retention rates for traditional students, the services are not typically accessible
5
to the adult learner attending courses in the late day and evening. Since these approaches
to increasing retention and persistence work for traditional students, should these services
be made more available to the nontraditional adult learner?
Definition of Terms
Adult Students: Adult students are typically defined throughout the literature as those
students 25 years or older (Bash, 2003; Hruby, 1995).
Mattering: Schlossberg et al. (1989) stated that “Mattering refers to the beliefs people
have, whether right or wrong, that they matter to someone else, that they are the object of
someone else’s attention, and that others care about them and appreciate them (p. 21).
Schlossberg et al. (1989) further indicated that this sense of mattering kept them engaged
in learning. Schlossberg et al. (1990) developed an instrument, the mattering in higher
education (MHE) survey, designed to measure the perception of mattering for adult
students in higher education. Schlossberg et al. (1989) defined five mattering subscales to
operationalize the mattering model. Those dimensions are administration, advising,
faculty, multiple roles and peers. The dimensions are measured in the student responses
to the MHE. The MHE consists of 45 questions measuring the perceptions of adult
learners in those five subscales: (1) administration; (2) advising; (3) interaction with
peers; (4) multiple roles; and (5) interaction with faculty.
Persistence: Tinto (1975) formulated a theoretical model that predicted college
persistence based upon the complex interactions between individual students and the
6
academic and social systems of their educational institutions. In Tinto’s model,
persistence is based upon students’ successful academic and social integration. Tinto
argued that individual student goals and institutional commitments influence students’
academic and social integration, which, in turn, leads to new levels of commitment.
These commitment levels that result from academic and social integration directly
influence college persistence.
Support Services: Tinto’s (1993) college retention theory provided insight into ways in
which universities impact student persistence and identified crucial institutional
interaction points which are frequently referred to as support services. These include
enrollment management that is typically a student’s initial contact with a university and
outreach, applications, admissions, registrations and registrar functions. Counseling and
advisory programs also provide an integration point for the student and the educational
environment. Particularly effective programs extend beyond the academics and link
students to other services and activities. Financial assistance programs provide students
with opportunities to gain financial assistance in order to allay concerns of finance and
focus on the academics.
Traditional Student: Traditional students are typically defined as those students aged 1824 (Jacoby, 1989; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Matthews, 1997; Levine & Associates,
1990; Fenske, Rund, & Contento, 2000).
7
Significance of the Study
The perception of mattering for adult students attending Sacramento State
University is the primary area of interest for this study. The available literature has shown
that the degree to which adult students feel they matter to an institution has an effect on
their persistence to graduation. The researcher was unable to locate any literature
regarding the perception of mattering for adult students at Sacramento State, thus the
need to better understand a growing student sector of the university.
The perception of these adult learners and the degree to which they perceive they
matter to the institution as a function of service availability and accessibility is of interest
to both practitioners and to scholars. Measuring the perception of mattering as a function
of service availability and accessibility for these students at Sacramento State has not
been researched and is an area of growth and opportunity. Measuring the perception of
mattering for adult students at Sacramento State can also provide a benchmark
measurement in critical student support functions affecting adult students at Sacramento
State.
Conclusion
Chapter 2 is a review of the literature surrounding nontraditional adult students,
student support, retention and mattering and will form the basis for a study of adult
students at Sacramento State. Chapter 3 describes the methodology used to measure the
perception of mattering for adult students. Chapter 4 will present and analyze the results
8
of the Mattering in Higher Education (MHE) survey administered to adult students at
Sacramento State. Finally, Chapter 5 concludes with observations, recommendations, and
areas for future research.
9
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Increasing numbers of adult learners are returning to universities in order to
pursue their higher education aspirations (Pusser et al., 2007). For many adult learners,
the pursuit of their educational aspirations is just one of several activities that compete for
their time. Families, jobs, hobbies, friends and other obligations place burdens on the
time and resources of adult learners and often create conflicting demands. While the
value proposition is frequently in favor of pursuing and completing a higher education
degree, many lose sight of this in the face of the conflicting demands.
To remain relevant and increase the persistence to graduation for nontraditional
adult learners, institutions of higher learning need to evaluate their support organizations
and invest in structured, systematic approaches to supporting this significant body of
nontraditional students (Engstrom & Tinto, 2008).
This chapter provides a review of the literature relevant to this study and will be
organized through the discussion of the following topics:

Adult Students in Higher Education

Adult Student Persistence and Attrition Models

The Role of Financial Aid in Supporting Adult Students

Mattering and the Adult Student.
10
Relevant literature, research, theories, and concepts about adult students,
persistence and attrition, and mattering will be summarized and reviewed.
Adult Students in Higher Education
After World War II, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as
the GI Bill, made it possible for veterans (typically aged 20-25) returning from war to
pursue higher education. The GI Bill was not simply a magnanimous gesture on the part
of government officials toward the returning veterans. The framers of the GI Bill had
reason to fear the impact on the economy, from hundreds of thousands of veterans
returning from overseas after World War II (Olson, 1973). For a country just emerging
from the great depression of the 1930s, the prospect of having these hundreds of
thousands of unemployed soldiers in the country was not a comforting one. There were
many who predicted the returning war veterans standing in bread lines or selling apples
on the street. The framers of the GI Bill wanted the positive traits of the returning
veterans to be directed into more productive endeavors and feared that angst and despair
on the part of unemployed veterans might lead to civil unrest. Therefore, in order to delay
or moderate the war veteran’s return to the workplace, part of the GI Bill benefits
subsidized the veterans’ education thereby paving the way for the first influx of
nontraditional adult students into higher education (Olson, 1973).
The impact of the GI Bill went significantly beyond what had originally been
envisioned by its writers. The GI Bill opened the door to higher education for many who,
11
for the first time in their family history, could afford it. It provided access to universities
and degree programs that would ultimately lead to professional careers and away from
the blue-collar environments from which most of the veterans came (Hyman, 1986). This
in turn opened the door to their children, who came to believe that a college education
was also their right. Hyman believed that a “culture of aspiration” (Hyman, 1986, p. 69)
was expanded to include those who, before the GI Bill, would never have even dreamed
of going to college. Parents want their children to do as well if not better than they did. If
the parent(s) had gone to college, the children should also go. Higher education was no
longer just for the few who could afford it (Hyman, 1986).
Prior to the GI Bill, the traditional college student was 18-24 years old, lived on
campus, attended college full-time, and enrolled in college directly from high school
(Maehl, 2004). This study explores adult student who are 24 years or older. Many
researchers have attempted to define the nontraditional adult student and there are several
generally accepted definitions. Hruby (1995) described the nontraditional adult students
as either students over 25 years of age, students who have a break in their college
attendance for more than one academic year, students who require special services to
attain the degree, or any combination of these factors. According to Dill and Henley
(1998), a nontraditional adult student is one who has multiple roles and one for whom at
least one year has elapsed between high school and college. Cross (1980) defined
nontraditional adult students as adults who return to school part-time or full-time while
simultaneously managing other responsibilities, such as career or family. Using any of
12
these definitions, it is clear that the term nontraditional adult student could be used to
describe a significant number of students at Sacramento State University.
A 1999-2000 survey found that approximately 73% of all postsecondary
undergraduates are nontraditional (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). In particular,
approximately 30% of undergraduates were working adults, and first-generation college
students were more likely to be 24 years of age or older than their college peers (Berker
& Horn, 2003; U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Most of the definitions of the adult
student characterize the age of the student to be over age 25. This body of students has
grown in relative population from 8% to 12% between 1970 and 2005, and for students
aged 30-34 the percentage moved from 4% to 7% (Planty et al., 2007). The term,
“nontraditional student,” has been used frequently to describe the large and growing
group of individuals who now make up the other 83% of the college student population
(Kerka, 1995).
Adult Student Persistence and Attrition Models
Vincent Tinto is one of the most prolific authors on retention in higher education.
Tinto (1993) analyzed the existing body of literature and research on student attrition,
proposed a model of student attrition, and offered a course of action for increasing
student retention in higher education. Tinto’s (1975) work is unique and important
because he focuses on the “interaction between the individual and the institution that lead
[sic] differing individuals to drop out from institutions of higher education” (p. 90). Tinto
13
(1993) drew attention to the role institutions play in influencing the social and intellectual
development of their students while other authors place the onus of retention on the
student. His work on developing a “theory of individual departure” (1993, p. 84) is also
important to the purpose of this study.
Tinto (1993) placed the majority of the responsibility on administrators of the
universities and institutions of higher learning to meet the needs of its students. He
indicated that most of the voluntary attrition is a reflection or reaction to what happens
within the college rather than what precedes or follows. This is an indication that the
connection and perceptions of mattering to the university is, in many cases, as important
to the student as what the individual expectations of the college experience or the rewards
attained because of college.
Although the focus of this study is not on retention, a summary of Tinto’s
principles of effective retention provides a framework for understanding the role
institutions play in helping students succeed. These principles mirror in many ways the
concepts of mattering and are therefore pertinent to this research.
The first principle of Tinto’s (1993) effective retention framework is an
institutional commitment to students. Here, Tinto called for institutions to “put student
welfare ahead of other institutional goals” (p. 146). This model calls for a caring about
students and an attention to their needs, concerns, and well-being. This “ethos of caring”
helps students feel that they belong and are connected to their institution (Tinto, 1993, p.
146). Many institutions, however, can fail to attend to this first principle in a
14
comprehensive way by intentionally or unintentionally attending to the needs of
traditional students over the nontraditional adult students.
Tinto (1993) described in his second principle the notion of educational
commitment. Educational commitment is a function of his first principle in that it asks
institutions to be “committed to the education of all, not just some, of their students” (p.
146). The manifestation of commitment to education occurs throughout the institution but
most prominently in the classroom. For adult students, the classroom is of major
significance because for many adult students, this is the only real place that they engage
with the institution in order to form an opinion or perception. By providing opportunities
for student learning and creating opportunities for feedback, universities demonstrate
their commitment to education and by extension, a commitment to students(Tinto, 1993).
The third principle in Tinto’s (1993) effective retention framework is focused on
the social and intellectual community. Tinto articulates a need for the “development of
supportive social and educational communities in which all students are integrated as
competent members” (p. 147). Ensuring that adult students are provided opportunities to
be integrated as full members of the social and intellectual communities is essential to
their retention, success, and perceptions of mattering (Jacoby, 1989).
Astin’s (1977) theory of involvement is another model often cited throughout the
literature on student retention. The premise of Astin’s (1977) theory is that involvement
in social and academic campus life plays a key role in student retention. The institutional
environment created by faculty and students impact retention. Astin (1993) stated
15
“learning, academic performance, and retention are positively associated with academic
involvement, involvement with faculty, and involvement with student peer groups” (p.
394).
Bean and Metzner (1985) developed a nontraditional student attrition model that
places more attention on the external factors and variables that affect student retention
than traditional student retention models. The nontraditional student attrition model has
four sets of variables: (a) background and defining variables, (b) academic variables, (c)
environmental variables, and (d) social integration variables. They identify high school
performance and individual educational goals as background variables while listing
defining variables characteristics as age, commuter status or enrollment status. Bean and
Metzner (1985) described academic variables as those components that contribute to their
academic performance such as study habits, absenteeism, degree of certainty regarding
academic major, course availability and the quality of academic advising. Bean and
Metzner listed finances, employment, encouragement, family responsibilities and transfer
opportunities as environmental variables. They describe encouragement as coming from
family members and those individuals who are particularly influential such as significant
others, spouses or off-campus employers. It is their contention that encouragement is
more important for adult students than for traditional students. Finally, Bean and Metzner
(1985) described social integration variables as the extent and quality of a student’s
interaction with the social systems of the educational institution. Social integration
measures include participation in extracurricular activities, campus peer friendships,
16
interactions with faculty and instructors outside of class and the overall satisfaction with
opportunities for social interactions on campus.
Bean and Metzner’s (1985) model is particularly valuable as it describes variables
such as family and work commitments which are significantly more present in an adult
student’s life than a traditional student’s.
Further review of the literature suggests that there are several significant factors
that contribute to adult student attrition in higher education. Wlodowski, Mauldin, and
Campbell (2002) suggested that adults leave post-secondary education without a degree
mostly because they lack sufficient time or money to persist and succeed. The multiple
roles which adult students are struggling to manage creates a situation where the value
proposition of higher education does not justify the difficulty of managing conflicting
demands on the adult students time. To improve persistence, schools need to increase
financial aid and make more services geared to the needs of adults such as weekend
courses, more and better advising and improved student interaction with faculty and peers
(Wlodowski, Mauldin & Campbell, 2002).
Weidman (1985) also suggested that every effort be made to establish institutional
mechanisms for facilitating the social and academic integration of the non-traditional
student. An example of this would be to make provisions for special counselors to be
available on campus at times and places easily accessible for non-traditional students.
Finally, Weidman (1985) underscored the importance of providing financial aid to
improve retention and persistence of adult learners.
17
Several institutions have recognized the shifting demographics and have made
concerted efforts to bolster the persistence of adult learners. It has been suggested that the
key word for creating a more supportive institutional environment is flexibility. Kerka
(1989) suggested that successful techniques include high quality and accessible student
support services with extended office hours, admissions processes that consider
appropriate and contemporary assessments of adult potential. Kerka (1989) also
suggested that adult persistence is also improved with hassle-free registration and
scheduling, career planning and placement and establishment of rituals and symbols that
form a sense of shared meaning and connectedness among students, faculty and staff.
The Role of Financial Aid in Supporting Adult Students
Student financial aid has held a significant role in American higher education
since the first scholarship fund was established at Harvard in 1643 (Rentz & Saddlemire,
1988). The first scholarship fund to be established was done by a private party and
intended to advance learning by supporting those who could not afford higher education
(Rentz & Saddlemire, 1988; Davis, 1894). Today, the federal government is the largest
sponsor and provider of student financial aid. The first major financial aid program to be
introduced by the federal government was the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944,
or the GI Bill. Congress enacted the GI Bill for a variety of reasons as previously
discussed. During the 1940s and 1950s, the GI Bill benefits made it possible for
18
thousands of men and women who might never have gone to college to pursue their
higher education (Gladieux, 1995).
The next major push in student financial aid occurred as a result of the 1958
successful launch of the Soviet satellite. The Sputnik launch created a sense of crisis in
the United States and led lawmakers to produce the National Defense Education Act of
1958. The National Defense Education Act of 1958established low-interest loans for
college students, particularly in fields believed to be crucial to national security. The
National Defense Education Act of 1958 also established graduate fellowships to
encourage students in the sciences, mathematics, engineering, and other strategic fields.
Other fields were included, and debt cancellation was offered to those who became
teachers (Gladieux, 1995).
According to historian Robert Dallek (1998), President Johnson had an “almost
mystical faith” in the capacity of education to transform people’s lives (p. 188). While
President Roosevelt viewed social help in terms of putting money into people’s pockets,
President Johnson believed in enabling people to solve their problems through education
(Dallek, 1998). President Johnson’s intent for the Great Society program was to broaden
educational opportunities for all Americans. His primary legislative instruments for
advancing this agenda were the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for K12 and the Higher Education Act (HEA) for postsecondary students. President Johnson’s
plan was that the Higher Education Act would help every person willing to work for and
receive a postsecondary education, which would in turn lead to a higher income for them
19
and an improved standard of living for their children (Dallek, 1998). In addition to
decreasing the poverty of individuals, President Johnson also believed that additional
higher quality schooling would benefit the country by providing a supply of educated
Americans to provide the educated workforce needed for the country’s economic
prosperity. Title IV of the Higher Education Act came about in 1965 thanks to the
Kennedy legacy, the civil rights movement, and the Johnson administration’s War on
Poverty. Title IV embodied the first explicit federal commitment to providing college
opportunities to students in need (Dallek, 1998). Two of the best examples of the policy
trends in higher education were the creation of the TRIO (Upward Bound, Talent Search,
and Student Support Services) programs for disadvantaged students under the Higher
Education Act of 1968 and the expansion of financial aid programs.
The TRIO programs were established to help low-income students overcome
class, social, and cultural barriers to higher education in addition to fundamental financial
barriers. Ability-to-Benefit allows students without high school degrees to obtain
financial aid for postsecondary education if they pass an aptitude test. Congress also
sought to adjust aid policies to better meet the needs of older and part-time students. The
original procedures to determine need were designed for families with dependent children
who attend college full-time. Students qualifying as independent or self-supporting under
federal rules now constitute a substantial majority of Title IV aid recipients (Gladieux,
1995). These nontraditional students were the emerging trend and they were typically
attending less than full-time, had family and work responsibilities while in school.
20
Congress opened eligibility for some categories of independent and part-time
students in 1992, but restricted it for single, independent students. Policymakers remain
concerned that the financial aid system was not sensitive to the wide-ranging
circumstances of an increasingly diverse postsecondary education group. At the same
time, broadening eligibility to include these independent adult students had the effect of
reducing the dollars available to dependent students from low-income families (Gladieux,
1995).
The intention of federal student financial aid is very straightforward: to increase
access to postsecondary education across income groups, especially to low-income
students (Lee, 1999). While the intention is good, the process of applying for financial
aid can be complex, frustrating, and not easily understood by students, families, and
educators. While the process is complex, the complexity of financial aid process comes
as a result of lawmaker’s attempts to make financial aid as fair as possible. Over the past
decade, the Department of Education devoted significant effort to make the process of
obtaining financial aid more straightforward by harnessing the power of the internet and
other advances in technology. However, increasing regulations and limitations placed by
federal and state legislators continue to make the delivery of aid incredibly complex for
financial aid administrators (Lee, 1999).
Student financial aid is designed to assist all students in obtaining access to higher
education regardless of age and economic circumstances. While no specific aid types are
designed to fit the needs of adult learners, federal and state programs do not limit aid
21
based on a student’s age. Several factors regarding student financial aid should be
considered when providing service to adult learners. Because of the multiple roles of
adult students, institutions should strive to provide extended hours of financial aid
services. To take advantage of the trend toward increased computer literacy, institutions
should strive to increase the availability of interactive online services, and more fully
communicate application procedures and other information to adult learners (Lee, 1999).
Educators can assist their adult populations by recognizing their needs, teaching
others about their challenges, and supporting the financial aid community in their efforts
to provide relevant information and increased access to all students (Lee, 1999).
Mattering and the Adult Student
Mattering is a function of how a person perceives his or her importance to another
(Rosenberg &McCullough, 1981). In other words, ‘how important do I perceive I am to
you?’ Rosenberg and McCullough are recognized as the seminal authors in the field of
study, but Schlossberg (1989) brought this concept to the world of higher education.
Schlossberg (1989) suggested that there is a strong connection between mattering and
areas of concern in student affairs, such as involvement, community, satisfaction, and
retention. Schlossberg (1989) wrote “…for whether they [students] are traditional or
nontraditional, gifted or average, male or female, all students are concerned about
belonging and mattering” (p. 14). If the student perceives a sense of connection or
22
significance, this student will have a higher rank in mattering. If the perceptions are those
of disconnection or insignificance, the sense of marginality exists (Schlossberg, 1989).
Schlossberg (1989) brought the notion of mattering into the field of student affairs
stating that “one of the deepest current concerns in higher education is to find ways to
more fully involve students in learning” (p. 5). She also suggested that a strong
connection exists between typical areas of concern in student affairs involvement,
community, satisfaction, retention and mattering. Schlossberg (1989) implied that
mattering is almost elemental in nature: “…for whether they [students] are traditional or
nontraditional, gifted or average, male or female, all students are concerned about
belonging and mattering” (p. 14).
Schlossberg’s (1989) work is a significant contribution for it shifts the emphasis
from blaming adult students as the problem to analyzing the environment or institution as
a possible source of trouble. Schlossberg (1989) wrote that institutions that focus on
mattering and greater student involvement would be more successful in creating
campuses where students are motivated to learn, where their retention is high, and
ultimately, where their institutional loyalty for the short- and long-term is ensured.
Just as Schlossberg (1989) helped to bring the construct of mattering into the
student affairs vernacular, so too did the author help to operationalize the model by
creating an instrument called the Mattering Scales for Adult Students in Higher
Education (MHE).
23
The MHE consists of five scales designed to assess the perceptions of adult
learners about their educational environment (Schlossberg, Lassalle, & Golec, 1990). The
MHE questionnaire was developed to measure the extent to which adult students felt that
they matter to their educational institution in several different dimensions. Administrators
who utilize the MHE survey are asked to consider how adult students from a variety of
perspectives perceive the university. The five dimensions measured by the MHE Survey
are the Administration subscale, the Advising Subscale, the Peers Subscale, the Multiple
Roles Subscale and the Faculty Subscale.
The MHE’s Administration dimension measure the student’s perception of
mattering as a function of the extent to which they believe the campus policies and
procedures are sensitive to and support adult learners (Schlossberg, 1989). Environments
where high scores are achieved indicate that campus policies are accommodating in terms
of timing of class offerings, payment of fees, and registration scheduling (Schlossberg,
1989).
The MHE’s Peer subscale measures the student’s perceptions of the extent to
which they feel they belong on campus and are accepted as peers in the classroom
(Schlossberg, 1989). Environments where high scores are achieved indicate that adult
students feel comfortable in the classroom and they feel they belong in the classroom.
Adult students who score this area high feel like their experiences and contributions are
valued and that they overcome any perceptions of weaknesses on the part of their
traditionally aged classmates.
24
The MHE’s Advising dimension measures the student’s perception of mattering
as a function of the extent to which advisors and other providers of information are able
to answer questions and address concerns related to adult learners (Schlossberg, 1989).
High scores in this dimension may indicate that an adult student had positive experiences
with faculty advisors, perceived that advisors were available at convenient times, felt that
advisors appeared to be interested in their concerns or, a combination of these
impressions. Adult students that indicate high scores in this subscale may also feel that
they have “…a clear understanding of administrative rules and regulations and
accessibility of administrative staff” (Schlossberg, 1989, p.15).
The MHE’s Multiple Roles Subscale measures the student’s perception of
mattering as a function of the extent to which they perceive the campus understands and
acknowledges the competing demands of the adult student’s time (Schlossberg, 1989).
Students who score high in this subscale may perceive that the rules and policies in place
are flexible enough to accommodate students in a way that acknowledges their other
responsibilities. A combination of increased accessibility for administrative offices,
acknowledgement of adult student’s conflicting demands and options for part-time
students reflect an administration that is respectful of adult students (Schlossberg, 1989).
The MHE’s Faculty Subscale measures the student’s perception of mattering as a
function of the extent to which faculty members accept and include the adult student in
their classroom. High scorers in this dimension may feel they are treated equitably in
comparison with traditional aged students. Adult students may also describe faculty who
25
acknowledge their life experiences and welcome this diversity of experience in the
classroom (Schlossberg, 1989).
All of these dimensions affect the degree to which adults feel they matter to the
institution, which affects their persistence to graduation (Schlossberg, 1989).
A study (Butcher, 1997) was conducted using the Mattering Scales for Adult
Students in Postsecondary Education (MHE) questionnaire at West Virginia University.
The intent of the study was to measure the perception of mattering amongst traditional
and nontraditional students with particular emphasis on nontraditional students. In this
study, the researcher defined nontraditional students as those students aged 23 and older.
One particular element of his study indicated that administrative activities implemented
in a service-oriented manner may contribute to extracurricular involvement by nontraditional students (Butcher, 1997).
East Tennessee State University conducted a study using the MHE and yielded
similar results with an observation that “as an institution, we can continue to engender
good will among our adult students by improving our responsiveness to the complexities
of the nontraditional student’s life” (Warner & Williams, 1995, p.11).
Further review of the literature suggests that there are several significant factors
that contribute to adult attrition in higher education. A study (Wladowski, Mauldin &
Campbell, 2002) suggested that adults leave post-secondary education without a degree
mostly because they lack sufficient time or money to persist and succeed. The multiple
roles which adult students are struggling to manage creates a situation where the value
26
proposition of higher education does not justify the difficulty of managing conflicting
demands on the adult students time. To improve persistence, schools need to increase
financial aid and make more services geared to the needs of adults such as weekend
courses, more and better advising and improved student interaction with faculty and peers
(Wlodowski, Mauldin, & Campbell, 2002).
While there are commonalities between traditional and non-traditional students in
postsecondary education, it is also important to acknowledge the differences and prepare
appropriate support models to support those different needs. Recognizing the different
needs of adult learners and creating a supportive model and approach to increase
retention should take several forms (Weidman, 1985). Weidman (1985) recommended
that admissions requirements should reflect contemporary assessment of academic
potential, not just the traditional indicators of performance such as high school grade
point average or class rank. Weidman also suggested that every effort should be made to
establish institutional mechanisms for facilitating the social and academic integration of
the non-traditional student. An example of this would be to make provisions for special
counselors to be available on campus at times and places easily accessible for nontraditional students. Finally, Weidman agreed with others and underscored the
importance of providing financial aid to improve retention and persistence of adult
learners.
27
Rationale for the Study
The number of adult students attending institutions of higher education has grown
considerably and is expected to continue to increase (Planty et al., 2007). The magnitude
of this trend toward adults reentering higher education cannot be underestimated.
Significant shifts in the American workforce are happening now and the need to create
supportive environments for adult learners has never been more urgent. If past trends are
predictors for the future, we can also expect that veterans returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan will use their GI Bill benefits and pursue their higher education aspirations.
These numbers will be significant and these soldiers will enter our colleges with a variety
of needs, both academic and otherwise.
Adult student persistence will benefit from universities that consider their
administrative, academic, and financial interactions. Further, the adult student will benefit
from federal and state policies that affect their financial assistance eligibility and policies
that encourage employer supported education. Institutions that strive to make financial
aid available, convenient and accessible will remove traditional barriers toward entry and
persistence.
This study will demonstrate that supporting the nontraditional adult student with
aligned policies and assistance increases retention and creates a workforce better
prepared to contribute and enrich the economy. Aligning policies could create an
opportunity to correct the imbalances in educational equity and allowed adults to
reengage in educational opportunity that may have passed them by in their youth.
28
Sacramento State University has the opportunity and the responsibility to consider
its adult learners’ perception of mattering. Reflecting on these perceptions and
conducting a review of the services that affect the adult learners’ perception of mattering
will position Sacramento State to adjust delivery and accessibility of critical support
services. The literature has shown that incrementally adjusting the delivery and
accessibility of these services to improve the perception of mattering for adult services
may positively affect retention and persistence to graduation.
Summary
This review of the literature has provided the necessary foundation for this study.
A detailed explanation of the history of nontraditional adult students, coupled with a
review of persistence and support models provides a framework for understanding the
significance of supporting this growing body of students. The United States has had a
significant growth in adult students since 1944. The GI Bill opened the door to higher
education for many that were the first in their families to attend an institution of higher
learner. The increase in these nontraditional adult students highlighted the need to
restructure centuries-old frameworks for supporting student learning and support. Tinto
(1993) articulated a framework focused on the social and intellectual community. He also
articulates a need for the “development of supportive social and educational communities
in which all students are integrated as competent members” (Tinto, 1993, p. 147). His
model calls for caring about students and attention to their needs, concerns, and well-
29
being. This “ethos of caring” helped students feel that they belong and are connected to
their institution (Tinto, 1993, p. 146). Ensuring that adult students are provided
opportunities to be integrated as full members of the social and intellectual communities
is essential to their retention, success, and perceptions of mattering (Jacoby, 1989).
Universities responsive to the needs to nontraditional adult students develop
systems of support that place more attention on the external factors and variables that
affect student retention than traditional student retention models thereby acknowledging
the differences of adult students. Bean and Metzner’s (1985) model is particularly
valuable as it describes variables such as family and work commitments which are
significantly more present in an adult student’s life than a traditional student’s.
Wlodowski, Mauldin, and Campbell (2002) suggested that adults leave post-secondary
education without a degree mostly because they lack sufficient time or money to persist
and succeed. To improve persistence of adult students, schools need to increase financial
aid and make more services geared to the needs of adults such as weekend courses, more
and better advising and improved student interaction with faculty and peers (Wlodowski,
Mauldin & Campbell, 2002). Kerka (1989) also suggested that adult persistence is also
improved with hassle-free registration and scheduling, career planning and placement and
establishment of rituals and symbols that form a sense of shared meaning and
connectedness among students, faculty and staff.
In addition, the explorations of the construct of mattering and relevant studies of
this concept suggest that this is an area of opportunity for universities serving adult
30
students. Mattering is a function of how a person perceives his or her importance to
another (Rosenberg &McCullough, 1981). Schlossberg (1989) suggested that there is a
strong connection between mattering and areas of concern in student affairs such as
involvement, community, satisfaction, and retention. Weidman (1985) also suggested that
every effort should be made to establish institutional mechanisms for facilitating the
social and academic integration of the non-traditional student. An example of this would
be to make provisions for special counselors to be available on campus at times and
places easily accessible for non-traditional students.
While there are commonalities between traditional and non-traditional students in
postsecondary education, it is also important to acknowledge the differences and prepare
appropriate support models to support those different needs. Recognizing the different
needs of adult learners and creating a supportive model and approach to increase
retention should be a priority for universities serving adult students.
31
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to measure the perception of mattering for adult
students at Sacramento State University. Data for this study was collected utilizing the
Mattering in Higher Education (MHE) survey. The MHE survey was administered to
selected adult undergraduate students in order to answer the following research questions:

What is the perception of availability of student support services by adult students
at Sacramento State University?

What is the perception of mattering by adult students at Sacramento State
University?
To answer the research questions, this researcher used a quantitative method. To
test the perception of mattering for adult students at Sacramento State, this researcher
utilized a normed tool, the MHE survey, to control for adult student perception of
mattering. Adult students at Sacramento State were surveyed utilizing the same MHE
survey as the students used for developing the norm and the results are analyzed in
Chapter 4.
This chapter will describe the setting, the population and sample, data collection,
instrumentation and limitations of the study.
32
Sampling Procedures
Setting
This study was conducted on the campus of California State University,
Sacramento (CSUS). Sacramento State is one of the largest and arguably the most
culturally diverse campus within the California State University System’s twenty-three
campuses. Sacramento State enrolls approximately 28,000 students and offers sixty
undergraduate and forty graduate programs that prepare its graduates for careers
committed to public service and the improvement of the quality of life both regionally
and statewide (Sac State Facts and Statistics, 2007).
Sacramento State is located in the culturally diverse metropolitan city of
Sacramento. According to a 2000 U.S. Census of the city of Sacramento, about 52% of
the community is non-white. There is a definite trend toward a minority majority in
California and Sacramento is no exception. According to the American Community
Survey’s Demographic and Housing Estimates Report for 2005-2007, Sacramento is
reported as having a population of 446,721 with an ethnic breakdown of 38.3 percent
White, 24.8 percent Hispanic or Latino, 17.1 percent Asian, 14.2 percent Black, 1.2
percent Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, 0.8 percent American Indian and
Alaskan Native, 0.4 percent Some Other Race Alone, and 3.2 percent Two or More
Races. The rich diversity from the city of Sacramento is reflected in the student
population at CSUS.
33
Population and Sample
The population used for this study consisted of undergraduate students aged 24
and older. Sacramento State’s undergraduate enrollment for Fall 2008 was 24,034 of
which 22 percent (5322) were aged 25 or older. Females represented 56.9 percent
(13,686) of the total Sacramento State undergraduate student population compared to
only 43.1 percent (10,348) of males. The ethnic breakdown of the undergraduate
Sacramento State student population consisted of 40 percent (9,568) White, 19 percent
(4,622) Asian or Pacific Islander, 15 percent (3,495) Latino, 7 percent (1,678) African
American, 1 percent (222) American Indian, 1 percent (257) Foreign, and 17 percent
(4192) Other (Sac State Facts and Statistics, 2007).
Design of Study
A quantitative method of study utilizing a digital survey instrument was used for
this study. The survey instrument, a normed tool, contained the questions from the
Mattering in Higher Education (MHE) survey and was administered with permission
from the Office of the Vice President for Center for Lifelong Learning, American
Council on Education (Appendix C). The survey was administered and scored utilizing
instructions received with the questionnaire packet. A scoring algorithm was utilized
resulting in a mean score aggregated within five focus areas that in turn articulate the
perception of mattering for adult students. The aggregate scores from these five focus
areas can be compared with the normed scores of developed by the American Council
34
on Education in order to benchmark against like sized universities and colleges. The
research was designed to measure the perception of mattering for adult students at a
university or college. Universities can use their results and contrast against normed
results to understand how adult students perceive a sense of mattering at their institutions.
Data Collection
Adult student participants answered close-ended questions from a survey. The
data will be displayed using descriptive statistics. Adult student participants also had a
chance to answer an open-ended question that enabled them to provide additional
feedback. This data was coded and analyzed to reveal any common themes.
The researcher utilized the Mattering in Higher Education (MHE) Survey
developed by Schlossberg(1989).The MHE consists of five scales designed to assess
adult learners about their education environment. The MHE survey was ported to the web
using an online survey hosting service entitled Survey Monkey (Appendix A).
This researcher obtained permission to utilize the MHE Survey Questionnaire
from the American Council on Education’s Center for Lifelong Learning (Appendix C).
This researcher opted to use the online survey administration service entitled
“Survey Monkey” (http://www.surveymonkey.com/) because of its cost effectiveness
compared to paper based survey, user-friendliness and the ease of communicating with
adult learners electronically. Survey Monkey also allowed participants to navigate
35
through the survey quickly and easily while simultaneously enabling this researcher to
monitor data collection.
Adult students were asked for their consent to participate (Appendix B) and were
asked to respond to the online Mattering in Higher Education survey questions utilizing a
5-point Likert-Scale. Students were also given an opportunity to provide any additional
comments at the end of the survey, which enabled them to give feedback on any section
of the survey questionnaire.
The online MHE survey questionnaire placed on Survey Monkey inquired about
adult student perceptions from five dimensions. Those five dimensions were:

The administration dimension, which measures the student’s perception of
mattering as a function of the extent to which they believe the campus policies
and procedures are sensitive to and support adult learners;

The peer dimension, which measures the student’s perceptions of the extent to
which they feel they belong on campus and are accepted as peers in the
classroom;

The advising dimension, which measures the student’s perception of mattering
as a function of the extent to which advisors and other providers of
information are able to answer questions and address concerns related to adult
learners;

The multiple roles dimension, which measures the student’s perception of
mattering as a function of the extent to which they perceive the campus
36
understands and acknowledges the competing demands of the adult student’s
time;

The faculty dimension, which measures the student’s perception of mattering
as a function of the extent to which faculty members accept and include the
adult student in their classroom (Schlossberg, 1989).
Informed consent from the adult student participants was obtained through their
explicit yes or no response to the first question on the first page of the online MHE
survey questionnaire.
This researcher worked with the Sacramento State Registrar’s Office to obtain a
randomly-selected listing of names and email addresses of400 students aged 24 and older
attending Sacramento State, of which 200 students had completed between 0 and 60
semester hours and another 200 students who had completed between 61 and 130
semester hours.
An e-mail was sent by the researcher to the student participants that included a
brief explanation of the research as well a link to the online survey questionnaire. An
inducement to complete the survey was offered in that a $100 Sacramento State
bookstore gift certificate was to be awarded to a randomly selected completed survey
participant.
The goal of the survey questions was to measure the perception of mattering for
adult students at Sacramento State with the hope that the results of the study would
37
provide university with information that can be used to improve the retention and
persistence of adult students.
Instrumentation
Student surveys were distributed via e-mail to 400 randomly selected adult
students and 75 students from this pool responded, accounting for an approximate return
rate of 19%. The students were asked to complete the survey within two weeks. The email communication explained the purpose of the study and provided a link to begin the
survey after the participants completed the consent form. Students had the opportunity to
participate or not participate in the study. Contact information was also provided in the
event that any student had any questions or concerns regarding the survey.
Students did not have a time limit to complete the survey, although each was
informed them that the survey could take up to 25 minutes to complete. A reminder was
sent to non-respondents after two weeks and provided for an additional week to complete
the survey.
After each student completed the survey, Survey Monkey collected, recorded and
summarized the results online, which facilitated the tracking of respondents and the
viewing of results during the survey period.
The research results were available online. Qualitative data, or written remarks
from participants, was then downloaded for analysis. The results are presented in Chapter
4 in the form of narrative statistics. Survey Monkey provided a summary of the additional
38
comments provided by respondents that were then coded and analyzed in order to
identify common themes per the five functional dimensions.
Limitations
This study focuses on adult undergraduate students attending classes at
Sacramento State University. Because of the specific nature of the audience and survey,
the results of this study may not be generalizable for adult undergraduate students
attending classes at other universities.
There was also a strong interest in reaching a larger segment of the adult
undergraduate student population for this study above the 19% return rate. While 19
percent participation is an acceptable return rate, results of the survey could perhaps have
been more insightful with greater participation. Focus groups could have been used as
well to gather additional data.
Finally, results of this survey are specific to adult undergraduate students
attending classes at Sacramento State. While traditional undergraduate students may have
similar experiences with the administrative services, their classroom peers, the advising
services, the multiple roles associated with being a student and the faculty, the results of
this survey may not be applicable to them.
39
Chapter 4
DATA ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
Statement of the Problem
Working adult students have difficulty in accessing conventional campus services
unless they physically come to campus Monday through Friday during traditional
business hours. The typical adult student works a day job, comes to class late in the day
or in the evening, and spends very little time on campus. Many campuses structure their
support services to support the traditional student who comes to class during the day with
little support offered during the evenings or weekends. The lack of accessible student
services may send the message to the typical adult students that their support needs are
not important or that they do not matter to Sacramento State.
The literature has shown that adult learners who opt out tend to do so because of
difficulties associated with accessing financial aid and difficulties associated with time
and scheduling. Studies have shown that students who feel they are cared about and
connected to a campus have higher retention rates (Astin, 1993).
Institutions of higher education have the ability to create environments that are
supportive of traditional students. Colleges and universities have invested resources into
creating academic and administrative student support centers and the literature has shown
that these centers have the effect of increasing retention and persistence to graduation for
traditional students. While the literature has proven that these approaches are sound ways
40
to increase retention rates for traditional students, the services are not typically accessible
to the adult learner attending courses in the late day and evening. Since these approaches
to increasing retention and persistence work for traditional students, should these services
be made more available to the nontraditional adult learner? The literature has drawn a
relationship between the perception of mattering for adult students and retention to
degree completion (Schlossberg, 1989).
Presentation of the Data
Demographics of Participants
The student sample for the study consisted of 75 respondents (19% return rate)
from a randomly selected pool of 400 adult undergraduate students attending classes fulltime at Sacramento State. The respondents consisted of 1 freshmen, 4 sophomores, 44
juniors and 26 seniors. There were 53 female and 22 male respondents with an ethnic
breakdown of 9 Black/Non-Hispanic, 1 American Indian, 2 Asian or Pacific Islander, 11
Hispanic, 7 Other and 45 White/Non-Hispanic respondents. 26 respondents reported
carrying a load of 12 semester hours per semester while 49 reported carrying more than
12 semester hours per semester. Of the 75 respondents, 32 reported that they have or
provide support to one or more dependents.
Participant Data
In order to collect student data, this researcher asked students to respond to a
series of statements using a 5-point Likert-Scale (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
41
Strongly Disagree, and Not Applicable), as well as including a section at the end of the
survey for additional comments. The online MHE survey questionnaire placed on Survey
Monkey inquired about adult student perceptions from five dimensions. The questions
were distributed throughout the survey in a random pattern so as not to suggest a
particular functional grouping of dimensions. Several of the questions were phrased in
such a way as to ensure the participant could not simply agree or disagree in a patterned
response.
The five dimensions, which were measured in the online survey were: (1) the
administration dimension; (2) the peer dimension; (3) the advising; (4) the multiple roles
dimension; and (5) the faculty (Schlossberg, 1989).
Quantitative Responses
Questions in the quantitative section of the questionnaire were scored in
accordance with the instructions contained in the MHE administration guide
(Schlossberg, Lassalle, & Golec, 1990). The scoring instruction awarded 5 points for
each “Strongly Agree” response, 4 points for each “Agree” response, 3 points for each
“Neither Agree or Disagree” response, 2 points for each “Disagree” response and one
point for each “Strongly Disagree” response. Several questions were worded in a way
that required the reversing of the scoring where a “Strongly Agree” response was
awarded 1 point and so forth. This approach of “reversing” the questions nullified any
patterned responses from affecting the overall score.
42
To score a question, the scoring instructions require a tally to be taken for each of
the question’s response types, the weight multiplier is applied to each response type, the
weighted response type scores are summed and an overall question mean is developed.
The MHE required the tabulation of individual question scores (means) into functional
groupings. The scoring instructions for the functional groupings will be described in the
Functional Grouping Results section.
Question 1 asked students to rate whether they believed the university’s policy of
transfer credit penalizes non-traditional students. The results for this question were
aggregated within the administrative dimension and were scored in reverse where a
strongly disagree response scored 5 points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses
from this question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are
presented in Table 1.
Table 1
The university’s policy of transfer credit penalizes non-traditional students
Disagree
Percentage
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
8% (6)
13% (10)
41% (31)
27% (20)
11% (8)
30
40
93
40
8
(#responses)
Weighted Score
43
Overall, the majority of students (31) neither agreed nor disagreed that the
university’s policy of transfer credit penalizes non-traditional students. It should be noted
that 28 students either agreed or strongly agreed that the university’s transfer credit
policy penalizes non-traditional students, while only 16 students either strongly disagreed
or disagreed that the policy penalizes.
Question 2 asked students to rate whether their advisor remembered things that
have been discussed before. The results for this question were aggregated within the
advising dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree response scored
5 points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this question were tabulated
in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
My advisor doesn't seem to remember things we have discussed before.
Disagree
Percentage (#
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
10% (8)
14% (11)
44% (33)
17% (13)
13% (10)
40
44
99
26
10
responses)
Weighted Score
The largest number of students (33) neither agreed nor disagreed that their advisor
remembered things that have been discussed before. A combined total of 23 students
44
either agreed or strongly agreed that their advisor remembered things that have been
discussed before while 19 students either strongly disagreed or disagreed.
Question 3 asked students to rate whether they will have a hard time finishing
their degree because of time limits on completing course requirements. The results for
this question were aggregated within the multiple roles dimension and were scored in
reverse where a strongly disagree response scored 5 points and a strongly agree scored 1
point. Responses from this question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring
instructions and are presented in Table 3.
Table 3
I will have a hard time finishing my degree because of time limits on completing course
requirements.
Disagree
Percentage (#
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
5% (4)
26% (20)
38% (29)
16% (12)
13% (10)
20
80
87
24
10
responses)
Weighted Score
The majority of students (29) neither agreed nor disagreed that they will have a
hard time finishing their degree because of time limits on completing course
45
requirements. A combined total of 22 students either agreed or strongly agreed that they
will have a hard time finishing while 24 students either strongly disagreed or disagreed.
Question 4 asked students to rate whether the administration seems to consider
adult student priorities as important as traditional student priorities. The results for this
question were aggregated within the administrative dimension and were scored where a
strongly disagree response scored 1 point and a strongly agree scored 5 points. Responses
from this question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are
presented in Table 4.
Table 4
The administration seems to consider adult student priorities as important as traditional
student priorities.
Disagree
Percentage (#
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
8% (6)
22% (17)
38% (29)
25% (19)
5% (4)
6
34
87
76
20
responses)
Weighted Score
The majority of students (29) neither agreed nor disagreed that the administration
seems to consider adult student priorities as important as traditional student priorities. A
combined total of 23 students either strongly disagreed or disagreed that administration
46
seemed to consider adult student priorities as important as traditional student priorities,
while 23 students either agreed or strongly agreed.
Question 5 asked students to rate whether they get support from their classmates
when they need it. The results for this question were aggregated within the peers
dimension and were scored where a strongly disagree response scored 1 point and a
strongly agree scored 5 points. Responses from this question were tabulated in
accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 5.
Table 5
I get support from my classmates when I need it.
Disagree
Percentage (#
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
4% (3)
10% (8)
21% (16)
48% (36)
16% (12)
3
16
48
144
60
responses)
Weighted Score
Overall, the majority of students (48) either agreed or strongly agreed that they
get support from their classmates when they need it. A total of only 11 students either
strongly disagreed or disagreed that they get support from their classmates while 16
students neither agreed nor disagreed about receiving support.
47
Question 6 asked students to rate whether their questions seem to put faculty
members on the defensive. The results for this question were aggregated within the
faculty dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree response scored 5
points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this question were tabulated
in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 6.
Table 6
My questions seem to put faculty members on the defensive.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
26% (20)
26% (20)
30% (23)
10% (8)
5% (4)
Weighted Score
100
80
69
16
4
Percentage (#
The majority of students (40) either strongly disagreed or disagreed that their
questions seem to put faculty members on the defensive. A combined total of 12 students
either strongly agree or agree that faculty seemed to be put on the defensive, while 23
students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 7 asked the respondents to rate whether faculty and administrators are
sensitive to the respondents other responsibilities. The results for this question were
aggregated within the administrative dimension and were scored where a strongly
48
disagree response scored 1 point and a strongly agree scored 5 points. Responses from
this question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are
presented in Table 7.
Table 7
The faculty and administrators are sensitive to my other responsibilities.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
9% (7)
20% (15)
25% (19)
42% (32)
2% (2)
Weighted Score
7
30
57
128
10
Percentage (#
The majority of students (34) either agreed or strongly agreed that the faculty and
administrators are sensitive to the respondents other responsibilities. A combined total of
22 students either strongly disagreed or disagreed that the faculty and administrators are
sensitive to nontraditional students other responsibilities while 19 students neither agreed
nor disagreed.
Question 8 asked students to rate whether they sometimes feel alone and isolated
at the university. The results for this question were aggregated within the peers dimension
and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree response scored 5 points and a
49
strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this question were tabulated in accordance
to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 8.
Table 8
I sometimes feel alone and isolated at the university.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
10% (8)
25% (19)
20% (15)
28% (21)
16% (12)
Weighted Score
40
76
45
42
12
Percentage (#
Overall, the majority of students (33) either agreed or strongly agreed about
sometimes feeling alone and isolated at the university. A total of 27 students either
strongly disagreed or disagreed that they sometimes feel alone and isolated at the
university while 15 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 9 asked students to rate whether the administrative rules and regulations
are clear to the student. The results for this question were aggregated within the advising
dimension and were scored where a strongly disagree response scored 1 point and a
strongly agree scored 5 points. Responses from this question were tabulated in
accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 9.
50
Table 9
The administrative rules and regulations are clear to me.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
6% (5)
18% (14)
22% (17)
42% (32)
9% (7)
Weighted Score
5
28
51
128
35
Percentage (#
The majority of students (39) either agreed or strongly agreed that the
administrative rules and regulations are clear. A combined total of 19 students either
strongly disagreed or disagreed that the administrative rules and regulations are clear
while 17 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 10 asked students to rate whether their professors interpret assertiveness
as a challenge to their authority. The results for this question were aggregated within the
faculty dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree response scored 5
points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this question were tabulated
in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 10.
51
Table 10
My professors interpret assertiveness as a challenge to their authority.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
9% (7)
37% (28)
37% (28)
13% (10)
2% (2)
Weighted Score
35
112
84
20
2
Percentage (#
The majority of students (35) either strongly disagreed or disagreed that their
professors interpret assertiveness as a challenge to their authority. A combined total of 12
students either strongly agree or agree that their professors interpret assertiveness as a
challenge to their authority while 28 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 11 asked students to rate whether the administration set things up to be
easy for the administration, not the students. The results for this question were aggregated
within the administrative dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree
response scored 5 points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this
question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented
in Table 11.
52
Table 11
The administration sets things up to be easy for them, not the students.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
6% (5)
18% (14)
34% (26)
32% (24)
8% (6)
Weighted Score
25
56
78
48
6
Percentage (#
The majority of students (30) either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement
that the administration set things up to be easy for the administration, not the students. A
combined total of 19 students either strongly disagreed or disagreed about the statement
while 26 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 12 asked students to rate whether it is hard for the student to go back to
the school environment. The results for this question were aggregated within the multiple
roles dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree response scored 5
points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this question were tabulated
in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 12.
53
Table 12
It's hard for me to go back to the school environment.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
17% (13)
33% (25)
17% (13)
24% (18)
8% (6)
Weighted Score
65
100
39
36
6
Percentage (#
The majority of students (38) either strongly disagreed or disagreed that it is hard
for them to go back to the school environment. A combined total of 24 students either
strongly agree or agree that it is hard for them to go back to the school environment while
13 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 13 asked students to rate whether they believed that if their advisors did
not know the answer to a question, if he or she would seek out the answer. The results for
this question were aggregated within the advising dimension and were scored where a
strongly disagree response scored 1 point and a strongly agree scored 5 points. Responses
from this question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are
presented in Table 13.
54
Table 13
If my advisor did not know the answer to my questions, I'm sure he or she would seek out
the answers.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
2% (2)
10% (8)
37% (28)
36% (27)
13% (10)
Weighted Score
2
16
84
108
50
Percentage (#
The majority of students (37) either agreed or strongly agreed that if their advisors
did not know the answer to a question, he or she would seek out the answer. A combined
total of 10 students either strongly disagreed or disagreed about the statement while 28
students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 14 asked students to rate whether the classroom atmosphere encourages
the student to speak out in class. The results for this question were aggregated within the
peers dimension and were scored where a strongly disagree response scored 1 point and a
strongly agree scored 5 points. Responses from this question were tabulated in
accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 14.
55
Table 14
The classroom atmosphere encourages me to speak out in class.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
2% (2)
14% (11)
13% (10)
58% (44)
10% (8)
Weighted Score
2
22
30
176
40
Percentage (#
The strong majority of students (52) either agreed or strongly agreed that the
classroom atmosphere encourages them to speak out in class. A combined total of 13
students either strongly disagreed or disagreed that the classroom atmosphere encourages
them to speak out in class while 10 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 15 asked students to rate whether they felt their classmates react positively to
the students experience and knowledge. The results for this question were aggregated
within the peers dimension and were scored where a strongly disagree response scored 1
point and a strongly agree scored 5 points. Responses from this question were tabulated
in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 15.
56
Table 15
I feel my classmates react positively to my experience and knowledge.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
4% (3)
8% (6)
37% (28)
44% (33)
6% (5)
Weighted Score
3
12
84
132
25
Percentage (#
A majority of students (38) either agreed or strongly agreed that their classmates
react positively to their experience and knowledge. A combined total of nine students
either strongly disagreed or disagreed that their classmates react positively to their
experience and knowledge while 28 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 16 asked students to rate whether their professors seem to recognize the
younger students but not them. The results for this question were aggregated within the
faculty dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree response scored 5
points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this question were tabulated
in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 16.
57
Table 16
My professors seem to recognize the younger students but not me.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
29% (22)
44% (33)
17% (13)
8% (6)
1% (1)
Weighted Score
110
132
39
12
1
Percentage (#
A strong majority of students (55) either strongly disagreed or disagreed that their
professors seem to recognize the younger students but not them. A combined total of
seven students either strongly agree or agree that their professors seem to recognize the
younger students but not them while 13 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 17 asked students to rate whether they have enough time to complete the
administrative tasks this institution requires. The results for this question were aggregated
within the multiple roles dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree
response scored 5 points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this
question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented
in Table 17.
58
Table 17
I do not have time to complete the administrative tasks this institution requires.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
10% (8)
26% (20)
44% (33)
14% (11)
4% (3)
Weighted Score
40
80
99
22
3
Percentage (#
The majority of students (33) neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement that
they do not have enough time to complete the administrative tasks this institution
requires. A combined total of 28 students either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the
statement that they do not have enough time to complete the administrative tasks this
institution requires while 14 students either agreed or strongly agreed that they do not
have enough time to complete the administrative tasks.
Question 18 asked students to rate whether they believed that there has always
been someone on campus who could help them when they had a question or problem.
The results for this question were aggregated within the advising dimension and were
scored where a strongly disagree response scored 1 point and a strongly agree scored 5
points. Responses from this question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring
instructions and are presented in Table 18.
59
Table 18
There has always been someone on campus who could help me when I had a question or
problem.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
5% (4)
18% (14)
22% (17)
46% (35)
6% (5)
Weighted Score
4
28
51
140
25
Percentage (#
A strong majority of students (40) either agreed or strongly agreed that there has
always been someone on campus who could help them when they had a question or
problem. A combined total of 18 students either strongly disagreed or disagreed that there
has always been someone on campus who could help them when they had a question or
problem while 17 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 19 asked students to rate whether they feel like they fit in their classes.
The results for this question were aggregated within the peers dimension and were scored
where a strongly disagree response scored 1 point and a strongly agree scored 5 points.
Responses from this question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring
instructions and are presented in Table 19.
60
Table 19
I feel like I fit in my classes.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
8% (6)
12% (9)
22% (17)
45% (34)
12% (9)
Weighted Score
6
18
51
136
45
Percentage (#
A strong majority of students (43) either agreed or strongly agreed that they fit in
their classes. A combined total of 15 students either strongly disagreed or disagreed that
they fit in their classes while 17 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 20 asked students to rate whether the administrative office are (are not)
open at times when they need them. The results for this question were aggregated within
the multiple roles dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree
response scored 5 points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this
question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented
in Table 20.
61
Table 20
The administration offices are not open at times when I need them.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
5% (4)
24% (18)
33% (25)
26% (20)
10% (8)
Weighted Score
20
72
75
40
8
Percentage (#
A majority of students (28) either agreed or strongly agreed that the
administrative offices are not open when they need them. A combined total of 22 students
either strongly disagreed or disagreed that administration offices are not open at times
when they need them while 25 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 21 asked students to rate whether the administration makes efforts to
accommodate adult students. The results for this question were aggregated within the
administrative dimension and were scored where a strongly disagree response scored 1
point and a strongly agree scored 5 points. Responses from this question were tabulated
in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 21.
62
Table 21
The administration makes efforts to accommodate adult students.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
9% (7)
20% (15)
33% (25)
30% (23)
6% (5)
Weighted Score
7
30
75
92
25
Percentage (#
A majority of students (28) either agreed or strongly agreed that the
administration makes efforts to accommodate adult students. A combined total of 22
students either strongly disagreed or disagreed that the administration makes efforts to
accommodate adult students while 25 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 22 asked students to rate whether they have a good relationship with
their younger classmates. The results for this question were aggregated within the peers
dimension and were scored where a strongly disagree response scored 1 point and a
strongly agree scored 5 points. Responses from this question were tabulated in
accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 22.
63
Table 22
I have a good relationship with my younger classmates.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
2% (2)
8% (6)
25% (19)
48% (36)
16% (12)
Weighted Score
2
12
57
144
60
Percentage (#
A strong majority of students (48) either agreed or strongly agreed that they have
a good relationship with their younger classmates. A combined total of eight students
either strongly disagreed or disagreed that they have a good relationship with their
younger classmates while 19 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 23 asked students to rate whether they sometimes feel out of date in the
classroom. The results for this question were aggregated within the faculty dimension and
were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree response scored 5 points and a strongly
agree scored 1 point. Responses from this question were tabulated in accordance to the
MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 23.
64
Table 23
Sometimes I feel out of date in the classroom.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
13% (10)
34% (26)
21% (16)
20% (15)
10% (8)
Weighted Score
50
104
48
30
8
Percentage (#
A majority of students (36) either strongly disagreed or disagreed that they
sometimes feel out of date in the classroom. A combined total of 23 students either
strongly agree or agree that they sometimes feel out of date in the classroom while 16
students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 24 asked students to rate whether the university commits (or does not)
enough resources to off-campus courses. The results for this question were aggregated
within the administrative dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree
response scored 5 points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this
question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented
in Table 24.
65
Table 24
The university does not commit enough resources to off-campus courses.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
1% (1)
16% (12)
42% (32)
24% (18)
16% (12)
Weighted Score
5
48
96
36
12
Percentage (#
The majority of students (32) neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement that
the university does not commit enough resources to off-campus courses. A combined
total of 30 students either strongly agree or agree with the statement that the university
does not commit enough resources to off-campus courses while 13 students either
disagree or strongly disagree with the statement.
Question 25 asked students to rate whether there has always been an adviser
available to talk with them if they need to ask a question. The results for this question
were aggregated within the advising dimension and were scored where a strongly
disagree response scored 1 point and a strongly agree scored 5 points. Responses from
this question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are
presented in Table 25.
66
Table 25
There has always been an adviser available to talk with me if I need to ask a question.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
14% (11)
20% (15)
30% (23)
32% (24)
2% (2)
Weighted Score
11
30
69
96
10
Percentage (#
A combined total of students (26) either agreed or strongly agreed that there has
always been an adviser available to talk with them if they need to ask a question. An
equal amount of students (26) either strongly disagreed or disagreed that there has always
been an adviser available to talk with them if they need to ask a question while 23
students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 26 asked students to rate whether their classmates would help them
catch up to the new technologies if they needed it. The results for this question were
aggregated within the peers dimension and were scored where a strongly disagree
response scored 1 point and a strongly agree scored 5 points. Responses from this
question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented
in Table 26.
67
Table 26
My classmates would help me catch up to the new technologies if I needed it.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
1% (1)
8% (6)
44% (33)
42% (32)
4% (3)
Weighted Score
1
12
99
128
15
Percentage (#
A majority of students (35) either agreed or strongly agreed that their classmates
would help them catch up to the new technologies if they needed it. A combined total of
seven students either strongly disagreed or disagreed that their classmates would help
them catch up to the new technologies if they needed it while 33 students neither agreed
nor disagreed.
Question 27 asked students to rate whether the professors accept their experiencebased comments. The results for this question were aggregated within the faculty
dimension and were scored where a strongly disagree response scored 1 point and a
strongly agree scored 5 points. Responses from this question were tabulated in
accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 27.
68
Table 27
My experience-based comments are accepted by my professors.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
0% (0)
5% (4)
28% (21)
56% (42)
10% (8)
Weighted Score
0
8
63
168
40
Percentage (#
A strong majority of students (50) either agreed or strongly agreed that their
professors accept their experience-based comments. Only four students disagreed with
the statement that their professors accept their experience-based comments while 21
students neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.
Question 28 asked students to rate whether it takes too long to register or correct
registration problems. The results for this question were aggregated within the
administrative dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree response
scored 5 points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this question were
tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 28.
69
Table 28
It takes too long to register or correct registration problems.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
4% (3)
33% (25)
28% (21)
22% (17)
12% (9)
Weighted Score
15
100
63
34
9
Percentage (#
A majority of students (28) either strongly disagreed or disagreed that it takes too
long to register or correct registration problems. A combined total of 26 students either
strongly agree or agree that it takes too long to register or correct registration problems
while 21 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 29 asked students to rate whether administrative staffs are helpful in
answering their questions. The results for this question were aggregated within the
advising dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree response scored
5 points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this question were tabulated
in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 29.
70
Table 29
Administrative staff are helpful in answering my questions.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
5% (4)
12% (9)
29% (22)
48% (36)
5% (4)
Weighted Score
20
36
66
72
4
Percentage (#
A strong majority of students (40) either agreed or strongly agreed that
administrative staffs are helpful in answering their questions. A combined total of 13
students either strongly disagreed or disagreed that administrative staff are helpful in
answering their questions while 22 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 30 asked students to rate whether fellow students seem to listen to them
when they share their life experiences. The results for this question were aggregated
within the peers dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree response
scored 5 points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this question were
tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 30.
71
Table 30
Fellow students do not seem to listen to me when I share my life experiences.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
18% (14)
40% (30)
38% (29)
1% (1)
1% (1)
Weighted Score
70
120
87
2
1
Percentage (#
A strong majority of students (44) either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the
statement that their fellow students do not seem to listen to them when they share their
life experiences. Only two students either strongly agree or agree with the statement that
their fellow students do not seem to listen to them when they share their life experiences
while 29 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 31 asked the respondent to rate whether anyone in their class not of the
respondents age, really understands how hard it is for the respondent to be there. The
results for this question were aggregated within the multiple roles dimension and were
scored in reverse where a strongly disagree response scored 5 points and a strongly agree
scored 1 point. Responses from this question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE
scoring instructions and are presented in Table 31.
72
Table 31
Unless I have another student my age in class, no one really understands how hard it is to
be here.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
13% (10)
34% (26)
28% (21)
17% (13)
6% (5)
Weighted Score
50
104
63
26
5
Percentage (#
A majority of students (36) either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the
statement that unless I have another student my age in class, no one really understands
how hard it is to be here. A combined total of 18 students either strongly agree or agree
with the statement while 21 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 32 asked students to rate whether the university offers alternatives to the
traditional semester length course (like weekends). The results for this question were
aggregated within the administrative dimension and were scored where a strongly
disagree response scored 1 point and a strongly agree scored 5 points. Responses from
this question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are
presented in Table 32.
73
Table 32
The university offers alternatives to the traditional semester length course (like
weekends).
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
10% (8)
18% (14)
36% (27)
29% (22)
5% (4)
Weighted Score
8
28
81
88
20
Percentage (#
The majority of students (27) neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement that
the university offers alternatives to the traditional semester length course (like weekends).
A combined total of 26 students either strongly agree or agree with the statement that the
university offers alternatives to the traditional semester length course (like weekends)
while 22 students either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement.
Question 33 asked students to rate whether they have adequate opportunities to
get to know fellow students. The results for this question were aggregated within the
peers dimension and were scored where a strongly disagree response scored 1 point and a
strongly agree scored 5 points. Responses from this question were tabulated in
accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 33.
74
Table 33
I have had adequate opportunities to get to know fellow students.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
2% (2)
17% (13)
20% (15)
54% (41)
5% (4)
Weighted Score
2
26
45
164
20
Percentage (#
A strong majority of students (45) either agreed or strongly agreed that they have
adequate opportunities to get to know fellow students. A combined total of 15 students
either strongly disagreed or disagreed that they have adequate opportunities to get to
know fellow students while 15 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 34 asked students to rate whether campus rules and regulations seem to
have been made for traditional-age students. The results for this question were aggregated
within the administrative dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree
response scored 5 points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this
question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented
in Table 34.
75
Table 34
Campus rules and regulations seem to have been made for traditional-age students.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
1% (1)
10% (8)
48% (36)
26% (20)
13% (10)
Weighted Score
5
32
108
40
10
Percentage (#
The majority of students (36) neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement that
campus rules and regulations seem to have been made for traditional-age students. A
combined total of only nine students either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the
statement that campus rules and regulations seem to have been made for traditional-age
students while 30 students either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.
Question 35 asked students to rate whether their age sometimes gets in the way of
their interaction with fellow students. The results for this question were aggregated
within the peers dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree response
scored 5 points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this question were
tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 35.
76
Table 35
My age sometimes gets in the way of my interaction with fellow students.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
17% (13)
25% (19)
28% (21)
21% (16)
8% (6)
Weighted Score
65
76
63
32
6
Percentage (#
A majority of students (32) either strongly disagreed or disagreed that their age
sometimes gets in the way of their interaction with fellow students. A combined total of
22 students either strongly agree or agree that their age sometimes gets in the way of their
interaction with fellow students while 21 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 36 asked students to rate whether some of the jokes the professors tell
make them feel uncomfortable. The results for this question were aggregated within the
faculty dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree response scored 5
points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this question were tabulated
in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 36.
77
Table 36
Some of the jokes my professors tell make me feel uncomfortable.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
36% (27)
33% (25)
21% (16)
6% (5)
2% (2)
Weighted Score
135
100
48
10
2
Percentage (#
A strong majority of students (52) either strongly disagreed or disagreed that
some of the jokes their professors tell make them feel uncomfortable. A combined total
of only seven students either strongly agree or agree that some of the jokes their
professors tell make them feel uncomfortable while 16 students neither agreed nor
disagreed.
Question 37 asked students to rate whether classes are offered at times that are
good for them. The results for this question were aggregated within both the
administrative and the advising dimensions. This item were scored in both dimensions
where a strongly disagree response scored 1 points and a strongly agree scored 5 point.
Responses from this question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring
instructions and are presented in Table 37.
78
Table 37
Classes are offered at times that are good for me.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Percentage (# responses) 13% (10)
24% (18)
20% (15)
33% (25)
9% (7)
36
45
100
35
24% (18)
20% (15)
33% (25)
9% (7)
36
45
100
35
Administrative
Dimension
Administrative
Dimension Weighted
Score
10
Advising Dimension
Percentage (# responses) 13% (10)
Advising Dimension
Weighted Score
10
A majority of students (32) either agreed or strongly agreed that whether classes
are offered at times that are good for them. A combined total of 28 students either
strongly disagreed or disagreed that whether classes are offered at times that are good for
them while 15 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
79
Question 38 asked students to rate whether, as an adult student, they feel welcome
on campus. The results for this question were aggregated within the peers dimension and
were scored where a strongly disagree response scored 1 point and a strongly agree
scored 5 points. Responses from this question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE
scoring instructions and are presented in Table 38.
Table 38
As an adult student, I feel welcome on campus.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
4% (3)
8% (6)
16% (12)
58% (44)
13% (10)
Weighted Score
3
12
36
176
50
Percentage (#
A significant majority of students (54) either agreed or strongly agreed that, as an
adult student, they feel welcome on campus. A combined total of only nine students
either strongly disagreed or disagreed that, as an adult student, they feel welcome on
campus while 12 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Question 39 asked students to rate whether the desks were (were not) made for
adults. The results for this question were aggregated within the multiple roles dimension
and were scored where a strongly disagree response scored 1 point and a strongly agree
80
scored 5 points. Responses from this question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE
scoring instructions and are presented in Table 39.
Table 39
The desks weren't made for adults.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
17% (13)
22% (17)
22% (17)
13% (10)
24% (18)
Weighted Score
13
34
51
40
90
Percentage (#
A majority of students (30) either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the
statement that the desks were not made for adults. A combined total of 28 students either
strongly agree or agree with the statement that the desks weren’t made for adults while 17
students neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.
Question 40 asked students to rate whether their activities feels were spent in a
way that was meaningful to them. The results for this question were aggregated within
the administrative dimension and were scored where a strongly disagree response scored
1 point and a strongly agree scored 5 points. Responses from this question were tabulated
in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 40.
81
Table 40
I feel my activities fees are spent in a way that is meaningful to me.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
22% (17)
25% (19)
36% (27)
12% (9)
4% (3)
Weighted Score
17
38
81
36
15
Percentage (#
A majority of students (36) either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the
statement that their activities fees were spent in a way that was meaningful to them. A
combined total of only 12 students either strongly agree or agree with the statement that
their activities feels were spent in a way that was meaningful to them while 27 students
neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.
Question 41 asked students to rate whether their advisor has office hours at times
that the student is on campus. The results for this question were aggregated within the
advising dimension and were scored where a strongly disagree response scored 1 point
and a strongly agree scored 5 points. Responses from this question were tabulated in
accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 41.
82
Table 41
My advisor has office hours at times that I am on campus.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
14% (11)
16% (12)
32% (24)
33% (25)
4% (3)
Weighted Score
11
24
72
100
15
Percentage (#
A majority of students (28) either agree or strongly with the statement, my advisor
has office hours at times that I am on campus. A combined total of 23 students either
strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement, my advisor has office hours at times
that I am on campus while 24 students neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.
Question 42 asked students to rate whether departmental rules sometimes make
their goals difficult or impossible. The results for this question were aggregated within
the multiple roles dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree
response scored 5 points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this
question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented
in Table 42.
83
Table 42
Departmental rules sometimes make my goals difficult or impossible.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
4% (3)
20% (15)
37% (28)
26% (20)
12% (9)
Weighted Score
15
60
84
40
9
Percentage (#
A majority of students (29) either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement,
departmental rules sometimes make my goals difficult or impossible. A combined total of
18 students either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement, departmental rules
sometimes make my goals difficult or impossible while 28 students neither agreed nor
disagreed with the statement.
Question 43 asked students to rate whether the school newspaper discusses (or
does not) adult student issues. The results for this question were aggregated within the
administrative dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree response
scored 5 points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this question were
tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 43.
84
Table 43
The school newspaper doesn't discuss adult student issues.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
2% (2)
1% (1)
76% (57)
8% (6)
12% (9)
Weighted Score
10
4
171
12
9
Percentage (#
The significant majority of students (57) neither agreed nor disagreed with the
statement that the school newspaper does not discuss adult student issues. A combined
total of 15 students either strongly agree or agree with the statement that the school
newspaper doesn’t discuss adult student issues while only three students either disagreed
or strongly disagreed with the statement.
Question 44 asked students to rate whether their professors sometimes ignore
their comments or questions. The results for this question were aggregated within the
faculty dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree response scored 5
points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this question were tabulated
in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 44.
85
Table 44
My professors sometimes ignore my comments or questions.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
22% (17)
40% (30)
33% (25)
2% (2)
1% (1)
Weighted Score
85
120
75
4
1
Percentage (#
A large majority of students (47) either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the
statement that my professors sometimes ignore my comments or questions. A combined
total of three students either strongly agree or agree with the statement that my professors
sometimes ignore my comments or questions while 25 students neither agreed nor
disagreed with the statement.
Question 45 asked students to rate whether they sometimes feel their professors
want them to hurry up and finish speaking. The results for this question were aggregated
within the faculty dimension and were scored in reverse where a strongly disagree
response scored 5 points and a strongly agree scored 1 point. Responses from this
question were tabulated in accordance to the MHE scoring instructions and are presented
in Table 45.
86
Table 45
I sometimes feel my professors want me to hurry up and finish speaking.
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
responses)
25% (19)
40% (30)
25% (19)
6% (5)
2% (2)
Weighted Score
95
120
57
10
2
Percentage (#
A significant majority of students (49) either strongly disagreed or disagreed with
the statement, I sometimes feel my professors want me to hurry up and finish speaking. A
combined total of seven students either strongly agree or agree with the statement while
19 students neither agreed nor disagreed.
Interpretation of the Data
Functional Grouping Results
The MHE provided instructions for the tabulation of individual questions and
made provisions for the aggregation of these individual question results into the five
functional dimensions. The five dimensions that were measured in the online survey
were: the administration dimension; the peer dimension; the advising dimension; the
multiple roles dimension; and the faculty dimension. Weighted scores from question 1
87
through question 45 were tabulated and functionally aggregated in accordance with the
MHE scoring instructions and are presented in Table 46.
Table 46
Aggregated Results of the MHE Survey Questions
Mean
Norm
Difference Std Dev
Administrative Dimension
34.2
33.04
1.16
4.13
Advising Dimension
24.48
27.97
-3.49
2.58
Peers Dimension
38.05
37.84
.21
3.3
Multiple Roles Dimension
21.47
21.9
-.43
2.08
Faculty Dimension
29.32
27.84
1.48
2.12
The MHE established a four-year university normal (norm) score and a standard
deviation for each of the five dimensions as represented in Table 46 (Schlossberg,
Lassalle, & Golec, 1990). The MHE standard deviation represents how far from the norm
mean (plus or minus) we would normally expect to see from response mean scores. If a
dimension has scores above the mean and more than the standard deviation, the response
is very favorable. If a dimension has scores plus or minus the norm, but within the
prescribed standard deviation for a dimension, it is comparable to the other four-year
universities. If the dimension has scores below the norm and more than the standard
deviation from the norm, it is considered unfavorable.
88
Overall, adult student responses indicate that they perceived they mattered to
Sacramento State. Individual adult student responses to the questions posed in the MHE
showed a connection with Sacramento State and a perception of mattering. Anecdotal
comments validate that adult students feel accepted by their peers and the faculty and that
their experience and contributions adds to the class discussion. One student remarked:
“my professors seem to look to me in class on several occasions because I am mature and
energetic. I am loving my retun (sic) to education. Thanks Sac State.” (Participant 13,
2009) This comment was not unique with regard to feeling accepted in class, nor was it
alone in lauding Sacramento State’s efforts to welcome adult students.
The following section summarizes the findings of the individual questions into
their functional dimensions and applies the MHE prescribed scoring algorithm to obtain
an aggregate score.
Administration Dimension
The tabulated score for the administrative dimension is a mean of 34.2. The MHE
norm for four year-universities is a mean score of 33.04 indicating that adult students
rated Sacramento State above (better) the normal mean. This score indicates that students
believe the campus policies and procedures are sensitive to and are supportive of adult
learners. This does not mean that there were no issues or opportunities for improvement
as evidenced by comments, which participants submitted.
My biggest problem has been with registration. Some of the forms are
redundant, and any interactions involve a half hour wait in a line. I was also upset
89
when I made an appointment two days prior and then was forced to wait 45
minutes to speak with the person (for residency). Paperwork has also been lost.
(Participant 63, 2009)
While there are opportunities for improvement, there are administrative services,
which Sacramento State does particularly well as evidenced by the following comment
from a participant: “The Veterans Affairs Office has been wonderful, and is the best
resource on campus for me.” (Participant 63, 2009)
Advising Dimension
The tabulated score for the advising dimension is a mean of 24.48. The MHE
norm for four year-universities is a mean score of 27.97, a difference of -3.49 from the
norm, more than .91 from the standard deviation of 2.58. This difference is significant
and indicates that adult students felt that they did not matter to Sacramento State in terms
of their ability to be served by advisors and other providers of information in a way that
would answer questions and address concerns related to adult learners. The following
comment from a survey participant further underscore this finding: “I took the majority
of classes off campus, I do not know if I ever had an advisor - and I do not have one now.
I've really had to manage on my own.” (Participant 64, 2009)
Peers Dimension
The tabulated score for the peers dimension is a mean of 38.05. The MHE norm
for four year-universities is a mean score of 37.84 indicating that adult students rated
Sacramento State scored above (better) the normal mean. This score indicates that adult
90
students are generally satisfied with the level of acceptance by their classmates and peers
at Sacramento State. There is still room for improvement as evidenced by the following
comment: “The only lacking thing is a more socially cohesive campus. Just socially
people (sic) stick to thier (sic) own and are slow to create new friendships.” (Participant
47, 2009)
Multiple Roles Dimension
The tabulated score for the multiple roles dimension is a mean of 21.47. The
MHE norm for four year-universities is a mean score of 21.9 indicating that adult
students rated Sacramento State scored slightly below (worse) the normal mean. This
score indicates that adult students at Sacramento State do not always perceive the campus
understands and acknowledges the competing demands of the adult student’s time. While
generally satisfied, students provided comments indicating that there is room for
Sacramento State to improve. Thematically, the comments addressed a range of issues
competing for the adult student’s time such the issue of class availability and scheduling:
“Hardest part was finishing GE courses that were only offered during the day.”
(Participant 64, 2009) Participants also highlighted family conflicts and other adult
student specific issues in the following comments:
I do not like some of the policies for attendance by some prof (sic) that affect my
grade. As an adult I do not need to be punished due to an absents (sic). My work
should carry merit and be the deciding factor. (Participant 61, 2009)
91
“More weekend and night classes (sic) are need it for the MBA program, as well
as more advisors, and Administrative clerck (sic) that can help out people that have a full
office schedule from 8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m.” (Participant 25, 2009)
Because it is very difficult to work my school schedule around my work schedule.
I can't quit my job or reduce my hours because I have children and responsibilities
at home. I'm willing to do what I can on my own, but some additional off-site
classes or maybe a fast-track program of sorts would assist adult students, like
myself. (Participant 23, 2009)
Faculty Dimension
The tabulated score for the faculty dimension was a mean of 29.32. The MHE
norm for four year-universities is a mean score of 27.84, indicating that adult students
rated Sacramento State scored above (better) the normal mean. This score indicates that
adult students at Sacramento State felt they mattered and faculty members accept and
include the adult student in their classroom. Several participants made specific comments
that supported the perception of mattering: “My classes are enjoyable surpassed only by
the professors gift to teach. I am very pleased with my experience thus far” (Participant
65, 2009).
Another adult student was specific in mentioning that they felt comfortable and
welcome at Sacramento State: “I am 76 years old and have felt comfortable and
welcomed at CSUS” (Participant 37, 2009).
92
Sacramento State’s adult student responses to the faculty, administrative, peers
and, to a lesser degree, the multiple roles dimensions are comparable to other four-year
universities as established by the MHE. These results indicated that generally the
Sacramento State faculty is sensitive to the needs of adult students, acknowledge their life
experiences and welcome this diversity of experience in their classrooms.
Administratively, Sacramento State has taken steps to provide online and web accessible
registration and administrative services, which are critical to adult students.
The comments received through the survey indicate some level of unfamiliarity of
available services. The long waits in line and the lack of familiarity for some
administrative functions could be mitigated with better advising and awareness of
available services. The long waits in line and the lack of familiarity for some
administrative functions could be mitigated with better advising and awareness of
available services. The peers dimension score indicates that adult students at Sacramento
State feel they belong on campus and are accepted as peers in the classroom. While this is
commendable, there appears to be opportunity to increase adult student participation in
campus based student activities. Astin’s (1977) theory of involvement is a model often
cited throughout the literature on student retention. The premise of Astin’s (1977) theory
is that involvement in social and academic campus life plays a key role in student
retention. Finally, while all of these dimensions placed Sacramento State within the
normal score range as compared to other four-year universities; the multiple roles
dimension score and comments highlighted an opportunity for additional improvement.
93
Adult students indicated a desire for increased availability of online courses and sections
offered during weekends and evenings. This is a common request for students who have
families, jobs and conflicting demands on time. Increasing the availability of courses to
facilitate the often-busy schedules of adult students has the potential for increasing the
perception of mattering.
The advising dimension mean score shows the greatest opportunity for
improvement at Sacramento State. The below average score (more than 1 standard
deviation below the norm mean) indicates that the advising needs of adult students is not
being addressed adequately. The literature suggests that making provisions for special
counselors to be available at times and places easily accessible for non-traditional
students will acknowledge the unique needs of the adult learners. Counselors have the
ability to increase the connection between the adult student and the campus community
by describing the support systems, student activity organizations and various
administrative functions. The following comment from an MHE participant expressed
frustration with the complexity of the university that could have been mitigated with
appropriate advising:
My other issue is with the lack of communication on HOW we are suppose (sic)
to navigate through the system. I have no clear cut guide to navigate thought the
CSUS system. For instance I need to have a graduation evaluation. NO faculty
told me this was needed, I was a transfer student and I often feel isolated from the
94
whole "system" that seems to be geared toward "younger" students. (Participant
61, 2009)
Dedicated counseling and advising functions for adult students are critical bridges
between the adult student and the university community.
Historically, Sacramento State provided dedicated advising and orientation of
adult students. Admission requirements for adult students used to be somewhat relaxed
with adult students registering for courses and attending class regardless of prior
academic performance. But later, the requirements became strict (A-G for High School
and Golden Four for transfer students) and the adult students had to meet same
requirements. The reentry services office became a part of the admissions office and the
only adult students who received distinctive services were those aged 60+. The other
adult students, those who were 25 years and older were mainstreamed to the regular
counselors. This reduction of services for adult students was done for two reasons: first, it
was believed the services that were offered to adult students were not that unique and
adult students could benefit from the same services and orientation the general student
population received; and second, the university took this course of action due to budget
constraints (retired counselor, personal communication, July 28, 2009).
The literature suggests that Sacramento State’s efforts to integrate adult students
into the traditional student advising services are not consistent with adult student needs.
While there are commonalities between traditional and non-traditional students in
postsecondary education, it is also important to acknowledge the differences and prepare
95
appropriate support models to support those different needs. Recognizing the different
needs of adult learners and creating a supportive model and approach to increase
retention is most appropriate (Weidman, 1985). The rationale of merging those functions
into one office in an effort to cut costs is also inconsistent with the literature. Tinto
(1993) calls for institutions to “put student welfare ahead of other institutional goals” (p.
146). Tinto’s effective retention framework model calls for a caring about students and an
attention to their needs, concerns, and well-being. This “ethos of caring” helps students
feel that they belong and are connected to their institution (Tinto, 1993, p. 146).
96
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The perception of mattering for adult students attending Sacramento State
University is the focus of this study. Abundant literature has shown that the degree to
which adult students feel they matter to an institution has an effect on their persistence to
graduation. The perception of adult learners and the degree to which they perceive they
matter to the institution as a function of service availability and accessibility is of interest
to both practitioners and scholars of higher education.
This study utilized the Mattering in Higher Education (MHE) survey developed
by Schlossberg (1990), which measures the perception of mattering for adult students in
higher education. Schlossberg et al. (1989) defined five mattering subscale dimensions to
operationalize the mattering model. Those dimensions are administration, advising,
faculty, multiple roles and peers. This study utilized the data collected from the MHE
survey provides recommendations in each of these five dimensions:
The administration dimension measure the student’s perception of mattering as a
function of the extent to which they believe the campus policies and procedures are
sensitive to and support adult learners;
The peer dimension measures the student’s perceptions of the extent to which
they feel they belong on campus and are accepted as peers in the classroom;
97
The advising dimension measures the student’s perception of mattering as a
function of the extent to which advisors and other providers of information are able to
answer questions and address concerns related to adult learners;
The multiple roles dimension measures the student’s perception of mattering as a
function of the extent to which they perceive the campus understands and acknowledges
the competing demands of the adult student’s time;
The faculty dimension measures the student’s perception of mattering as a
function of the extent to which faculty members accept and include the adult student in
their classroom (Schlossberg, 1989).
Per the MHE survey, the aggregated results for Sacramento State are listed in
Table 47:
Table 47
Aggregated Results of the MHE Survey Questions
Mean
Norm
Difference Std Dev
34.2
33.04
1.16
4.13
Advising Dimension
24.48
27.97
-3.49
2.58
Peers Dimension
38.05
37.84
.21
3.3
Multiple Roles
21.47
21.9
-.43
2.08
29.32
27.84
1.48
2.12
Administrative
Dimension
Dimension
Faculty Dimension
98
The aggregated results of the MHE survey questions derived from Sacramento
State’s adult student responses are within the norms for the faculty, administrative, peers
and, to a lesser degree, the multiple roles dimensions are comparable to other four-year
universities. The results indicate that the Sacramento State faculty is sensitive to the
needs of adult students, and acknowledges their life experiences and welcome this
diversity of experience in their classrooms.
The administrative dimension scores indicate that Sacramento State has taken
steps to provide online and web accessible registration and administrative services, which
are critical to adult students. Sacramento State has even established a dedicated office
supporting the unique needs of military veterans who are typically adult students.
The results for the peers dimension score indicate that adult students at
Sacramento State feel they belong on campus and are accepted as peers in the classroom.
Several questions from within the peers dimension score indicate that there is opportunity
for Sacramento State to be more responsive to adult student needs by increasing their
participation in student activities.
The aggregated scoring results for the Multiple Roles Dimension score were also
within the normal range but show a need for attention. Individual question scores and
comments from adult students indicate that Sacramento State adult students indicated a
desire for increased availability of online courses and sections offered during weekends
and evenings. The literature has shown that it is not uncommon for students who have
99
families, jobs and conflicting demands to require increased availability of courses to
facilitate conflicting schedules.
The aggregated scores for the advising dimension mean score indicate a need for
action at Sacramento State. The below average score (more than 1 standard deviation
below the norm mean) indicates that the advising needs of adult students is not being
addressed adequately. The literature suggests that making provisions for special
counselors to be available at times and places easily accessible for non-traditional
students will acknowledge the unique needs of the adult learners. Counselors have the
ability to increase the connection between the adult student and the campus community
by describing the support systems, student activity organizations and various
administrative functions. Acknowledging and meeting the unique advising needs of adult
students at Sacramento State will raise the perception of mattering.
Conclusions
Universities have a responsibility for ensuring adult students are provided
opportunities to be integrated as full members of the social and intellectual communities;
it is essential to their retention and success. Further, the first principle of Tinto’s (1993)
effective retention framework calls for an institutional commitment to students, caring
about students and paying attention to their needs, concerns and well-being.
Adult students and traditional students may seem similar but is also important to
acknowledge their differences and prepare appropriate support models to support their
100
different needs. Recognizing the different needs of adult learners and creating a
supportive model and approach to increase retention should take several forms
(Weidman, 1985). Admission requirements should reflect a contemporary assessment of
adult student academic potential, not just the traditional indicators. Universities should
make provisions for dedicated counselors to be available at times and places easily
accessible for adult students. Adult student learners’ educational needs are not the same
as traditional students.
On two of the five dimensions surveyed, namely the advising dimension and to a
lesser extent the multiple roles dimension, Sacramento State is lower than the four-year
university norm established by the MHE. This is a significant issue and an opportunity
for Sacramento State to improve its adult students’ perception of mattering.
The adult student responses on the MHE reflect a need for Sacramento State to
restructure its support model in order to address the advising gap and to acknowledge and
accommodate the multiple roles, which many adult students have to manage.
Recommendations
Based upon the existing literature and the data gathered from the MHE survey
administered to adult students at Sacramento State, several recommendations, supported
by the literature, are being made to continue to provide appropriate and specialized
services to adult students, and to improve their opportunity to persist and graduate.
The specific recommendations include:
101
1. Large, urban universities are complicated systems and need specialized
orientation and support programs, such as the former re-entry (adult) student
advising and support program at Sacramento State.
2. To improve persistence, schools need to increase financial aid and make more
services geared to the needs of adults such as weekend courses, more and
better advising and improved student interaction with faculty and peers.
3. Adult persistence is also improved with hassle-free registration and
scheduling, career planning and placement and establishment of rituals and
symbols that form a sense of shared meaning and connectedness among
students, faculty and staff. These areas should be reviewed and potentially
improved at Sacramento State.
4. Every effort should be made to establish institutional mechanisms for
facilitating the social and academic integration of the non-traditional student.
An example of this would be to make provisions for special counselors to be
available on campus at times and places easily accessible for non-traditional
students.
5. Universities should make provisions for dedicated counselors to be available
at times and places easily accessible for adult students. Adult student learners’
educational needs are not the same as traditional students.
6. It is also recommended that the university review, reconsider and potentially
reverse its current decision to cut the re-entry (adult) student advising and
102
support program at Sacramento State. This program provides valuable
services, information and guidance to adult students at Sacramento State.
Providing a dedicated advising office to serve adult students at Sacramento
State sends a strong signal to this growing population that they do matter.
Suggestions for Future Research
The results of this survey can be used as a starting point on the perception of
mattering for adult students attending undergraduate classes at Sacramento State. If the
recommendations of this study are implemented and adult students receive dedicated
advising and orientation services over a period of time, it would be interesting to again
measure the perception of mattering for adult students at Sacramento State to see if
improvements have been made and more importantly whether or not they had an impact
on the persistence and graduation of adult students. Taking a measurement and
contrasting it to the current perception of mattering could provide insight as to the effect
of these additional services.
Additional research may also be conducted to determine the effect of mattering on
the adult students’ retention. Historical measurements of retention and attrition for adult
students are available through Sacramento State’s Office of Institutional Research and
could be tracked over time. Correlating the retention and attrition trends against the
perception of mattering measurement trend has the potential of contributing to the
academy on the affect of mattering on student retention. It might also be interesting to
103
administer the MHE survey on part-time students and compare results with full-time
students. One could also disaggregate the data by gender and ethnicity to gain better
insight as to the experiences of adult students by these criteria and shed light on potential
gaps in the perceptions of mattering between male and female, majority culture and
students of color.
Sacramento State University has the opportunity to gain a better understanding of
its adult learners’ perception of mattering. Reflecting on these perceptions and
conducting a review of the services that affect the adult learners’ perception of mattering
will position Sacramento State to adjust delivery and accessibility of critical support
services and, ultimately, improve the success rates of its adult learner students.
104
APPENDICES
105
APPENDIX A
Online Mattering in Higher Education Questionnaire (MHE)
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
APPENDIX B
Participant Consent Form
Fellow student,
I am requesting your assistance in a research project I am conducting as part
of my Master’s Thesis. I am an Educational Leadership and Policy graduate
student at Sacramento State. My study will investigate factors related to
academic success among Adult College Students attending undergraduate classes
at Sacramento State. Your participation will assist by creating a better
understanding of the experience of adult college students at Sacramento State.
I am requesting that you complete the online survey questionnaire regarding
your perception of student support services available to you at Sacramento
State. The online survey known as the “Mattering in Higher Education
questionnaire” is an established tool developed to measure your perceptions of
these services.
This questionnaire will likely require less than 20 to 25
minutes of your time. If you agree to complete the survey, please go to the
online survey located at:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=ZmC5BA28zzFiThTx1FuqGw_3d_3d
Your responses on the online questionnaire will be anonymous and confidential.
Only group results (summary results) will be reported and utilized as a part
of my graduate thesis. You will not receive any compensation for
participating in this study, but I will be conducting a raffle for a $100 gift
certificate redeemable at the Sacramento State Hornet Bookstore. All
completed survey questionnaires received by (February 20, 2009) will be
eligible for the drawing. The winner of the drawing will be notified by an
email message.
If you have any questions about this research, you may contact me at (916)
682-9753 or by e-mail at tlucas@csus.edu. Your participation in this research
is entirely voluntary. When you visit the website to complete your survey,
please check the block indicating that I have your consent to use your survey
results. Thank you for your support
Warm Regards
Tony Lucas
tlucas@csus.edu
(916) 682-9753
114
115
APPENDIX C
Permission to Utilize MHE Questionnaire
116
REFERENCES
Astin, A. (1977). What matters most in college: Four critical years. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. (1993). What matters most in college: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bash, L. (2003). Adult learners in the academy. Boston, MA: Anker Publishing.
Bean, J. & Metzner, B. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate
student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 485-540.
Berker, A., & Horn, L. (2003). Work first, study second: Adult undergraduates who
combine employment and postsecondary enrollment (NCES 2003-167).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics.
Butcher, J. (1997). Involvement and persistence: Nontraditional student perceptions of
the student-college relationship. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED462038).
Cross, K. (1980). Our changing students and their impact on colleges: Prospects for a true
learning society. Phi Delta Kappan, 61, 627-630.
Dallek, R. (1998). Flawed giant: Lyndon Johnson and his times. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Dill, P., & Henley, T. (1998). Stressors of college: A comparison of traditional and
nontraditional students. Journal of Psychology, 132(1), 25-32.
117
Engstrom, C., & Tinto, V. (2008). Access without support is not opportunity. Change:
The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(1), 46. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. EJ782160).
Fenske, R., Rund, J., & Contento, J. (2000). Who are the new students? In M. Barr & M.
Desler, & Associates (eds.). The Handbook of Student Affairs Administration,
(2nd ed., 557-579). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gladieux, L. (1995). Financing postsecondary education: The federal role. Federal
Student Aid Policy: A History and an Assessment. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/PPI/FinPost SecEd/gladieux.html
Hruby, N. (1985). MIA: The nontraditional student. Academe, 71(5), 26-27. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. EJ326899).
Hyman, H. (1986). American singularity. The 1787 Northwest ordinance, the 1862
homestead and Morrill Acts, and the 1944 GI Bill. Athens: University of Georgia
Press.
Jacoby, B. (1989) The student-as-commuter: Developing a comprehensive institutional
response. (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7). Washington, D.C.:
School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington
University.
Kerka, S. (1995). Adult learner retention revisited. ERIC Digest No.166. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED389880).
118
Kerka, S. (1989). Retaining adult students in higher education. ERIC Digest No. 88.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED308401).
Lee, J. (1999). How do students and families pay for college? In J. King (ed.), Financing
a college education: How it works, how it’s changing. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Levine, A., & Assoc. (1990). Shaping higher education’s future: Demographic realities
and opportunities, 1990-2000. San Francisco; Josssey-Bass.
Maehl, W. (2004). Adult degrees and the learning society. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 103, 5-16.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
EJ760362).
Matthews, A. (1997). Bight college years: Inside the American campus today. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Olson, K. (1973). The GI Bill and higher education: Success and surprise. American
Quarterly, 25(5), 596-610.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and
insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Planty, M., Provasnik, S., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Kena, G., Hampden-Thompson, G., et
al. (2007). The condition of education, 2007. NCES 2007-064. National Center
for Education Statistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED497043).
Pusser, B., Breneman D., Gansneder, B., Kohl, K., Levin, J., Milam, J., Turner, S.,
(2007). Returning to learning: Adults’ success in college is key to America’s
future. New Agenda Series. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for Education.
119
Rosenberg, M., & McCullough, B. (1981). Mattering: Inferred significance to parents and
mental health among adolescents. Research in Community and Mental Health, 2,
163-182.
Sacramento State postgraduate student age data. (2007). Retrieved March 26, 2008,
from http://www.oir.csus.edu/students/trends/AGE_GR.cfm
Sacramento State Facts and Statistics. (2007) Retrieved March 26, 2008, from
http://www.csus.edu/pa/quickfacts/stats.stm
Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community.
In D. Roberts (Ed.), Designing campus activities to foster a sense of community.
New Directions for Student Services, 48, 5-15. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schlossberg, N., Lassalle, A., & Golec, R. (1990). The mattering scales for adult students
in higher education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED341772).
Schlossberg, N., Lynch, A., & Chickering, A. (1989). Improving higher education
environments for adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tinto, V. (1975). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition. Journal of Higher
Education, 53, 687-700.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
(2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2002). Taking retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college.
NACADA, 19(2), 5-9.
120
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). The
condition of education 2001 (NCES 2001-072). Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Digest of
education statistics 2000 (NCES 2002-130). Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.
Warner, C., & Williams, J. (1995). Attitudes of adult students regarding the learning
environment at East Tennessee State University. Paper presented at the National
Conference on the Adult Learner, San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED391961).
Weidman, J. (1985). Retention of nontraditional students in postsecondary education.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED261195).
Wlodkowski, R., Mauldin, J., Campbell, S., & Lumina Foundation for Education, I.
(2002). Early exit: Understanding adult attrition in accelerated and traditional
postsecondary programs. Synopsis: Higher education research highlights. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED467088).