WHERE ADULTS GO:
A MULTIPLE CASE STUDY OF
ADULT SERVING UNDERGRADUATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
Presented at
Adult Higher Education Alliance 2010 Annual Conference
Saratoga Springs, NY
October 2010
By
Shelley B. Dixon
Associate Dean, Center for Distance Learning
Empire State College/SUNY
PURPOSE
This research is a study of adult serving undergraduate colleges and universities in
the for-profit, private not-for-profit and public sectors. Studying adult higher education is
timely and important for several reasons. It is well-documented that the number of adult
students (aged 25 and older) in higher education is increasing. This trend is projected to
continue for the foreseeable future (NCES, 2008). Although the majority of adults enroll
in community colleges, those who enroll in four-year institutions are doing so in
increasing numbers at for-profit institutions (Horn & Carroll, 1996; Pusser et al., 2007).
While for-profit education has been part of the United States higher education landscape
for many decades, the recent explosion in growth highlights the need for research to
document more definitive information about this sector (Kinser, 2005, 2006a, 2006b;
Tierney & Hentschke, 2007).
For-profit institutions are frequently compared to traditional institutions that serve
primarily 18-22 year olds (Hassler, 2006; Kinser, 2006b; Tierney & Hentschke, 2007).
However, given the overall increase in adult student participation in higher education,
private not-for-profit and public institutions may also have a predominantly adult student
population. Even though there is a robust literature on adult education, adult serving
colleges and universities have received little attention, and the literature does not adopt a
cross-sector perspective.
Even as greater numbers of adult students are enrolling in higher education,
traditional-aged students are becoming less likely to complete their undergraduate
degrees in four years (Aslanian, 2001; Miller et al., 2006). They are following “adult
learning behavior patterns—attending college part-time, at night, or on weekends;
attending several colleges; dropping out for a semester or a year; commuting rather than
living in dorms; working part-time” (Aslanian, 2001, p. 154). Understanding how adult
serving colleges and universities across all three sectors of higher education (for-profit,
private not-for-profit and public) serve their students may provide some insight to
traditional institutions as more adult students inhabit their campuses and traditional
students behave more like their adult counterparts.
There has been little research on adult serving institutions as they compare to one
another and across sectors. In order to dispel misperceptions and gain credibility, the
American Council on Education (ACE) and The Alliance: An Association for Alternative
Degree Programs for Adults (known as The Alliance, later changed to Adult Higher
Education Alliance (AHEA)) published their Principles of Good Practice for Alternative
and External Degree Programs for Adults (1990). Compiled by a task force comprised of
2
faculty, administrators and academic professionals from a wide cross-section of adult
degree programs, the resulting principles of good practice were meant as guidelines for
institutions that wanted to develop their own programs or assess what they were doing.
The Principles of Good Practice identified the following categories: mission, personnelfaculty and academic professionals, learning outcomes, learning experiences, assessment
of student learning, student services, program administration, and program evaluation
("Principles of Good Practice for Alternative and External Degree Programs for Adults",
1990, pp. 5-6).
In 1998, in partnership with the American Productivity and Quality Center
(APQC), the Council of Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL) built on the work by
the ACE/The Alliance foundation. CAEL conducted an in-depth benchmarking study “of
six highly adult learning focused colleges and universities” and identified common
elements in their best practices (T. A. Flint & Associates, 1999). The study resulted in
CAEL’s Principles of Effectiveness for Serving Adult Learners, a framework which
describes “programs and policies that help adults reach their educational goals.” The
eight Principles in the framework are: outreach, life and career planning, financing,
assessment of learning outcomes, teaching-learning process, student support systems,
technology, and strategic partnerships (CAEL, 2005; T. Flint, Zakos, & Frey, 2002).
Each principle of effectiveness is supported by “best practices” as evidenced by
performance indicators (T. Flint, Zakos, & Frey, 2002). These CAEL Principles formed
the basis for comparison for this study.
Given the large number of adults enrolling in higher education and the rapid rise
in adult enrollments at for-profit institutions, this study has three related purposes. First, it
will determine to what extent adult serving colleges and universities in all three sectors of
3
higher education in the United States have become adult-focused with regard to the
CAEL Principles of Effective Practice. Second, this study will determine if the sector of
the college – for-profit, private not-for-profit, public – makes a difference in the extent to
which colleges are aligned with the CAEL Principles. Third, this study will determine to
what extent the articulation of an adult-specific mission may have an affect on the
college’s alignment with CAEL Principles.
METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES
This is a multiple case study of 47 institutions utilizing secondary source archival
data and institutionally based primary source documentary data for each institution.
To determine the population of institutions for this study, I used the Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 2007 Fall enrollment survey as the base.
Fall enrollment is the traditional measure of student access to higher education (NCES,
2009a). I began with a total of 2,602 institutions and deleted those that were not primarily
four-year institutions or had a special focus or religious affiliation. I also calculated the
percent of adult student enrollment and deleted those institutions that had less than 65%
adult enrollments.
Archival data for each case was gathered from the National Center for Education
Statistics College Navigator (NCES, 2009b) and U.S. Department of Education’s
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (NCES,, 2009). The NCES College
Navigator site consists primarily of the latest data from IPEDS. It is a search tool
designed to gather quick facts on selected colleges and universities. IPEDS collects
4
information from every college, university, and technical and vocational postsecondary
institution that participates in the federal student financial aid programs (NCES, 2009a).
Documentary analysis was conducted via content analysis of each institution’s
website. Among other uses, content analysis can be used to “audit communication
content against objectives” and “reveal the focus of individual, group, institutional, or
societal attention” (Weber, 1990, p. 9). Institutional websites, like college viewbooks or
catalogs, are considered to contain legitimate sources of information about the institution
(Abrahamson, 2000; Schneider, 2004).
Performance indicators corresponding to the CAEL Principles of Effective
Practice (T. Flint, Zakos, & Frey, 2002) were identified as variables or codes for the
content analysis (see codebook in Appendix). Institution websites were then analyzed
with regard to the identified variables. Institutions that shared the same effective practices
were analyzed across sector (public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit) and
with regard to the articulation of an adult-specific mission.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A total of 47 colleges and universities were identified for the final research pool
in this study. There were ten public colleges, 24 private not-for-profit colleges, and 13
private for-profit colleges (see Table 1).
5
Table 1. Final Research Pool by Sector
Public
Athens State University
Charter Oak State College
Governors State University
Metropolitan State University
SUNY Empire State College
Thomas Edison State College
University of Hawaii-West Oahu
University of Houston-Victoria
University of Maryland-University College
Granite State College
For-Profit
Ashford University
Capella University
Colorado Technical University
DeVry University
Grand Canyon University
Jones International University
Kaplan University
National American University
Potomac College
South University-Savannah
Strayer University
University of Phoenix
Western International University
Private not-for-profit
Antioch University
Martin University
Bellevue University
Metropolitan College of New York
Boricua College
National University
California Institute of Integral Studies National-Louis University
Cambridge College
Park University
City University of Seattle
Peirce College
Davenport University
Regent University
Goddard College
Sojourner-Douglass College
Golden Gate University-San Francisco The College of New Rochelle
Hodges University
Union Institute & University
John F Kennedy University
Upper Iowa University
Limestone College
Western Governors University
The colleges in the sample ranged in size from under 1000 students to 20,000 and
above. The range of percentage adult students was from 65% to 96%. Carnegie
classifications included Baccalaureate Colleges—Diverse Fields, Baccalaureate
Colleges—Arts and Sciences, Baccalaureate/Associate’s Colleges, Master’s Colleges and
Universities, and Doctoral/Research Universities.
6
To determine the level of alignment with the CAEL Principles, I counted the
number of codes recorded for each college; one point for each code (see Chart 1). There
was a possible total of 44 points if every code under every CAEL Principle was noted. A
score of 44 points would indicate 100% alignment with CAEL Principles. To determine
alignment for the entire sample, I calculated the mean score for all the colleges. For all
colleges, the mean score CAEL Principles was 34, with a standard deviation of 6. This
indicates that, overall, the colleges in this study are generally aligned with 34/44 or 77%
of the CAEL Principles.
Chart 1. CAEL Principles Totals and All Colleges
Grand Total
50
45
40
30
25
20
15
10
5
Institutions
7
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
0
1
CAEL Principles
35
Key to Chart 1
1 Limestone College
2 University of Houston-Victoria
3 California Institute of Integral Studies
4 Hodges University
5 Boricua College
6 Goddard College
7 Martin University
8 Governors State University
9 John F Kennedy University
10 DeVry University
11 Jones International University
12 Potomac College
13 Ashford University
14 Western International University
15 The College of New Rochelle
16 Upper Iowa University
17 South University-Savannah
18 University of Hawaii-West Oahu
19 Regent University
20 Sojourner-Douglass College
21 Western Governors University
22 Colorado Technical University
23 Grand Canyon University
24 National American University
25 National University
26 Athens State University
27 Cambridge College
28 Kaplan University
29 University of Phoenix
30 Thomas Edison State College
31 National-Louis University
32 Peirce College
33 Union Institute & University
34 Strayer University
35 Charter Oak State College
36 Antioch University
37 Golden Gate University-San Francisco
38 Davenport University
39 SUNY Empire State College
40 Park University
41 Capella University
42 Bellevue University
43 City University of Seattle
44 Metropolitan State University
45 University of Maryland-University College
46 Metropolitan College of New York
47 Granite State College
The median was 33; 17 institutions noted less than 33 codes, and 30 noted 33 or
more. The minimum number of codes noted was 19, and the maximum number of codes
noted was 43. The college with the least number of codes noted was Limestone College
(private not-for-profit). The college with the most number of codes was Granite State
College (public).
Coding Results per CAEL Principle,
Adult-focused Mission, and Unique Feature
Most principles were represented to some degree by all colleges. There were two
colleges that had no scores for the Assessment of Learning Outcomes Principle. The
8
“finance.%enrollment” code was not represented by any colleges. There were small
differences in some principles by sector, in particular the Financing Principle,
Assessment of Learning Outcomes Principle, Student Support Services Principle, and
Strategic Partnerships Principle.
Thirty-one colleges had adult-specific missions. However no colleges reported
features that could be coded “unique.”
Outreach Principle
There were five codes included in the Outreach Principle (recruit, barriers, needs,
decisions, faculty). The most frequently noted codes were “recruit” and “barriers” (44
colleges). The least noted code was “faculty” (17 colleges).
There was at least some support for this principle for all colleges; the average number
of codes noted was four. The minimum was one; the maximum was five. There was no
difference in average number of codes by sector – all three sectors had an average
number of four codes. Three colleges noted only one code (Goddard College, University
of Hawaii-West Oahu, University of Houston-Victoria). Goddard College noted
“barriers.” University of Hawaii-West Oahu and University of Houston-Victoria both
noted “recruit.”
Life and Career Planning Principle
There were six codes included in the Life and Career Planning Principle (process,
entrylevel, careergoals, edplanning, partners, assessment). The most frequently noted
codes were “careergoals” and “assessment” (43 colleges). The least noted was
“edplanning” (26 colleges).
9
All colleges met at least some of the criteria for the Life and Career Planning
Principle. For all 47 colleges, the average number of codes noted was five. The minimum
was one; the maximum was six. There was no difference in average number of codes by
sector; all averaged five codes. Four institutions noted only one code; California Institute
of Integral Studies (careergoals), Hodges University (careergoals), Limestone College
(assessment), and University of Houston-Victoria (careergoals).
Financing Principle
There were five codes included in the Financing Principle (options, information,
FAptadult, %refund, %enrollment). All 47 colleges noted both “options” and
“information.” The least noted code was “% enrollment,” with zero colleges.
For all 47 colleges, the average number of codes noted was three. The minimum was
three; the maximum was four. There was a slight difference in the average number of
codes by sector. Both public and private not-for-profit colleges had an average number of
four codes. The private for-profit colleges averaged three codes. It appears that the
“%refund” code was the differentiator, as nearly all colleges met “options,”
“information,” and “FAptadult.” No colleges recorded “%enrollment.”
“Finance.%refund” was found on only 18 college websites. Five of the colleges were
public, and 13 were private not-for-profit. There were no private for-profit colleges with
this code.
Assessment of Learning Outcomes Principle
There were five codes included in the Assessment of Learning Outcomes Principle
(activerole, learningoutcomes, techniques, training, stakeholders). The most frequently
10
noted code was “techniques” (45 colleges). The least noted was “learningoutcomes” (33
colleges).
For all 47 colleges, the average number of codes noted was four. The minimum was
zero; the maximum was five. There was a slight difference according to sector. Public
and private not-for-profit colleges had an average number of four codes. Private for-profit
colleges had an average number of three codes. Two colleges, both private not-for-profit,
noted no assessment codes; California Institute of Integral Studies and Hodges
University.
Teaching and Learning Process Principle
There were six codes included in the Teaching/Learning Process Principle (cocreators, relative, multiplemodes, assessment, partnership, profdev). The most frequently
noted code was “multiplemodes” (47 colleges). The least noted was “profdev” or
professional development (17 colleges).
For all 47 colleges, the average number of codes noted was five. The minimum
was two; the maximum was six. There were no differences by sector with regard to
average number of codes – all averaged five. However, the “profdev” code total is
significantly lower than the others, with only six public colleges, eight private not-forprofit colleges, and three private for-profit colleges reporting.
11
Student Support Services Principle
There were seven codes included in the Student Support Systems Principle (inquiry,
academicsupport, flexible, life, profdev, stakeholders, work). The most frequently noted
code was “work” (46 colleges). The least noted was “inquiry” (11 colleges).
For all 47 colleges, the average number of codes noted was five. The minimum was
one; the maximum was seven. There were slight differences between sectors. The
average number of codes for the public sector was six; the average number of codes for
the private not-for-profit sector was five; and the average number of codes for the private
for-profit sector was four. One college noted only one code; Martin University (life).
The code “ss.inquiry” was one of the least cited codes across all colleges. Only 11
colleges made note of their policy to refer students to academic support services before or
during the application process. These colleges were more likely to be in the public or
private not-for-profit sectors. Only one college was in the private for-profit sector.
Technology Principle
There were six codes included in the Technology Principle (orientation, community,
adminservices, assessment, choices, complement). The most frequently noted code was
“adminservices” (all 47 colleges). The least noted was “assessment” (21 colleges).
For all 47 colleges, the average number of codes noted was five. The minimum
was one; the maximum was six. One college noted only one code; Boricua College
(adminservices). There was no difference by sector in the average number of codes – all
three sectors averaged five codes for this principle.
12
The Technology Principle was well represented in nearly all colleges, however
the “assessment” code within this principle was the least noted. Private for-profit colleges
were the least likely to use this code--with only two colleges noting it--compared to seven
public colleges and 12 private not-for-profit colleges.
Strategic Partnerships Principle
There were four codes included in the Strategic Partnerships Principle (PLAtraining,
recruit, collaborate, encourage). The most frequently noted code was “PLAtraining” (43
colleges). The least noted was “recruit” (23 colleges).
For all 47 colleges, the average number of codes noted was three. The minimum was
one; the maximum was four. There was a slight difference between sectors for this
principle. Public colleges averaged four codes; private not-for-profit and private forprofit colleges averaged three codes.
“Partnership.recruit” was the lowest scoring code. It was noted by eight public
colleges, nine private not-for-profit colleges, and six private for-profit colleges.
Adult-focused Mission
Overall, there were 31 colleges or 66% (31/47) of the sample that had an adultspecific mission either specifically stated or clear language on their website targeting
adult students (see Chart 2).
13
U
Th
om
as
SU Ed
is
on
o f NY
Em St
M
ar
at
p
e
yl
an i re
C
o
St
dat l leg
U
e
ni
e
ve
C
ol
rs
l
eg
ity
Li
m
e
es Co
l
to
l
e
Jo
H
ge
od ne
hn
ge Co
F
So
Ke s U ll e
g
jo
ur nne ni v e
e
ne
d
r-D y U rsi ty
o u ni v
er
gl
si
a
C
ty
am s s
br Co
l le
id
ge
ge
Pe Co
l
An i rce l eg
e
t io
C
ol
ch
D
l
e
av
M
en Uni ge
et
ve
po
ro
po
Be rt U rsi t
y
l it
ni
a n l lev
ve
u
C
rs
e
ol
i ty
U
le
ge ni ve
N
rs
of
at
it
N
io
ew y
na Po
l A t om
Y
or
m
k
er ac
C
ic
o
an
lle
C
g
ap Un
iv e
el
er
la
si
U
ty
ni
ve
rs
ity
ni
ve
rs
i ty
Codes
Chart 2. Colleges with Adult-specific Missions and Total Codes
Adult Mission Statem ent and Total Codes
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Colleges
Looking at the chart above from left to right, the first six colleges are in the public sector,
the next group of 19 are in the private not-for-profit sector, and the last six are in the
private for-profit sector. (See key below.)
14
Key to Chart
Public
1 Thomas Edison State College
2 Charter Oak State College
3 SUNY Empire State College
4 Metropolitan State University
5 University of Maryland-University College
6 Granite State College
Private not-for-profit
7 Limestone College
8 California Institute of Integral Studies
9 Hodges University
10 Martin University
11 John F Kennedy University
12 The College of New Rochelle
13 Sojourner-Douglass College
14 Western Governors University
15 Cambridge College
16 National-Louis University
17 Peirce College
18 Union Institute & University
19 Antioch University
20 Golden Gate University-San Francisco
21 Davenport University
22 Park University
23 Bellevue University
24 City University of Seattle
25 Metropolitan College of New York
Private for-profit
26 Jones International University
27 Potomac College
28 Western International University
29 National American University
30 Strayer University
31 Capella University
The mean CAEL Principles was 35, and the median was 37. As in the entire
sample, Limestone College was the lowest scoring college (19) and Granite State College
was the highest (43). All colleges scored in the following codes: “outreach.recruit,”
“outreach.barriers,” “finance.options,” “finance.information,” “T/L.multiplemodes,” and
“tech.admin.” The lowest scoring code, other than “finance.%enrollment” (0), was
“ss.inquiry” (9).
Findings by Sector
Public Sector
There were ten colleges identified in the public sector sample of adult serving
colleges (see Table 2). They ranged in size from under 1000 to 20,000 and above. Six
colleges had missions that were adult-specific. Percentage of adult enrollments ranged
from 65% to 94%.
15
Table 2. Public Sector Colleges
Public
Athens State University
Charter Oak State College
Governors State University
Metropolitan State University
SUNY Empire State College
Thomas Edison State College
University of Hawaii-West Oahu
University of Houston-Victoria
University of Maryland-University College
Granite State College
In the public sector, the mean CAEL Principles noted for all ten colleges was 36,
with a standard deviation of 7.4. This indicates that, on average, public colleges are
aligned with 82% (36/44) of the CAEL Principles. The median was 38; half of the
colleges noted less than 38 codes, and half noted 38 or more. The minimum number of
codes noted was 20 (University of Houston-Victoria); the maximum number of codes
noted was 43 (Granite State College) (see Chart 3).
16
Chart 3. CAEL Principles Totals and Public Colleges
Public Colleges
50
45
CAEL Principles
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
ol
le
C
at
e
St
rs
i
G
ra
n
ite
ve
U
ni
ar
yl
an
d-
ge
ge
ty
ni
U
at
e
St
n
ro
po
lit
a
U
ni
ve
r
si
ty
of
M
M
et
Y
SU
N
C
ol
le
ve
rs
ity
le
C
ol
te
St
a
Em
pi
re
ak
rO
rte
C
ha
ge
ge
te
St
a
St
at
e
n
Ed
is
o
as
om
C
ol
le
le
C
ol
ve
ni
U
at
e
St
ge
rs
ity
ah
u
es
tO
ns
Th
ve
r
U
ni
At
he
H
aw
ai
i-W
si
ty
of
er
no
ov
G
U
ni
ve
r
si
ty
of
rs
St
H
ou
at
e
st
o
U
ni
nVi
c
ve
to
rs
i
ria
ty
0
Private Not-for-profit Sector
There were 24 colleges in the private not-for-profit sector (see Table 3). They
ranged in size from under 1000 to 20,000 and above. Nineteen colleges had missions that
were adult-specific. Percentage of adult enrollments ranged from 65% to 94%.
17
Table 3. Private Not-for-profit Sector Colleges
Private not-for-profit
Antioch University
Martin University
Bellevue University
Metropolitan College of New York
Boricua College
National University
California Institute of Integral Studies National-Louis University
Cambridge College
Park University
City University of Seattle
Peirce College
Davenport University
Regent University
Goddard College
Sojourner-Douglass College
Golden Gate University-San Francisco The College of New Rochelle
Hodges University
Union Institute & University
John F Kennedy University
Upper Iowa University
Limestone College
Western Governors University
In the private not-for-profit sector, the mean CAEL Principles for all 24 colleges
was 33, with a standard deviation of 6.7. This indicates that, on average, private not-forprofit colleges are aligned with 75% (33/44) of the CAEL Principles. The median was 34;
half of the colleges noted less than 34 codes, and half noted 34 or more. The minimum
number of codes noted was 19 (Limestone College); the maximum number of codes
noted was 42 (Metropolitan College of New York) (see Chart 4).
18
st
In
itu
te
m
Li
of
es
to
n
In e C
te
H gr olle
o d al
g
ge St e
ud
s
Bo Un ies
iv
ri
G cua ers
it
od
Jo
da Col y
hn
l
M rd eg
Th
e F K arti Co e
n
C
e
ol nn Un lleg
le
ge edy ive e
r
U of N U n s i t y
pp
iv
er ew ers
Io Ro ity
So
w
c
j
W our Re a U he
es ne ge ni lle
te r-D nt ve
rn
U rs
G oug niv ity
ov la
er ss ersi
n
C ty
N ors oll
at
eg
U
io
e
n ni
N Ca al ver
at
si
U
m
t
io
n
na brid ive y
l-L ge rs
ou C ity
U
ni
G
is oll
on
ol
U e
de
Pe ni ge
I
n
ve
n
s
i
r
t it
G
ut ce C rsit
at
y
e
e
& o
U
ni Ant U lleg
ve io ni
e
rs ch ve
it y
U rsit
S n
D
y
av an ive
en F rsi
po ran ty
rt
ci
Pa Un sco
M
i
v
B
r
et
e
ro City elle k U rsi
po
vu niv ty
U
lit
an nive e U ers
C rsi niv ity
ol
le ty o ers
it y
ge f
of Sea
N
ew ttle
Yo
rk
ia
rn
C
al
if o
CAEL Principles
Chart 4. CAEL Principles Totals and Private Not-for-Profit Colleges
Private not-for-profit
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Private For-profit Sector
There were 13 colleges in the private for-profit sector (see Table 4). They ranged
in size from 1,000 to 4,999 to 20,000 and above. Six colleges had missions that were
adult-specific. Percentage of adult enrollments ranged from 65% to 96%.
19
Table 4. Private For-profit Sector Colleges
For-Profit
Ashford University
Capella University
Colorado Technical University
DeVry University
Grand Canyon University
Jones International University
Kaplan University
National American University
Potomac College
South University-Savannah
Strayer University
University of Phoenix
Western International University
In the private for-profit sector, the mean CAEL Principles for all 13 colleges was
33, with a standard deviation of 3.13. This indicates that, on average, private for-profit
colleges are aligned with 75% of the CAEL Principles. The median was 33; half of the
institutions noted less than 33 codes, and half noted 33 or more. The minimum number of
codes noted was 30 (DeVry University, Jones International University, and Potomac
College); the maximum number of codes noted was 40 (Capella University) (see Chart
5).
20
Chart 5. CAEL Principles Totals and Private For-Profit Colleges
Private for-profit
45
40
35
CAEL Principles
30
25
20
15
10
5
ty
ni
v
U
U
ni
v
Ph
o
er
si
er
si
ty
x
en
i
profit) affect the extent to which a college is aligned with the CAEL Principles? When
looking at the mean CAEL Principles for each sector, it appears that public sector
colleges are aligned with a higher percentage of CAEL Principles (82%) than colleges in
the private not-for-profit (75%) and private for-profit sectors (75%). The average median
score for the public sector colleges (38) is also higher than both the private not-for-profit
(33) and private for-profit colleges (33). Although the sample size is too small for
sophisticated data analysis, these differences indicate that public sector adult serving
21
ap
el
la
ye
r
St
ra
The second research question asks does sector (public, private not-for-profit, for-
C
ty
of
ni
ve
U
at
io
na
Ka
pl
a
rs
it y
n
U
an
er
ic
m
lA
er
si
U
ni
v
er
si
ni
v
ni
ve
U
on
an
y
C
d
N
G
ra
n
ty
rs
it y
ty
er
si
ni
v
U
al
ch
Te
ni
v
U
ol
or
ad
o
C
ut
h
So
nn
ah
ty
-S
a
er
si
na
tio
rn
a
te
In
er
n
va
ve
ni
lU
U
d
or
As
hf
W
es
t
ni
c
rs
i
ve
ni
C
ac
In
ne
s
Jo
rs
ity
ty
e
le
g
ol
er
si
to
m
Po
te
rn
D
at
io
na
l
eV
ry
U
U
ni
v
ni
ve
rs
i
ty
ty
0
colleges may be more likely to be aligned with a larger number of CAEL Principles than
either private not-for-profit or private for-profit colleges.
Further analysis of colleges above and below the overall median of 33 showed
that below the median, sector may play a role in that low scoring colleges are more likely
to be private not-for-profit or private for-profit than public. Above the median, it appears
that sector may play a role in that high scoring colleges are more likely to be public or
private-not-for-profit than private for-profit.
The third research question asked: Does having an adult-specific mission affect
the extent to which a college is aligned with the CAEL Principles? Content analysis
coding for an adult-specific mission showed that 31 colleges in the total sample of 47 had
adult-specific missions. Six of those colleges were in the public sector; 19 colleges were
in the private not-for-profit sector; and six colleges were in the private for-profit sector.
The highest scoring colleges (top 15%) all had adult-specific missions, while only nine of
the 17 lowest scoring colleges (below the median) had adult-specific missions. This
indicates that adult-specific missions may have some affect on total CAEL Principle
scores.
CONCLUSION
The idea for this research study grew from the intersection of increasing attention
in the for-profit sector of higher education and the increasing enrollments of adults in
higher education overall. It was evident from the literature that there was a disconnect in
the discourse around the two areas because for-profit colleges, while largely targeting
adult students, are most frequently compared to traditional colleges that primarily serve
22
18-22 year old students. Based on this comparison, some voices in the for-profit sector
maintain that their colleges are better suited to serve adult students. This argument
neglects the colleges in the public and private not-for-profit sectors that are serving adult
students in large numbers, and have been doing so for a number of years.
One of the underlying themes in this research was to distinguish between an adult
serving college and an adult learning focused college. Lacking a clear definition from the
literature, I defined an adult serving college as having a majority (65% or more) of adult
students. An adult learning focused college not only has a majority of adult students, but
provides services and opportunities to adult students that may be aligned with the CAEL
Principles of Effective Practice for Serving Adult Students, which are themselves
grounded in adult learning theory.
The research findings did not suggest that there is any distinct demarcation point
separating an adult serving college from an adult learning focused college. Rather, the
findings suggest that it is a continuum. At the low scoring end there are adult serving
colleges that are aligned with some CAEL Principles. At the high scoring end, there are
adult serving colleges that are aligned with a great number of CAEL Principles. The
slope is fairly gradual.
The lack of definitive evidence to support how sector plays a role in determining
the extent to which an adult serving college may be aligned with CAEL Principles
disputes the assertion by Sperling (2000) and Anctil (2008) that private for-profit colleges
are uniquely suited to serve adult students merely because of their for-profit status.
According to the data represented in this study, it appears that if there is any trend by
sector, it is that public and private not-for-profit colleges are at least as well suited, if not
23
more so, to serve adult students. The ability to have flexible learning environments, credit
for prior learning, and liberal transfer policies seems to have more to do with the goal of
serving adult students, rather than whether the institution is public, private not-for-profit
or private for-profit.
Enrolling primarily adult students may be an economic expedient, an educational
or philosophical mission, or a combination of both. Regardless of the driving force, there
are similar practices and policies for serving adult students that are common across all
sectors of higher education. What appears to be most important with regard to serving
adult students in terms of alignment with the CAEL Principles, is the presence or
articulation of an adult-specific mission.
24
APPENDIX
25
Appendix I. Content Analysis Codebook with CAEL Principles and Performance
Indicators
Principles
Performance Indicators (Atlas.ti code in
parentheses)
Outreach-- The institution
 Uses a variety of special methods and
conducts its outreach to adult
venues to recruit adult learners.
learners by overcoming barriers
(outreach.recruit)
of time, place, and tradition in
 Has recruitment and admissions practices
order to create lifelong access to
and services that address the personal needs
educational opportunities.
and concerns of adults who are
unaccustomed to viewing themselves in the
“traditional” role of a student.
(outreach.needs)
 Works collaboratively with adults to help
them overcome barriers that may prevent
them from returning to learning.
(outreach.barriers)
 Assists adult learners in making informed
decisions about how well the college
matches their interests and goals.
(outreach.decisions)
 Hires faculty who perform a variety of roles
that include advising, teaching, and
facilitating and connecting learners to
support services. (outreach.faculty)
Life and Career Planning-- The
institution addresses adult
learners’ life and career goals
before or at the onset of
enrollment in order to assess and
align its capacities to help
learners reach their goals.






Collaborates with adult learners to develop a
systematic process for education and career
planning. (life.process)
Helps adult learners determine their entry
level of educational development upon
entry. (life.entrylevel)
Helps adult learners identify career goals
and a plan for reaching those goals.
(life.careergoals)
Uses education and career planning as a
method of establishing regular contact with
adult learners throughout their programs.
(life.edplanning)
Encourages adults to become active partners
in the planning, delivery, and evaluation of
their own learning. (life.partners)
Demonstrates ways in which adult learners
can use both formal and informal assessment
as the foundation for making educational
decisions. Uses prior learning assessment to
26
Financing-- The institution
addresses adult learners’ life and
career goals before or at the onset
of enrollment in order to assess
and align its capacities to help
learners reach their goals.





Assessment of Learning
Outcomes-- The institution
defines and assesses the
knowledge, skills and
competencies acquired by adult
learners both from the curriculum
and from life/work experience in
order to assign credit and confer
degrees with rigor.




help identify life and career goals. Creates
pathways for adult learners to gain credit for
learning from a variety of sources so that
appropriate learning acquired prior to
enrollment can be accepted towards
institutional credentials and degrees.
(life.assessment)
Provides flexible payment options that fit the
individual needs/circumstances of the adult
learner. Provides deferred payment options
when tuition reimbursement programs do
not make funds available until course
completion. Administers charges to learners
incrementally over the duration of a
program. (finance.options)
Informs adult learners about convenient
payment options. (finance.information)
Identifies financial aid options available for
both part-time and returning adult learners.
Identifies external funding sources that assist
adult learners. (finance.FAptadult)
Establishes equitable refund policies based
on the percentage of course/program
completion. (finance.%refund)
Has a financial aid policy that allocates
awards to the adult student population in
proportion to their enrollment.
(finance.%enrollment)
Encourages adult learners to take an active
role in the assessment process.
(assessment.activerole)
Designs educational experiences using
learning outcomes.
(assessment.learningoutcomes)
Utilizes a variety of valid and reliable
assessment techniques to measure learning
outcomes. Identifies and documents what
learners know and can do as a result of their
educational experiences.
(assessment.techniques)
Evaluates external instructional programs to
ensure relevance and rigor for the purpose of
granting credit. Advocates for adult learners
to gain formal credit for learning achieved
via instructional programs delivered by
businesses, labor unions, and community
27

Teaching-Learning Process-The institution’s faculty uses
multiple methods of instruction
(including experiential and
problem-based methods) for
adult learners in order to connect
curricular concepts to useful
knowledge and skills.






Student Support Systems--The
institution assists adult learners
using comprehensive academic
and student support systems in
order to enhance students’
capacities to become self-


based organizations. (assessment.training)
Communicates actively with stakeholders to
identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities
they need. Integrates the perspectives of a
range of stakeholders such as businesses and
the community in defining learning
outcomes. (assessment.stakeholders)
Utilizes a teaching/learning process that
includes a high degree of interaction among
learners, faculty, and the community.
Recognizes adult learners as co-creators of
knowledge. Has faculty integrate adults’
knowledge, skills, interests, and lifesituations into the curriculum. (T/L.cocreators)
Collaboratively designs learning experiences
and projects directly related to the adult
learner’s work and personal world.
(T/L.relative)
Uses multiple methods of instructional
delivery to provide access to education. Uses
multiple methods of instructional delivery to
accommodate various learning styles.
(T/L.multiplemodes)
Uses assessment as an integral part of the
learning process. Uses a variety of
assessment tools. (T/L.assessment)
Has faculty members who incorporate the
issues, symbols and language of learners,
workplaces and communities. Develops
curricula in partnership with businesses,
labor unions, and communities.
(T/L.partnership)
Supports full-time faculty who work
collaboratively with adult learners, adjunct
faculty and local community resources to
develop learning experiences. Provides or
supports financially, professional
development for faculty on effective
methods for teaching adults. (T/L.profdev)
Offers a support system activated by a
potential student’s initial inquiry about the
institution. (SS.inquiry)
Helps adults become college-ready by
offering academic support or in
collaboration with other organizations. Has
28
directed, lifelong learners.





Technology-- The institution
uses information technology to
provide relevant and timely
information and to enhance the
learning experience.






faculty and staff who help adult learners
connect with academic and support services.
(SS.academicsupport)
Devises flexible time frames for enrollment,
registration and program participation.
(SS.flexible)
Provides support services that address the
life circumstances of the adult (e.g. child
care, support networks, financing, adultcentered orientation, and advising). (SS.life)
Provides, or supports financially,
professional development activities
including or related to adult learning theory
and application for faculty and staff.
(SS.profdev)
Requires that faculty/staff work with the
community, employers and/or unions to
develop mentoring and advising programs.
Works collaboratively with stakeholders to
encourage their employees/members to
pursue their education and learning needs.
(SS.stakeholders)
Provides support for adult learners at times
and places that are congruent with work
schedules. Works with stakeholders to
establish education extension centers at or
near work locations. (SS.work)
Provides technology orientation to all
entering adult learners so that technology
can be used confidently and competently.
(tech.orientation)
Uses technology to build and reinforce
community among adult learners.
(tech.community)
Uses information technology to provide
flexible and timely education and
administrative services (e.g. web registration
systems, call centers). (tech.adminservices)
Uses information technology to enable adult
learners to assess their own learning needs
and their learning process. (tech.assessment)
Uses technology to expand the choices of
learning styles/options (e.g. partial and full
Internet-based courses, technology-rich oncampus instruction). (tech.choices)
Employs technology to complement the
29
Strategic Partnerships-- The
institution engages in strategic
relationships, partnerships, and
collaborations with employers
and other organizations in order
to develop and improve
educational opportunities for
adult learners.




technology-rich environment in which many
adults work. (tech.complement)
Promotes use of prior learning assessment to
employers and community organizations.
Promotes recognition of learning that comes
from training and education programs
outside the college or university (ACE,
CLEP, DANTES).
(partnership.PLAtraining)
Recruits learners through various
stakeholder groups (e.g. businesses, unions,
and community-based organizations).
(partnership.recruit)
Collaborates with stakeholders to help
establish learning goals that fulfill skill
needs and lead to career opportunities.
(partnership.collaborate)
Works with stakeholders to develop
mentoring and advising programs.
Collaborates with stakeholders to develop
ways to encourage their employees or
members to pursue an education.
Encourages employers to make a variety of
company resources available to employees
for education related activities.
(partnership.encourage)
Modified from Flint, Zakos, and Frey 2002
30
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, T. (2000). Life and Death on the Internet: To Web or Not to Web is No
Longer a Question. Journal of College Admission, 168, 6-11.
Ashford University website. (2009). Retrieved 5/26, 2009, from www.ashford.edu
Aslanian, C. B. (2001). Adult Students Today. New York: The College Board.
CAEL, C. f. A. a. E. L. (2005). Principles in Practice: Assessing Adult Learning Focused
Institutions. Chicago: Council for Adult and Experiential Learning.
Flint, T., Zakos, P., & Frey, R. (2002). Best Practices in Adult Learning: A SelfEvaluation Workbook for Colleges and Universities. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company.
Flint, T. A., & Associates. (1999). Best Practices in Adult Learning: A CAEL/APQC
Benchmarking Study: Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL).
Hassler, R. P. (2006). The Flogging of For-Profit Colleges. Academic Questions, Summer
2006, 63-74.
Horn, L. J., & Carroll, C. D. (1996). Nontraditional Undergraduates: Trends in
Enrollment from 1986 to 1992 and Persistence and Attainment Among 1989-90
Beginning Postsecondary Students. Washington, D.C.: National Center for
Education Statistics.
IPEDS Data Center. (2001). Retrieved 6/20, 2010, from
http://www.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Facsimile.aspx?unitid=acb0afabadad
Kinser, K. (2005). A Profile of Regionally Accredited For-Profit Institutions of Higher
Education. New Directions for Higher Education, 129(Spring 2005), 69-83.
Kinser, K. (2006a). From Main Street to Wall Street: The Development of For-Profit
Higher Education (Vol. 31:5). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kinser, K. (2006b). Principles of Student Affairs in For-Profit Higher Education. NASPA
Journal, 43(2), 264-279.
Miller, C., Donofrio, N., Duderstadt, J. J., Elliott, G., Grayer, J. N., Haycock, K., et al.
(2006). A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education (Prepublication copy): U.S. Department of Education.
NCES. (2008). Digest of Education Statistics: 2007. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/ch3.asp
NCES. (2009a). About IPEDS. Retrieved 6/16, 2009, from
http://nces.ed.gove/ipeds/about/
NCES. (2009b). College Navigator. 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator
NCES, N. C. o. E. S. (2009). IPEDS Dataset Cutting Tool. 2009
Principles of Good Practice for Alternative and External Degree Programs for Adults.
(1990). Retrieved 5/19/09, 2009, from
www.ahea.org/publications/principals90.pdf
Pusser, B., Breneman, D. W., Gansneder, B. M., Kohl, K. J., Levin, J. S., Milam, J. H., et
al. (2007). Returning to Learning: Adults' Success in College is Key to America's
Future: The Lumina Foundation for Education.
Regent University website. (2009). Retrieved 12/16, 2009, from www.regent.edu
31
Schneider, R. L. (2004). Marketing Medical Education: An Examination of Recruitment
Web Sites for Traditional and Combined-Degree M.D. Programs. Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education, 14(2), 19-36.
Tierney, W. G., & Hentschke, G. C. (2007). New Players, Different Game:
Understanding the Rise of For-Profit Colleges and Universities. Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis (Second Edition ed.). Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
32