University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An examination of factors that affect post-traditional undergraduate student persistence

(USC Thesis Other)

An examination of factors that affect post-traditional undergraduate student persistence

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content An Examination of Factors that Affect Post-Traditional Undergraduate Student
Persistence
by
Amy A. King
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
Ma y, 2021

© Copyright by Amy A. King 2021

All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Amy A. King certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Jennifer Phillips

Patricia Tobey

Eric Canny, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education

University of Southern California

2021

iv
Abstract
The global economy has evolved in recent decades, resulting in increased demand for
credentialed, skilled workers in a variety of industries. To meet this need, the U.S. higher
education industry continues its pursuit of producing qualified graduates. Colleges and
universities historically focused on serving traditional-aged students, characterized as 18 to 24
years old; however, more than 4 million undergraduates in 2017 were over age 25, considered
nontraditional or post-traditional. These post-traditional learners nationally are graduating at
lower rates than their traditional counterparts when evaluated within the industry standard six-
year timeframe. This study evaluated factors that contributed to post-traditional student
persistence to graduation. The quantitative study, conducted at a private university, involved 266
post-traditional graduates. Results revealed that participants faced a number of obstacles on their
path to graduation, with their personal work commitments cited as the greatest obstacle. More
than 60% of participants attended two or more institutions, and more than 15% of graduates took
in excess of 10 years to graduate. The overwhelming majority of participants (98.7%) received
help from others, with 95.6% citing multiple individuals as providing assistance in areas of
emotional support, encouragement, and tasks to enable degree progress. Participants received
support in a variety of forms from university personnel, spouses/partners, peers, family members,
friends, children, and employers. Conversely, the majority of respondents (64.2%) also cited
individuals that hindered them from finishing their degrees, largely due to a lack of emotional
support or time constraints placed upon them by individuals. Findings revealed that the majority
of participants demonstrated self-efficacy, were intrinsically motivated, and were externally
motivated to attain their degrees. Recommendations for practice include curriculum implications,
service offerings, university support, and university policies to serve post-traditional students.

v
Keywords: undergraduate, higher education, nontraditional, non-traditional, post-
traditional, adult, adult learning, adult learners, persistence, retention, self-efficacy, intrinsic goal
orientation, online learning, distance learning, faculty support, staff support, emotional
encouragement, emotional support, transfer credit

vi
Dedication
To my beloved son Casey, and dear husband Patrick, for everything including study snacks,
inspiration, emotional encouragement, and USC swag gifts. I am grateful for your love and
support.

vii
Acknowledgements
My heart is full of gratitude for so many individuals that have supported me throughout
my educational journey. The spirit of this research is to celebrate factors that contribute to
college student persistence. As the research shows, having a support system is paramount, and
that support system is so relevant to my own personal story in attaining my doctoral degree.
Thank you to the outstanding faculty and staff at the University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education, notably Dr. Monique Datta, Dr. Kalim Rayburn, Dr. Darline
Robles, and Dr. Alexandra Wilcox. Your energized classrooms contributed to rewarding learning
experiences.
Thank you to my amazing fellow doctoral candidates in Cohort 12 of the Organizational
Change and Leadership program. I have treasured your insights and laughter, and have enjoyed
learning with and from you all. I look forward to our friendships in years to come.
Thank you to my exceptional dissertation team. Thank you to Dr. Carey Regur for
providing a keen eye and fresh perspectives. Thank you to Dr. Jennifer Phillips and Dr. Patricia
Tobey for your guidance and leadership in my committee. Special recognition to my amazing
dissertation chair Dr. Eric Canny. Your encouragement, feedback, responsiveness, and support
has been truly outstanding.
Thank you to my incredible friends and extended family. Your encouraging words mean
the world to me.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xiii
Chapter One: Introduction of the Problem of Practice ....................................................................1
Organizational Context ........................................................................................................2
Organizational Performance ................................................................................................2
Related Literature.................................................................................................................3
Importance of Addressing the Problem ...............................................................................5
Description of Stakeholder Groups ......................................................................................6
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals ........................................................................................7
Stakeholder Group for the Study .........................................................................................7
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..................................................................................7
Methodological Framework .................................................................................................8
Definitions..........................................................................................................................11
Organization of the Project ................................................................................................12
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................13
Persistence Theory History ................................................................................................13
Environmental Focused Literature .....................................................................................18
Knowledge Focused Literature ..........................................................................................24

ix
Motivation Focused Literature ...........................................................................................28
Organizational Focused Literature .....................................................................................31
Urie Bronfenbrenner Conceptual Framework ...................................................................36
Summary ............................................................................................................................44
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................46
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................46
Data Collection and Instrumentation .................................................................................49
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................51
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................51
Ethics..................................................................................................................................52
Positionality .......................................................................................................................53
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................54
Chapter Four: Results and Findings ...............................................................................................56
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................57
Individual Influences .........................................................................................................61
Organizational Influences ..................................................................................................74
Obstacles and Support Systems .........................................................................................88
Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................106
Chapter Five: Recommendations .................................................................................................112
Influence Summary ..........................................................................................................113
Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................116
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ....................................................................126
Limitations and Delimitations ..........................................................................................127

x
Future Research ...............................................................................................................128
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................129
References ....................................................................................................................................132
Appendix A: Recruitment Email .................................................................................................145
Appendix B: Survey Questions ....................................................................................................146

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Individual Influences 41
Table 2: Micro and Macro Influences 44
Table 3: Participant’s Confidence Throughout Their Undergraduate Journey 63
Table 4: Relationship Between Participants’ Confidence at Start of Degree and During Classes 64
Table 5: Relationship Between Participants’ Confidence at Start of Degree and at Graduation 64
Table 6: Relationship Between Participants’ Primary Reason to Complete Degree and
Current Career 67
Table 7: Participant Response Summary: Survey Questions Assessing Intrinsic Goal
Orientation 69
Table 8: Relationship of Participant Responses to Two Intrinsic Goal Motivation Questions 70
Table 9: Relationship Between Participant’s Time to Graduate and Number of Sessions
Taken Off 81
Table 10: Relationship Between Participant’s Time to Graduate and Number of Institutions
Attended 81
Table 11: Participant’s Perceived Fit with Peer Classmates and College/University Culture 84
Table 12: Relationship Between Participants’ Fit with College Culture and Confidence
During Classes 86
Table 13: Relationship Between Participants’ Fit with College Culture and Confidence at
Graduation 87
Table 14: Study Validation of Individual Influences 113
Table 15: Study Validation of Micro and Macro Influences 115

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Modified Version of Ecological Model 9
Figure 2: Framework for Post-Traditional Student Persistence 10
Figure 3: Participant Race/Ethnicity 58
Figure 4: Participant’s Age 60
Figure 5: Participant’s Bachelor’s Degree Program 61
Figure 6: Reasons to Complete Undergraduate Degrees 66
Figure 7: Participant’s Sources for Academic Support Outside the Classroom 72
Figure 8: Participant’s Time to Complete Bachelor’s Degree 79
Figure 9: Participant’s Reasons That Were Considered to Withdraw from College Altogether 83
Figure 10: Participant’s Obstacles While Completing Bachelor’s Degree 89
Figure 11: Individuals that Helped Participants Finish Their Bachelor’s Degree 91

xiii
List of Abbreviations
CAEL Council for Adult and Experiential Learning
CLT Cognitive Load Theory
ED U.S. Department of Education
IRB Institutional Review Board
KU Knowledge University
KPT Knowledge University Post-Traditional Student
MSLQ Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
NCES National Center for Education Statistics
PLA Prior Learning Assessment
PT Post-Traditional Student
USC University of Southern California

1

Chapter One: Introduction of the Problem of Practice
To compete in the global digital economy, employers in the United States are facing an
increased need for skilled labor. Changes in manufacturing and automation have evolved the
U.S. economy during recent decades, increasing employment demand toward educated workers
with higher skill levels such as engineering and technology (Carnevale et al., 2018). The Lumina
Foundation (2016) has estimated a shortfall of 11.6 million citizens aged 25 and older to meet
workforce demands. Accordingly, demand has increased for more adults to attain formal
degrees.
This dissertation addresses the problem of post-traditional undergraduate college
students’ persistence to graduation in the United States. Researchers have characterized post-
traditional students (PT) as 25 years of age and beyond, as well as adult learners or
nontraditional students (Bergman et al., 2014; National Center for Education Statistics, 2015;
Soares, 2013; Wyatt, 2011). The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) uses seven
characteristics to define nontraditional: a) being financially independent, b) being responsible for
dependents, c) being a single caregiver, d) not possessing a traditional high school diploma, e)
delaying postsecondary enrollment, f) attending college part time, and g) being employed full
time (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). In the fall of 2017, more than 4.4 million
U.S. undergraduate students were over age 25 (NCES, 2019b). The research highlights that post-
traditional students persist to graduation at a lower rate when compared with traditional students.
In a national study encompassing over 3,600 postsecondary institutions, students over age 24
achieved an average graduation rate of 45.8% within six years, as compared with 64.1% for
students age 20 or younger (Shapiro et al., 2019). This problem is important to ensure students
2

graduate and pursue meaningful employment to meet workforce needs. To address this problem,
a study was conducted with graduates of a private university.
Organizational Context
Knowledge University (KU), a pseudonym, is a privately owned institution of higher
learning. KU provides over 25 undergraduate degree programs online through the U.S., with
branch locations in more than 10 states. The university serves over 10,000 undergraduate
students, and more than 70% of whom are post-traditional over age 25. According to the
National Center for Education Statistics (2018), more than 50% of KU’s undergraduate students
attend part-time, and over 70% attend online. The institution serves an ethnically diverse
population of undergraduate students, with more than 40% of students from underrepresented
groups: over 20% African American, over 15% Hispanic, over 3% Asian, 1% American Indian,
and 2% from two or more races. Sixty-five percent of the undergraduate students identify as
female and 35% as male (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018). Over 30% of the
faculty and staff comprise underrepresented groups, with 20% African American, and 10%
Hispanic.
Organizational Performance
The U.S. higher education industry has historically measured undergraduate graduation
rates by calculating the percentage of first-time full-time students earning a bachelor’s degree
within six years. The measurement stems from the Student Right to Know and Campus Security
Act, enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1990 to reinforce accountabilities with all higher education
institutions receiving federal financial aid (Library of Congress, 2019). The concept of
measuring first-time full-time students focuses on traditional students, characterized as 18 to 24
years of age and attending a college or university full-time immediately following high school
3

(Soares, 2013). Using this measurement, KU’s graduation rate for first-time full-time students
within six years is approximately 30%, yet this group of students represents less than 20% of
KU’s enrollment. When expanding the measurement of graduation rates to include all students
within six years, KU’s graduation rate is more than 35%. This measurement time horizon,
however, does not account for part-time enrollment, which affects more than 50% of KU’s
enrollment. According to Shapiro et al. (2019), full-time students are nearly four times as likely
to complete degrees within six years as students who are attending part-time. As KU continues
its spirit of continuous improvement, KU has opportunity to improve graduation rates, equipping
more PTs with degrees to contribute to the global economy.
Related Literature
Historically, persistence literature has often focused on traditional aged college students,
with recent studies highlighting models for other student groups including nontraditional student
persistence (Donaldson & Graham, 1999; Kasworm & Pike, 1994). The U.S. Department of
Education (ED) first provided nontraditional student data in the 1986-87 National Postsecondary
Student Aid Study (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019a). As ED has defined the term
“nontraditional”, researchers have frequented its use, yet the term “non” references a deviation
from the norm (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015; Soares, 2013). Researchers have
begun utilizing “post-traditional” to identify this group of learners with forward-looking
optimism, given the value these learners provide (Postsecondary National Policy Institute, 2018;
Soares, 2013). The literature illustrates that a variety of factors affect post-traditional students’
(PTs) persistence including individual influences, environmental influences, and organizational
influences.

4

Individual Influences
The literature suggests that PTs’ individual academic preparedness, motivation, and self-
efficacy affect their persistence to graduation. As PTs are over age, PTs have often been away
from formal educational settings for extended periods of time. When PTs are lacking in pre-
college preparedness training, such as math proficiency, PTs are less likely to persist to
graduation (Luna-Torres et al., 2018; Tennant, 2014). Conversely, PTs have life experience that
can benefit their respective college performance. Some institutions have implemented Prior
Learning Assessment (PLA), a process to apply students’ knowledge acquired outside of the
formal classroom toward academic credits (Council for Adult and Experiential Learning, 2010).
Studies have illustrated that the use of PLA can help to transform post-traditional students’
experiences into degree credits and improve persistence rates (Council for Adult and Experiential
Learning, 2010). Accordingly, successful post-traditional students have greater self-efficacy, and
attribute their success to more personally controllable aspects when compared with traditional
students (Brewer & Yucedag-Ozcan, 2013; Dasinger, 2013; Erb & Drysdale, 2017).
Environmental Influences
Post-traditional students often encounter demands of time beyond school, notably work
and family obligations. Balancing these environmental influences is necessary for the success of
PTs as work demands negatively affect persistence (Bergman et al., 2014; Markle, 2015). Family
members play an important role in providing support to post-traditional students, including
childcare (Goings, 2018; Lovell, 2014; Martin et al., 2014).
University Influences
The respective universities’ faculty, staff, and structure contribute to post-traditional
student persistence. Research has shown that adult students are less likely to persist compared
5

with traditional students when they have fewer faculty interactions outside the classroom, or
challenges interacting with staff members (Sorey & Duggan, 2008; Wyatt, 2011). As ethnically
diverse students seek connections to the university, the ethnic diversity of the faculty can also
affect student persistence (Lee, 2010; Park et al., 2019). Additionally, as PTs often balance
competing priorities, researchers highlighted how course offerings that are convenient for these
time-constrained students can positively affect persistence (Davidson & Holbrook, 2014; Pontes
& Pontes, 2012).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of undergraduate student persistence is important to solve for a variety of
reasons. Foremost, solving the problem is important to meet U.S. workforce demands.
Researchers with Georgetown University indicate that 56% of jobs providing at least $35,000
annual income for workers ages 25 and older require a bachelor’s degree or higher (Carnevale et
al., 2018). With the changes in automation and globalization during recent years, the U.S.
workforce has shifted towards laborers with higher skill levels (Carnevale et al., 2018). To
address changing workforce needs, the Lumina Foundation (2019) established a goal of 60% of
Americans to attain postsecondary degrees or certificates by 2025. In 2018, 45.2% of Americans
ages 25 and older possessed a postsecondary degree (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). Individuals
that attained a bachelor’s degree or higher comprised 35% of Americans ages 25 and older (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2019). The research illustrates that the problem of post-traditional student
persistence is important to meet increased workforce demands.
Post-traditional students who persist to graduation also gain individual benefits. Students
who complete a postsecondary degree achieve higher rates of employment than students who do
not complete a degree. The U.S. Department of Labor (2020) indicates that the unemployment
6

rate for individuals with a bachelor’s degree or higher in December 2019 was 1.9%, compared
with 2.7% for individuals with some college, and 3.7% for individuals with a high school
diploma. In a comprehensive report by the U.S. Department of Education, McFarland et al.
(2019) revealed that adults between the ages of 25 and 34 have higher employment rates with
higher levels of educational attainment. Adults with a bachelor’s degree were 86% employed,
compared with 80% of adults who completed some college, and 72% of adults who completed
high school. In addition to higher rates of employment, adults with higher levels of educational
attainment have greater earnings. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (2019), adults with
a bachelor’s degree have median weekly earnings of $1248, compared to $887 for adults with an
associate’s degree, and $833 for those with some college or no degree. Therefore, the persistence
of post-traditional students to graduation benefits individual students while also meeting
workforce demands.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Several stakeholder groups benefit from improved graduation rates at KU. First, students
are the beneficiaries of college degrees, and the students’ combined outcomes are the sum of
graduation rates. Next, staff and faculty members comprise a stakeholder group, as these
colleagues are dedicated to ensuring student success. Third, college administration and Board of
Trustees also serve as key stakeholder groups and are ultimately responsible for university
outcomes and graduation rates. The fourth stakeholder group is the accrediting agencies to which
the university is accountable. These agencies include the regional accrediting agency, the
programmatic accrediting agencies, and respective state boards of higher education. Together,
the agencies function as primary stakeholders and seek the university to provide college degrees.
7

Lastly, the employers in the community serve as an important stakeholder group, as an increased
number of qualified graduates are more likely to meet workforce needs.
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
The various stakeholder groups share an aspiration to see students graduate from the
university. As the attainment of degrees is ultimately an individual student achievement, the
stakeholder groups of faculty, staff, employers, and students focus on the individual students
themselves, rather than an overarching goal. The accrediting agencies do not have a stated
expectation for graduation rates; rather, the agencies benchmark graduation rates in comparison
to other institutions.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although a complete analysis of the problem would involve all stakeholder groups, for
practical purpose this study focused on students. Specifically, the study examined the persistence
factors of former students who graduated from KU. These graduates may or may not have
attended institutions prior to KU in fulfillment of their bachelor’s degrees requirements. The
researcher chose to focus on graduates because students are central to the university’s mission
and culture. Graduation attainment is also inherently an individual achievement. Understanding
the individual and environmental factors that support PT persistence will likely help other
stakeholders to be more effective.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to examine the institutional influences, environmental
influences, personal readiness, and personal motivations that contribute to post-traditional
student persistence. The analysis begen by generating a list of possible interfering influences,
followed by a systematic examination of these influences. While a complete gap analysis would
8

have focused on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholder group of focus for this
study was former students who have graduated within the previous four years. As such, the
questions that guided this study are as follows:
1. What individual factors affect post-traditional student persistence to graduation?
2. What organizational factors affect post-traditional student persistence to graduation?
3. What environmental factors affect post-traditional student persistence to graduation?
4. What are the relationships between various factors that affect post-traditional student
persistence to graduation?
Methodological Framework
Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) serves as an effective
theoretical framework for evaluating the problem of practice. Bronfenbrenner’s model describes
how environments shape individuals’ behavior, and individuals in turn influence those respective
environments. The model comprises four nested systems surrounding the individual: the
microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, and the macrosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979;
Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2007). The microsystem represents the personal connections between the
individual and his or her surroundings. The mesosystem includes two or more of the individual’s
settings such as work and family. The exosystem comprises the linkages between two or more
settings, where at least one of those settings does not directly include the individual. The
macrosystem, considered the most complex system, encompasses the culture, values, and
overarching structures that affect the individual. Figure 1 illustrates a version of this model.

9

Figure 1
Modified Version of Ecological Model

Note. From The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design, by U.
Bronfenbrenner, 1979, Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner’s model has several direct applications for the problem of post-
traditional student persistence. First, the individual level relates to the students’ personal self-
efficacy and personal motivation. The microsystem encompasses factors that may influence adult
students’ capacity for school, such as the need to provide dependent care or sustain employment
while attending school. The microsystem also includes the relationships between students and
10

faculty, and the effect on students’ persistence. The mesosystem and exosystem may highlight
linkages between the students’ places of employment or communities that affect persistence. The
macrosystem relates to the legacy structure of U.S. higher education geared toward traditional
students ages 18 to 24, and the cultural attitudes regarding education and employment. Figure 2
displays the relationship of these dimensions.

Figure 2
Framework for Post-Traditional Student Persistence

Note. From The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design, by U.
Bronfenbrenner, 1979, Harvard University Press.
11

Definitions
The following relevant terms appear throughout this dissertation:
Andragogy: Adult learning (Knowles, 1978).
Attrition: The rate at which students do not persist or withdraw between one semester and a
subsequent semester, typically measured as a percentage (Tinto, 1993)
Full-time enrollment: Postsecondary students enrolled with a total credit load equal to or greater
than 75% of the full-time credit load at an institution (McFarland et al., 2019).
Part-time enrollment: Postsecondary students enrolled with a total credit load less than 75% of
the full-time credit load at an institution (McFarland et al., 2019).
Pedagogy: Children’s learning; the art and science of leading children (Knowles, 1978).
Persistence: The degree to which postsecondary students continue to completion of a respective
degree program (Hudson et al., 2007).
Post-traditional student (PT): Undergraduate college student age 25 years or older, known as
adult or nontraditional (Bergman et al., 2014; National Center for Education Statistics,
2015).
Prior Learning Assessment (PLA): The process implemented by colleges to evaluate the
knowledge and skills an individual has attained outside of the formal classroom and
apply towards academic credits (Council for Adult and Experiential Learning, 2010).
Retention: A measure of the rate at which students persist in their respective degree program,
generally stated as a percentage (McFarland et al., 2019).
Self-efficacy: An individual’s personal belief in their respective capabilities to perform tasks and
attain goals (Bandura, 2006).
12

Social cognitive theory: The relationships between individuals, behaviors, and the environment
(Bandura, 2012).
Traditional student: Undergraduate college student age 18 to 24 years old attending full-time
immediately following high school (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019a).
Organization of the Project
The researcher has structured this study into five chapters. Chapter One highlighted the
organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders as well as the initial concepts and terminology.
Chapter Two provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study. The
literature review includes topics of persistence theories, students’ competing priorities, students’
application of prior experience, students’ motivation, university organizational influences, and
overall conceptual framework. Chapter Three details the assumed influences as well as
methodology for the selection of participants, data collection and analysis. Chapter Four
illustrates an assessment and analysis of the data and results. Chapter Five provides solutions,
based on data and literature, for closing the perceived gaps as well as recommendations for an
implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

13

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This literature review will examine the research surrounding persistence of post-
traditional undergraduate students to graduation. The review begins with the evolution of
theories regarding undergraduate student persistence and the subsequent theories for post-
traditional students. These theories reveal several factors that influence persistence, including the
environment, knowledge, motivation, and university influences. The review will provide an in-
depth exploration of each of these influences. Following the general research literature, the
review culminates in a review of Urie Bronfenbrenner’s conceptual framework and related
theories to view the problem of practice.
Persistence Theory History
Given the legacy focus on traditional students within higher education, researchers have
chronicled persistence-related models and theories for traditional students, with fewer models
addressing specific needs of post-traditional students. While historical persistence models differ,
themes arise for post-traditional persistence models including environmental influences,
organizational influences, and students’ personal attributes including psychological elements.
Traditional Student Persistence Models
As higher education institutions initially focused on educating traditional students,
researchers largely followed suit when designing student persistence models. Researchers have
theorized that students’ pre-entry attributes, institutional experiences, and social integration
affect traditional students’ persistence. Recent models have also incorporated the importance of
environmental factors. Researchers also cite varying degrees of student motivation and
investment of energy in driving traditional student outcomes.
14

Numerous researchers have referenced Vincent Tinto’s seminal 1975 model of
institutional departure for traditional students (Berger & Braxton, 1998; Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005; Tinto, 1993). Tinto’s model is longitudinal in nature, incorporating the attributes of
students as well as the attributes of higher education institutions. The model begins with the
students’ pre-entry attributes including prior schooling and family background. These attributes
influence students’ goals and commitments, which in turn affect the institutional experiences
such as peer interactions, faculty interactions, and academic performance. Students’ perceptions
of their experiences within the institution are at the forefront, with students’ integration of social
and intellectual factors critical to student persistence. Tinto proposed that when both types of
personal integration occur, persistence improves, as the integration affects student commitment
to attain goals. Tinto illustrates how the external community surrounds the respective institution,
with a unique combination of values and behaviors that influence the institution and students
(Tinto, 1993). In a recent publication, Tinto (2012) provided an updated framework for
institutional action. The framework emphasizes four conditions for students to succeed,
including the students’ expectations, students’ engagement, the respective college’s support to
students, and the institutions’ feedback to students (Tinto, 2012).
In the 1980s, Astin (1999) posited the theory of student involvement, referring to the
amount of energy that a student invests in the academic experience. The concept relates to
vigilance, or time-on-task, emphasizing the active participation of students in the learning
process. The theory includes five constructs for college students’ involvement: a) students’
investment of physical and psychological energy, b) changes in investment over time c)
quantitative and qualitative academic measurements, d) the proportionality of involvement to
15

student learning, and e) the effectiveness of institution policy geared toward increasing student
involvement.
Astin (1999) links the theory of involvement to traditional pedagogical theories of
subject-matter, resources, and individualization. According to Astin, the subject-matter theory
suggests that learning content enables student development. Similarly, the resource theory
submits that adequate institutional resources affect student development. The individualized
theory proposes that no single approach to learning is adequate for all students. Astin suggests
that for any institution initiative to succeed, albeit content, resources, or customization, students
need to extend sufficient effort to achieve desired outcomes (Astin, 1999). Relating Astin’s
theory to the problem of PT persistence, individual student motivations and effort are important
considerations in tandem with institutional resources. However, Astin’s use of “pedagogy” rather
than “andragogy” suggests a focus on traditional learners, rather than post-traditional learners.
Extending these theories further, Milen and Berger (1997) postulated a modified
conceptual model of Tinto’s persistence theory, incorporating elements of Astin’s theory. The
modified model includes how student perceptions of the environment influenced their behaviors
and subsequent involvement in college. To evaluate the theory, the researchers conducted a
longitudinal study of first year undergraduate persistence. Like previous research, the focus of
the study exclusively measured traditional students. In the study, the researchers surveyed 718
students at a private university located in the southeastern U.S. The research findings supported
the use of integrated persistence models in which student behaviors influence academic and
social integration. Specifically, the research demonstrated that students with higher levels of peer
involvement reported increased levels of academic integration, social integration, and
institutional commitment. The study also revealed that social integration was more influential in
16

predicting student persistence than academic integration (Milen & Berger, 1997). Researchers
later proposed an elaboration to Tinto’s theory to include organizational attributes as a source of
social integration (Berger & Braxton, 1998).
Ernest Pascarella developed a general causal model for assessing traditional student
outcomes, introduced in 1985 (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). The model suggests that student
growth is a product of direct and indirect effects of five sets of variables: a) students’ background
and precollege traits, b) structural and organizational characteristics of institutions, c) college
environment, d) students’ frequency and content of interactions with faculty and peers, and e)
quality of student effort. Pascarella’s model includes many of the variables in Tinto’s model, yet
with greater emphasis on the role of institutions’ structure and environment.
These legacy models illustrate how various elements affect traditional students’
persistence. The factors include students’ characteristics, institutions’ influences, and
environmental influences. Research demonstrates that social integration is a factor in predicting
student persistence for traditional students (Milen & Berger, 1997). Subsequent models
demonstrate some similarities and differences when evaluating post-traditional persistence.
Post-Traditional Student Persistence Models
Post-traditional persistence theories have expanded upon traditional student theories,
incorporating environmental influences. The influences integrate dimensions such as family and
employment, underscoring the importance of these variables for PTs. In contrast to the theories
regarding traditional students’ persistence, researchers have postulated that social integration
issues have indirect effects on PT persistence.
Bean and Metzner (1985) were among the first to introduce a conceptual model to
address post-traditional student attrition. As PTs are often supporting families of their own, PTs
17

are often balancing employment and family demands that affect persistence (Bergman et al.,
2014; Hunter, 2017). Building on previous models of traditional student attrition, including
Tinto, the researchers posited that PTs are more affected by the external environmental than by
social integration issues which more readily affect traditional students. The model encompasses
four groups of variables: a) environmental, b) academic, c) psychological, and d) background
characteristics. Environmental variables include employment, family, and financial obligations.
Academic variables encompass study habits and course availability. Psychological variables
include goal commitment, stress management. Background variables include age, enrollment
status, ethnicity, gender, and high school performance. Webb (1989) conducted a study to test a
similar persistence model for community college students, referencing Bean and Metzner’s
model given that many PTs attend community colleges. Webb analyzed data of 36,603 students
from three campuses in the Los Angeles Community College district. Findings revealed that the
external environment, goal commitment, and academic integration were primary drivers of
student persistence, aligning with Bean and Metzner’s model. Social integration also had an
indirect effect on persistence. However, the study showed that background characteristics were
secondary drivers of persistence, differing from Bean and Metzner’s model (Webb, 1989).
Extending PT persistence theory, Donaldson and Graham (1999) proposed a framework
titled the Model of College Outcomes for Adult Students. The model incorporates the learner’s
history over time, as well as factors beyond college environment that affect outcomes. The model
is comprised of six components: a) the students’ prior experience and personal biographies, b)
psychosocial and value orientations, c) adult cognition, d) connecting classroom elements such
as faculty, e) life-world environment including work and family, and f) college outcomes. This
model illustrates the need for PTs to utilize their prior life experience, relate to faculty, and
18

balance competing priorities to succeed in school. Subsequent studies have demonstrated the
importance of balancing priorities, such as employment and family support, for students to
persist in school (Lovell, 2014; Markle, 2015). Samuels et al. (2011) validated Donaldson and
Graham’s model through a qualitative study of 15 post-traditional students at a public university.
The study confirmed the influences of all six components in the model, and that social
integration was not important for PT persistence. The researchers found additional influences
including students’ strong striving characteristics, and the motivation to attend college to serve as
role models for their children.
In sum, researchers have developed persistence models for traditional students that are
somewhat applicable to post-traditional students, with post-traditional models illustrating greater
emphasis on defining characteristics. These elements include environmental influences, students’
traits and psychological factors, coupled with university organizational influences. Reviewing
these varying influences in detail is important to understanding the problem of practice.
Environmental Focused Literature
Post-traditional students face environmental challenges on their path to graduation. The
higher education industry has had a long-standing cultural focus on traditional students, often
considering PTs outside the norm (Soares, 2013). As PTs are often employed while attending
school, students face balancing their school environment with work demands. PTs are often in
need of support systems, largely provided by their respective families. Conversely, students may
need to support their families, particularly dependent children, resulting in further constraints
that hinder students’ persistence.

19

Traditional Student Culture
Historically, the environment surrounding U.S. higher education has focused on
traditional students. In the late 19
th
century, the U.S. evolved as an industrialized society,
resulting in the founding of numerous higher education institutions (Goldin & Katz, 1999).
Between the formative higher education years 1890 and 1920, less than 10% of individuals
between 18 and 21 years of age attended college in the U.S. (Goldin & Katz, 1999). This number
increased progressively after World War II (Goldin & Katz, 1999). Notably, researchers during
this time measured traditional students 18 to 21 years of age, as individuals often selected an
occupation for life. In the latter 20
th
century, the National Center for Education Statistics began
providing data specific to nontraditional students, described as “older than typical” (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2020). In 1970, 27.8% of the students enrolled in postsecondary
institutions were ages 25 and older, totaling 2.3 million students (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2017). This number grew steadily through 2010 to over 8 million students or 42.3% of
the total enrollment. Since 2010, the percentage has slightly declined to 39.9% in 2017
representing 7.8 million students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017).
Despite the large population of post-traditional students, the U.S. higher education
industry has a legacy culture of measurements and nomenclature focused on traditional students.
The U.S. Congress enacted the Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act in 1990 to
reinforce accountabilities with all higher education institutions receiving federal financial aid
(Library of Congress, 2019). The Act requires institutions to measure graduation rates within six
years for first-time students attending full-time (Library of Congress, 2019). The time horizon
for graduating within six years does not incorporate students attending part-time, yet many PTs
attend part-time. According to McFarland et al. (2019), in the fall of 2017, more than 6.4 million
20

U.S. undergraduate students attended part-time, comprising 38% of the total U.S. undergraduate
enrollment (McFarland et al., 2019). The U.S. Department of Education projects the number of
part-time students to increase by 5% to 6.7 million students in 2028 (McFarland et al., 2019). In
addition to excluding part-time students from the graduation rate measurement, the calculation
also does not measure students who are re-enrolling in college or transferring between
institutions, as the measurement focuses on first-time enrollees. Thus, the primary accountability
measurement for graduation rates excludes many PTs, perpetuating the industry focus on
traditional students.
The undergraduate student nomenclature favors traditional students, as the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2019a) propagates the term “nontraditional” for students
other than the perceived norm of 18 to 24 years of age attending full-time. Soares (2013)
postulates that research terms such as nontraditional have categorized these students as “an
aberration in the demand for higher education services. This institution-centric view creates a
blind spot for postsecondary leaders and policymakers when considering post-traditional learners
and the broader market for postsecondary education and training in the 21
st
century” (p. 2).
This research demonstrates the lack of focus on post-traditional students in
accountabilities, measurements, and nomenclature within the higher education industry. As
shown in the Framework for Post-Traditional Student Persistence in Figure 2, the cultural focus
on traditional students is part of the macro environment surrounding the individual student.
Understanding other environmental impacts upon these unique students is important to support
PTs’ degree attainment. These impacts include the students’ employment and family.

21

Students’ Employment
As PTs are largely financially independent students, many of whom with dependents of
their own, the students need to sustain employment to address financial needs. PTs often face
challenges balancing their time as they meet the demands of school and work, which affects
students’ persistence to graduation. Bergman et al. (2014) conducted a study of 437 PTs enrolled
in two undergraduate programs between 2004 and 2011. The study revealed that students who
take three credits or fewer persist at lower rates than their peers who attend at more than three
credits. In the study, 349 students were working 31 or more hours per week. As students
experienced increasing conflicts between work and school, the odds of persisting declined by
approximately 78%. Similarly, Markle (2015) found that post-traditional female students
attending full-time were 58.2% less likely to persist than attending part-time, as women were
more likely to reduce their course load or work hours to remain in school. Markle used
quantitative and qualitative data over three years to evaluate the persistence of 494 nontraditional
students at a public university, where students had an attrition rate of 21% in the first year, 11%
in the second year, and 9% in the third year. In a qualitative study, Samuels et al. (2011) found
that for 93% of the adult students surveyed, attending school and work were the only activities
beyond family responsibilities. The researchers also found that family support was critical to
persistence for those with young children. In sum, employment demands affect PTs’ persistence
to graduation. Consequently, PTs’ support systems are necessary to success in school.
Students’ Family
As PTs are older in age, the students often have families of their own. The students’
families may provide valuable support as the students pursue college degrees. However, as many
22

PTs have dependent children, PTs may also have family obligations that place constraints on
degree attainment.
Family Support
Given PTs’ work demands, many students value additional support to balance school
activities. Post-traditional students’ network of family and friends contribute positively to
students’ persistence. Plageman and Sabina (2010) conducted a quantitative study of 54
undergraduate students ages 25 and older at a small public college. Of the participants, 62% were
working 40 or more hours per week. The study revealed that the students’ current family
members’ emotional support, financial support, as well as assistance with household chores
positively affected adult women’s persistence. The current family members’ importance on
academic achievement and future goals also related to persistence (Plageman & Sabina, 2010).
Similarly, Xuereb (2014) facilitated a study at an English university encompassing 176
undergraduate students, 68 of which were nontraditional ages 22 to 52. Participants indicated
that family and friends were the most common sources of support. Students cited their reasons to
doubt continuing their education included managing competing priorities and personal
difficulties. Likewise, Martin et al. (2014) conducted a qualitative study of 17 students that
graduated from a community college located in the Southeastern U.S., where approximately half
of the total enrollment is post-traditional. In the study, the majority of participants worked one or
more jobs while enrolled in school. Family and friends provided support and encouragement that
motivated successful students. The study showed that students facilitated support systems with
family members or friends to assist with areas such as childcare and financial needs (Martin et
al., 2014).
23

Post-traditional students often balance competing priorities, and consequently need
additional assistance to persist in school. Post-traditional students with external support from
family or friends experience favorable outcomes in their path to degree attainment. Conversely,
students’ family demands may also place constraints that inhibit persistence.
Family Constraints
Students with dependent children face additional demands of time conflicting with
school. When adult students have dependent children and are lacking in childcare support, family
constraints hinder students from attaining college degrees.
Lovell (2014) facilitated a quantitative study involving 78 undergraduate students, all
with dependent children, at a college in the Rocky Mountain region. The study showed that adult
students with children ages infant through 5 years old were at greater risk to withdraw from
college when compared with parents with children ages six and older. The students with younger
children demonstrated dwindled motivation, classroom experiences, and goal attainment. The
researchers posited that parents with younger children face increased challenges in balancing
parenting and academics due to time intensive care needed for younger children. Student-parents
who were pursuing four-year degrees had lower levels of motivation than those pursuing two-
year degrees.
Additional studies reveal similar findings regarding family constraints. Hunter-Johnson
(2017) conducted a qualitative study of 100 nontraditional students ages 25 and older attending
college in the Bahamas. Roughly 48% of participants identified barriers associated with family
as critical factors inhibiting them from higher education, including childcare responsibilities and
barriers with spouses or significant others. Goings (2018) facilitated a qualitative study of 13
African American males who had previously withdrawn from various colleges in the U.S. and
24

later successfully completed school as adult students. Participants indicated how they relied on
family for support. The participants also cited the need for childcare while enrolled in school.
The environment surrounding PTs affects persistence to graduation. The higher education
community has historically focused on traditional students, and legislation requires institutions to
measure graduation rates with this population in mind. The U.S. Department of Education
utilizes the term “nontraditional” to characterize students other than first-time full-time enrollees
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2019a). As PTs by definition are older in age and
largely financially independent, PTs often need to sustain employment while attending school.
PTs may struggle to balance work demands with school, and largely rely on family members for
assistance to balance competing priorities. Post-traditional students without support systems for
dependent childcare are less likely to persist to graduation (Lovell, 2014). While PTs face
environmental obstacles on their path to graduation, PTs extensive life experience in
employment and parenting can also benefit their college experience.
Knowledge Focused Literature
As time has passed since many PTs attended formal schooling, PTs may not have the
formal academic preparedness needed to succeed in college, adversely affecting the students’
persistence. However, these students often have gained life experience that can serve as valuable
knowledge in the academic arena. While PTs may informally apply this life experience to their
schooling, some higher education institutions have formally implemented Prior Learning
Assessments (PLA) to apply this knowledge into course credits.
Application of Prior Experience
To translate life experience into postsecondary credits, higher education institutions can
incorporate PLA. PLA can occur in a variety of forms: a) student portfolios, b) portfolio
25

assessments, c) evaluation of corporate and military training by the American Council on
Education (ACE), d) standardized exams including the College Level Examination Program
(CLEP), and e) customized exams designed to assess general disciplinary knowledge and skills
(Council for Adult and Experiential Learning, 2010). By completing a PLA, students can reduce
the number of courses needed, saving between 2.5 and 10.1 months in degree completion
(CAEL, 2010). As PTs face time constraints with work and family needs, saving time helps PTs
to persist.
PTs with a PLA persist at higher rates compared with students who do not have a PLA.
The Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL, 2010) found that 43% of adult students
with PLA earned a bachelor’s degree, compared to 15% of students without a PLA. The study
examined over 62,000 students over age 25 representing 48 colleges and universities, 46 of
which were in the U.S. The study followed the students’ academic progress over seven years
beginning in 2001-2002. In a subsequent study by researchers with the Council for Adult and
Experiential Learning (CAEL), 52% of undergraduate adult learners with PLA attained a
bachelor’s degree versus 35% of adult learners with no PLA credits (Klein-Collins et al., 2020).
The study encompassed more than 232,000 adult learners across 69 universities between 2011
and 2018 (Klein-Collins et al., 2020). In another study of more than 20,000 adult learners at four
community colleges, Hayward and Williams (2015) found that adult students with a PLA had a
28.4% graduation rate compared with 11.8% for those without a PLA. Similarly, Rust and Ikard
(2016) facilitated a study at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) and compared 164 adult
students enrolled in a PLA portfolio course with 2,327 adult students not enrolled in a PLA
course. The research revealed that for the 164 students that enrolled in a PLA portfolio course,
64% graduated or were continuing enrollment, comparable to the non-PLA graduation rate of
26

64.5% for the same time period. However, 81.7% of PLA students attended school part-time,
compared with 34.5% of non-PLA students, demonstrating the impact of PLA in helping
students attain degrees within a given timeframe (Rust & Ikard, 2016).
McKay et al. (2017) facilitated a comprehensive study of PLA at 13 community colleges
in the Colorado Community College System (CCCS). The researchers examined 299,377
academic profiles spanning an eight-year period. The study showed that 40.1% of students who
earned PLA credit earned a postsecondary degree, compared with only 11.73% of non-PLA
students. The researchers also identified that despite the strong persistence outcomes of PLA, the
implementation of PLA was minimal: only 1.7% of students used a PLA. The study revealed that
the community colleges had varying degrees of PLA implementation including preferred PLA
methods, policies, and applications of PLA credit. Additionally, the researchers observed
questionable data inputs that some college personnel misunderstood (McKay et al., 2017). This
study highlights the need for clear expectations to enable higher education institutions’ PLA
implementation. PLA provides a bridge between PTs’ life experience and postsecondary
education, supporting persistence to graduation. PLA can save PTs time by requiring less
courses, providing PTs more time for work and family. Despite having robust life experiences
that are valuable in the college environment, PTs may not have received relevant academic
preparation to meet the rigors of college.
Academic Preparedness
PTs are knowledgeable in life experiences yet may be lacking in academic knowledge
needed to prepare them for college. When students are lacking in pre-college preparedness
training, such as math proficiency, the students are often less likely to persist to graduation.
27

In a quantitative study, Tennant (2014) compared the transcripts of 118 adult students
ages 25 and older enrolled at a public university with 3,747 traditional students. The PTs had
lower high school GPAs and lower scores on college admission exams than traditional students.
The research revealed that the greater the incoming math proficiency, the greater the graduation
rate for post-traditional students. Of the 118 adult students, 32 graduated, yielding a 27.1%
graduation rate. This rate was less than half of the traditional student graduation rate of 57.4%.
Additionally, since many adult students attended part-time, these 32 students graduated in an
average of 68.38 months, compared with traditional students who graduated in an average 54.66
months.
Additional research demonstrates that academic preparation prior to college affects
student persistence. Francois (2014) facilitated a study with 29 colleges in the in the Tampa Bay
metropolitan area. The study included 144 associate degree students, and 55 bachelor’s degree
students, all over age 25. The research revealed that educational preparation was one of the
primary motivational orientations for adult students. Likewise, Luna-Torres et al. (2018)
facilitated a quantitative study at a large urban community college in Texas. The researchers
evaluated enrollment outcomes of 5,878 students, where 1,259 were age 25 or older. The results
revealed that pre-college academic preparation affected student persistence. Additionally, when
the institution referred students for developmental courses, the students were less likely to
graduate or transfer to another institution (Luna-Torres et al., 2018).
The research demonstrates that academic preparation prior to college affects students’
path to graduation. Academic preparation surfaces in a variety of forms including math
proficiency and advanced placement classes. As PTs are often returning to college after a few
years, PTs may need additional transition courses to bridge to the formal classroom. The
28

implementation of PLA is one method to bridge this divide, enabling PTs to apply their life
experience to degree credits. As students develop their knowledge, motivation builds, further
contributing to student success.
Motivation Focused Literature
Post-traditional students are often intrinsically motivated to return to school. This
intrinsic motivation contributes favorably to persistence (Perry & Hamm, 2017). While many of
these students have an earnest desire to succeed, the students may also have doubts about their
abilities, having been away from formal education settings. As a result, post-traditional students’
lack of self-efficacy may adversely affect degree attainment.
Student Success Attributions
For college students, attributing school success to internal, controllable factors as
opposed to external factors results in favorable for student outcomes (Perry & Hamm, 2017).
Research demonstrates that PTs are often more intrinsically motivated for goal attainment when
compared with traditional students. In a quantitative study with 139 undergraduate students (72
post-traditional and 67 traditional) at a small Southeastern college, Warden and Myers (2017)
found that PTs demonstrated substantially higher intrinsic motivation than did traditional
students. Dasinger (2013) facilitated a study encompassing 331 undergraduate students enrolled
in 24 sections of an intermediate algebra course at a southeastern community college. Findings
showed that moderately and highly nontraditional students attributed their high grades to more
personally controllable aspects and from more externally uncontrollable aspects than did
traditional and minimally nontraditional students.
Maintaining a goal-focused mindset affects PT persistence to graduation. Erb and
Drysdale (2017) facilitated a study of 99 undergraduate students at a Canadian university, 13 of
29

which were over age 25. The research revealed that students ages 21 or over were less
extrinsically goal oriented than traditional aged students, with adult females having the greatest
intrinsic motivation. The study cited female students as perceiving their return to education as
transformative and for professional growth. Likewise, Bohl et al. (2017) conducted a qualitative
study of nine undergraduate students ages 25 or older attending full-time at a private Catholic
university in the southern U.S. region. The research identified benefits of having a goal-focused
mindset for PTs.
Intrinsic motivation is a factor in helping PTs to achieve goals, attributing success to
controllable factors. Maintaining a goal mindset also benefits PTs. Similarly, the students’ belief
in their ability to succeed affects students’ persistence.
Student Self-Efficacy
As post-traditional learners are often returning to education after many years away from
the academic setting, PTs may face doubts regarding their ability to succeed. Post-traditional
students’ self-efficacy can affect their path to graduation. Specifically, research reveals that self-
efficacy can affect PTs’ anxiety, grade point averages, satisfaction, and ultimately persistence.
Self-efficacy can affect post-traditional students to a greater degree than traditional
students. Jameson and Fusco (2014) examined 226 undergraduate students, 60 traditional and
166 post-traditional, at a public university. The study revealed that PTs scored significantly
lower in math self-efficacy than traditional students. The researchers found that students
experienced decreasing self-efficacy and increasing anxiety the longer time passed since the
participant’s last math class. Similarly, Johnson et al. (2016) conducted a quantitative study of 88
traditional and 51 PTs at a large public urban university in the Midwestern U.S. region. Findings
demonstrated that PTs’ self-efficacy and the belief that peers cared about personal learning
30

predicted academic achievement and grade point averages greater than did traditional students.
Additional studies reveal the importance of self-efficacy for post-traditional students. Warden
and Myers (2017) discovered that PTs’ self-efficacy and motivation closely correlated to the
students’ grade point averages. Similarly, van Rhijn and Lero (2014) conducted a survey of 398
student parents, all over age 25, enrolled at four Canadian universities. Findings showed that
delaying postsecondary enrollment after an extended period of absence from education
negatively affected student parents’ self-efficacy to succeed in school. Student parents with
higher self-efficacy reported feeling more satisfied with school.
As many PTs have delayed post-secondary enrollment, building their belief in their
capabilities is necessary for success. Brewer and Yucedag-Ozcan (2013) evaluated the effects of
an online college orientation course in increasing students’ self-efficacy. The quantitative study
included 512 students, 82% of which were over 25 years of age. Findings revealed that students’
self-efficacy scores significantly improved after taking the orientation course. The study also
showed that self-efficacy significantly affected to students’ reenrollment decisions. The course
topics that were the highest predictors of enrollment in future classes included characteristics of
leadership, learning about personal learning styles, and applying reading comprehension
techniques.
In sum, post-traditional students’ belief in their ability to succeed affects their persistence
to graduation. Having been away from the educational setting, PTs are often goal-focused and
intrinsically motivated to attend college, contributing favorably to persistence (Perry & Hamm,
2017). However, the time away from formal education can also be a source of anxiety,
negatively affecting persistence. As illustrated in the Framework for Post-Traditional Student
Persistence in Figure 2, the individual’s students’ motivation and knowledge are central to
31

student persistence. Faculty and staff help to develop self-efficacy in PTs through their
interactions with students.
Organizational Focused Literature
Higher education institutions can positively contribute to post-traditional students’
persistence in a variety of ways. Foremost, the interactions between students and faculty and
staff members affect student outcomes, as the faculty and staff foster relationships. For many
ethnically diverse students, having faculty and staff members with whom they can relate is
particularly important. The sum of these interactions contributes to the overall campus culture,
providing a feeling of connectedness that envelops the student experience. Additionally, the
institution’s focus on providing convenient services and course offerings geared specifically
toward post-traditional students also leads to student success.
Faculty and Staff Interactions
Higher education institutions’ faculty and staff members are central in shaping student
outcomes, fostering meaningful relationships with students. Consequently, post-traditional
students persist at lower rates when they perceive less connectivity to the university faculty or
staff members. Sorey and Duggan (2008) compared persistence factors of 350 post-traditional
students with 350 traditional students at an ethnically diverse community college. In the study,
the PTs persisted at a rate of 80% to the next semester compared with 85% for traditional
students. The researchers posited that PTs were less likely to persist due to lower levels of
interactions with faculty. Likewise, Bergman et al. (2014) found that PTs persisted at lower rates
when they did not have a responsive advisor and/or faculty member. The authors’ study involved
437 nontraditional students in two undergraduate programs between 2004 and 2011. Howley et
al. (2013) conducted a case study of 11 adult students at a community college in North Carolina.
32

All participants cited that the responsiveness of faculty and staff made staying in school easier
and contributed positively to their retention. Bohl et al. (2017) also posited that support from
faculty was a major factor of PT success in school. Participants indicated that classroom
challenges were easier when students had approachable professors.
In addition to the faculty, the institutions’ staff affects post-traditional students on their
path to graduation. In a qualitative study at the University of Memphis, Wyatt (2011) found that
PTs had lower levels of engagement when they felt detached or had difficulty dealing with staff
members. Another study by Capps (2012) revealed that PTs who withdrew from college
prematurely indicated that one of the reasons was a result of advisors that did not demonstrate
care or responsiveness. The study encompassed 28 adult students, 12 of whom persisted for three
consecutive semesters at Salt Lake Community College (SLCC).
The research demonstrates that faculty and staff positively affect the persistence of post-
traditional students. As PTs balance competing priorities, faculty and staff members provide
needed support and connections for students. Accordingly, having diverse faculty with whom
ethnically diverse students can relate also affects persistence.
Faculty Diversity
Research shows that facilitating feelings of connection and belonging can positively
affect students, particularly marginalized students (Walton & Brady, 2017). The ethnic diversity
of faculty within an institution provides relationship connections for ethnically diverse students.
When higher education institutions are lacking in the diversity of faculty members, the
institutions negatively affect underrepresented students’ experiences and retention. In a
qualitative study, Lee (2010) evaluated 109 students’ perceptions of faculty diversity. The
researcher conducted the study at a university department where less than 10% of the faculty
33

represented minority ethnic groups. Findings showed that minority students perceived a lack of
faculty members with whom they could relate, and that minority students were likely less
comfortable working with White faculty. Minority students also indicated that faculty diversity
contributed positively to the students’ educational experiences. Likewise, Park et al. (2019)
facilitated a study of 562 STEM undergraduates through the National Longitudinal Survey of
Freshmen at 27 U.S. universities. In the study, 138 students were Black, and 129 students were
Latino. When compared with White and Asian American students, Black and Latino students felt
more uncomfortable with professors and as a result were more likely to withdraw from their
respective programs. Black students reported that faculty made them feel uncomfortable or
discriminated against because of their race more than five times greater than White students did.
Consequently, Black students had the lowest retention rate of 51.4% when compared with other
ethnicities (Park et al., 2019). In another quantitative study, Stout et al. (2018) analyzed faculty
diversity among 63 public U.S. degree-granting institutions. The researchers demonstrated that
higher racial variances among faculty correlated to increased graduation rates for
underrepresented minority students.
Faculty diversity is an important factor in affecting student persistence, as faculty
establish direct relationships with students. Faculty members help to foster students’ sense of
belonging, creating a greater sense of connection. In addition to connectedness with faculty,
minority undergraduate students’ connectedness with the overall campus contributes to retention.
Campus Connectedness
The culture of a campus or university setting surrounds the academic experience through
personal interactions, policies, and practices. The degree to which higher education institutions
foster connectedness with underrepresented students can affect student persistence. Waller et al.
34

(2011) conducted a focus group study of 12 African American undergraduate and graduate
students at a predominantly White institution based in the southeastern U.S. The researchers
found that the students did not feel socially connected to the University. The researchers also
postulated that the students’ lack of connectedness negatively affected persistence, as three
students in the study withdrew prematurely from their programs after the study concluded.
Likewise, Murphy and Zirkel (2015) evaluated 338 students at a large urban public university in
the Midwestern U.S. The study revealed that the less underrepresented students comprised a
respective degree program, the less other underrepresented students anticipated belonging in the
area of study (Murphy & Zirkel, 2015). Similarly, Chang et al. (2014) facilitated a longitudinal
study across 217 institutions encompassing 3,670 undergraduate STEM students, 1,634 of whom
were Latino, African American, or Native American. The underrepresented students persisted at
a rate of 58.4% to their fourth year of college, compared with 63.5% of White students and
73.5% of Asian American students. The researchers found that college experiences affected
persistence, and underrepresented student involvement in clubs such as the National Society of
Black Engineers helped provide needed social support (Chang et al., 2014). In another study,
Arbona et al. (2018) evaluated the college experience of 426 Hispanic female undergraduate
students at an urban university in the Southwestern U.S. The research demonstrated that minority
status stress associated with the students’ campus connectedness positively predicted depression
and in turn predicated students’ persistence intentions. The degree to which students feel
connected to their respective university affects persistence. Accordingly, the university’s
structure and practices contribute to students’ accessibility. When PTs have accessible course
options, PTs’ persistence is positively affected.

35

Course Scheduling and Availability
As higher education institutions plan course delivery options, the convenience of these
options is a relevant student consideration. Post-traditional students are particularly in need of
convenient course options to support persistence given their numerous demands for work and
family. As illustrated in Capps’ (2012) qualitative study, students adjusted their schedules to
accommodate campus class times, rather than the institution accommodating student needs.
Davidson and Holbrook (2014) evaluated student persistence during a seven-year period for 285
adult undergraduate students, with 49% ages 21 through 24 and 51% aged 25 and older. When
measuring persistence from fall to spring, students who did not enroll in any online classes (141
students) persisted the least at 79.4%. Of the 89 students who enrolled in one online class, 82%
persisted to the following semester. Students taking two or more online classes demonstrated the
highest persistence at 92% or higher. The researchers highlighted the importance of online class
offerings in providing access for adult students (Davidson & Holbrook, 2014). Another study
revealed similar results in the convenience of distance education to support PTs. Pontes and
Pontes (2012) evaluated 113,500 undergraduates across roughly 1,400 U.S. colleges. Findings
showed that post-traditional students were substantially more likely to enroll in distance
education classes than traditional students. Enrollment gaps, defined as part year enrollment,
were substantially greater for PTs enrolled part-time than full-time. Enrollment in distance
education significantly reduced the probability of an enrollment gap.
This research demonstrates that organizational factors can affect PT persistence. Many
PTs need a sense of belonging and connectedness to the university. The faculty and staff play an
important role in fostering connectedness, as faculty and staff interactions with students affect
persistence. These interactions are particularly important for ethnically diverse students. In
36

addition to a sense of connectedness, PTs are in need of convenient course options to balance
competing priorities. These organizational elements are part of the environment that surrounds
individual students, illustrated in the Framework for Post-Traditional Student Persistence in
Figure 2.
These institutional elements combine with the students’ individual motivation,
knowledge, and the overarching environment to affect student persistence. The legacy culture in
higher education has focused on traditional students, and researchers formed initial persistence
theory with this view. As PTs have become more prevalent in U.S. institutions, researchers have
developed subsequent persistence theories that incorporate environmental influences such as the
students’ employment and family. Because PTs often balance competing priorities, PTs’ time is
paramount. Opportunities to save time, such as PLA and convenient course options, positively
affect PT persistence. PTs may be lacking in formal academic readiness yet have valuable life
experiences to contribute to the classroom. Faculty and staff help build students’ self-efficacy,
leading to connectedness and improved student outcomes. Considering all these factors in
concert, Urie Bronfenbrenner’s model (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2007) provides a conceptual
framework to analyze the problem of practice.
Urie Bronfenbrenner Conceptual Framework
Urie Bronfenbrenner defines the ecology of human development as the mutual
relationship between an active, growing individual and the changing elements of the immediate
settings in which the person lives (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The interaction is reciprocal, two-
directional in nature. Bronfenbrenner posits that human development does not occur in a vacuum
but is entrenched within a specific environmental context (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Bronfenbrenner (1979) describes the ecological environment is a series of concentric structures,
37

nested within one another, beginning with the individual surrounded by the microsystem,
mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. The microsystem represents the activities, roles, and
interpersonal relations experienced by the individual in a specific setting. Bronfenbrenner
underscores the importance of the word “experienced”, as the individual’s perceptions are
paramount. The mesosystem involves the interrelations of two or more of the individual’s
settings such as work and family. Bronfenbrenner describes the mesosystem as a system of
microsystems, created when an individual enters a new setting. The exosystem comprises the
connections between two or more settings, where at least one of those settings does not directly
include the individual as an active participant, yet the activities in the setting affect the
individual. Enveloping these layers is the macrosystem, which encompasses the consistencies in
culture, values, and overarching structures that affect the individual in each society
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Bronfenbrenner describes the element of time permeating these
structures to illustrate how people change in relation to the environment.
In the years following the initial ecological model, Bronfenbrenner evolved the model
referred to as the bioecological model (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2007; Walls, 2016). In the
bioecological model, Bronfenbrenner emphasizes the individual’s proximal processes and
subsequent interactions with the environment over time (Tudge et al., 2009; Walls, 2016). The
bioecological model highlights four concepts of process, person, context, and time, abbreviated
as PPCT (Tudge et al., 2009). Bronfenbrenner later refers to the element of time as the
chronosystem (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2007).
Bronfenbrenner’s model provides a helpful lens to view the problem of post-traditional
student persistence. Viewing the individual level at the center of Bronfenbrenner’s model,
students’ knowledge and academic preparedness affects PT persistence (Tennant, 2014). In
38

addition, students’ personal motivations including self-efficacy and success attributions affect
degree attainment (Brewer & Yucedag-Ozcan, 2013; Warden & Myers, 2017). Extending the
view to the microsystem, the microsystem includes the relationships between individuals and
others in each setting. Research demonstrates that the relationships between individual students
with staff and faculty affect student persistence (Bergman et al., 2014; Sorey & Duggan, 2008).
Similarly, the students’ family also affects persistence, either positively or negatively depending
on support and constraints (Goings, 2018; Lovell, 2014; Plageman & Sabina, 2010). Examining
the mesosystem, the institutions’ structure including course availability is also important in
supporting PTs, given PTs’ competing priorities. Lastly, the U.S. cultural norms for traditional-
aged students envelops the higher education industry as the macrosystem. Figure 2 illustrates
how Bronfenbrenner’s model relates to the Framework for Post-Traditional Student Persistence.
A closer examination of additional theories affecting the individual as well as the related
microsystems will provide further insights into the problem of practice.
Individual Student Frameworks
The individual’s knowledge and motivation are central to the problem of PT persistence.
Each of these domains involves respective theories for evaluation. The knowledge frameworks
include learning taxonomy and cognitive load theory, while the motivation frameworks include
attribution theory, self-efficacy theory, culminating in social cognitive theory.
Knowledge Frameworks
Post-traditional students have life experience that may translate into the college
classroom. Conversely, PTs may also be lacking in formal academic preparedness, resulting in
challenges to succeed in college (Francois, 2014; Tennant, 2014). Regardless of PT’s preparation
prior to college, learning needs to occur throughout the college journey for post-traditional
39

students to persist to graduation. Understanding how learning occurs is essential for student
success.
Benjamin Bloom and associates designed the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives in
1956 to help classify educational goals and objectives in a hierarchical framework (Krathwohl,
2002). This framework included six dimensions in the cognitive domain including knowledge,
comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Krathwohl, 2002). Krathwohl
(2002) evolved the taxonomy to two dimensions of knowledge and cognitive processes. The
knowledge dimension incorporates factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge that students must know within a discipline in order to support learning.
Applying this taxonomy to view the problem of practice, PTs are returning to school, and
may not have recalled or been exposed to comprehension skills or metacognitive strategies
needed for college. Capps (2012) observed that PTs who enrolled into mandatory developmental
reading courses were able to develop a college mindset and positive connections to the university
setting. Similarly, Brewer and Yucedag-Ozcan (2013) found that PTs benefitted from taking a
college orientation course. By helping PTs to bridge the divide between their life experience and
the formal college setting, institutions can support the attainment of classroom knowledge and
ultimate degree attainment.
Another framework relevant to the processing of knowledge is cognitive load theory
(CLT). Specifically, CLT addresses the interaction between information and cognitive
architecture, and the resulting effect on instruction (Paas et al., 2003). This interaction includes
the way in which an instructor presents information to students, as well as the students’ learning
activities (Paas et al., 2003). According to the limited capacity principle, students process a small
amount of material in either verbal or visual channels at any given time (Mayer, 2011). An
40

individual’s working memory can typically manage no more than three interacting elements
(Mayer, 2011). When an instructor presents information in a manner that requires excess load,
also described as extraneous cognitive load, instructors can inadvertently impede students’
learning (Paas et al., 2003). Relating CLT to the problem of PT persistence, PTs are often
working full-time or caring for dependent children. These students are mentally processing
additional items outside of school. Thus, these competing priorities may affect the PT’s cognitive
load for learning outcomes and subsequent degree attainment.
In sum, the individual’s prior knowledge and readiness for college affects persistence.
Additionally, post-traditional students are balancing competing priorities that could affect
cognitive load to absorb and retain new knowledge in the classroom, leading to feeling
overwhelmed. Consequently, understanding the theories of motivation is also relevant to the
problem of student persistence.
Motivation Frameworks
Weiner’s attribution theory of emotion and motivation is relevant to the problem of
degree attainment. In this theory, Weiner describes how individuals attribute success or failure to
the dimensions of causality, stability, and controllability (Perry & Hamm, 2017). When students
attribute failure to internal, controllable causes, expectations about future performance will be
positive as students will work harder and persist (Perry & Hamm, 2017). As the research
demonstrates, internally controllable factors motivate PTs to a greater degree when compared
with traditional students (Dasinger, 2013; Warden & Myers, 2017). Thus, attribution theory
serves as a helpful structure to apply to PT persistence.
Another important theory to consider when evaluating post-traditional persistence is self-
efficacy theory. This theory encompasses individual’s personal beliefs in their respective
41

capabilities to perform tasks and attain goals (Bandura, 2006). Self-efficacy theory is relevant to
the problem of practice because self-efficacy can affect individuals’ motivation to complete a
task (Bandura, 2012). The greater the belief people have in their capabilities, the higher the goals
they determine for themselves and the greater their ultimate commitment to achieve those goals
(Bandura, 2012). Many PTs are returning to school after extended time, so the students’ belief in
their capabilities is particularly relevant to persistence. The motivational elements of self-
efficacy and attribution, coupled with the knowledge elements of academic readiness and prior
life experience, affect student persistence. Table 1 provides a summary of how these individual
influences relate to the various levels within Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model and the
Framework for Post-Traditional Student Persistence.

Table 1
Individual Influences
Influence Ecological model placement
PTs need knowledge skills for the rigors of
college
Individual
PTs need metacognition of their skills in math
and reading

Individual
PTs’ success attributions affect their
outcomes in school.

Individual
PTs’ self-efficacy affects their persistence in
school.

Individual

42

Extending self-efficacy theory further is the notion of social cognitive theory. Social
cognitive theory involves the relationships between individuals, behaviors, and the environment
(Bandura, 2012). Within this triadic model, individuals’ self-efficacy, beliefs, and mental
processes have reciprocity with behaviors, as well as the culture in which individuals are
immersed (Bandura, 2012). Social cognitive theory is relevant to the problem of practice because
PT’s self-efficacy and perceptions affect persistence, in tandem with the connections to the
faculty, staff, and environmental influences such as campus culture. Thus, the students’
motivational elements, such as self-efficacy, relate to the environmental influences in
surrounding microsystems.
In expanding from the center of Bronfenbrenner’s model to the surrounding
microsystems, one important microsystem affecting individual PTs is their respective university.
Each university provides the education and support to PTs and is therefore ultimately responsible
to help students graduate. As each institution’s colleagues, policies, and practices combine to
form a unique college culture, organizational frameworks are helpful tools to assess
effectiveness.
Organizational Framework
Schein (2017) proposes a model of organizational culture including three levels. These
levels include artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying assumptions in an
organization. The first level, artifacts, include visible structures and processes such as physical
architecture and displays. Artifacts also encompass observed behaviors and sensations that
individuals see, hear, or feel within the organizational culture. The second level, espoused beliefs
and values, includes the ideals, aspirations, and rationalizations within an organization.
Rationalizations may or may not be consistent with behaviors or artifacts. Lastly, underlying
43

assumptions are the unconscious beliefs and values that determine behaviors, perceptions, and
feelings (Schein, 2017). Connecting Schein’s framework to the problem of PT persistence, and
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model, the culture in a respective institution affects the students.
For institutions that serve PTs, aligning policies, practices, and colleagues to meet those needs is
important to success.
The organizational model provided by Schein provides another lens to examine the effect
of university practices on PT persistence. This model is a helpful framework within the larger
Bronfenbrenner model, as each university serves as a microsystem. The university, in
combination with the students’ employment and family, serve as a broader microsystem
affecting student persistence. Table 2 illustrates how these organizational and environmental
influences apply to Bronfenbrenner’s model.

44

Table 2
Micro and Macro Influences
Influence Ecological model placement
PTs’ life experience may contribute to
success in school.

Microsystem
PT’s employment demands place constraints
on time to complete college.

Microsystem
PT’s family members provide support to PTs
while attending college, particularly for
dependent childcare.

Microsystem
PTs with dependent children need childcare
support to persist in college.

Microsystem
Faculty interactions with PTs affect PT
persistence.

Microsystem
Staff interactions with PTs affect PT
persistence.

Microsystem
The campus resources affect student
persistence.

Microsystem
Intersection of PTs’ employers with school

Macrosystem
The legacy culture of traditional students
affects PTs, as legislative measurements and
nomenclature are not fully inclusive of PTs.

Macrosystem

Summary
This literature review synthesizes the research surrounding post-traditional student
persistence. The review provides an overview of persistence theories for traditional and post-
traditional students. The following sections provide research highlighting the relevant
environmental, knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that affect PT persistence.
45

The review culminates with theories to frame these elements. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979) serves as an overarching framework, illustrating the interrelation
between the individual and the surrounding environment. This framework encompasses
subsequent frameworks in the areas specific to the problem of practice. These frameworks
include knowledge theories involving the taxonomy of educational objectives (Krathwohl, 2002)
and cognitive load theory (Paas et al., 2003); motivational influences of attribution theory (Perry
& Hamm, 2017), self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 2006) and social cognitive theory (Bandura,
2012); as well as organizational influences (Schein, 2017).

46

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the personal readiness, personal motivations,
institutional influences and environmental influences that contribute to post-traditional student
persistence. Chapter Two documented previous research in these influences. The conceptual
framework illustrated in Figure 2 encompasses these influences, which stems from
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Accordingly, the questions that
guided this research project are as follows:
1. What individual factors affect post-traditional student persistence to graduation?
2. What organizational factors affect post-traditional student persistence to graduation?
3. What environmental factors affect post-traditional student persistence to graduation?
4. What are the relationships between various factors that affect post-traditional student
persistence to graduation?
This chapter provided the detailed methodology for the research project. The review
begins with the description of the participating stakeholders in the study and the selection of
participants. The chapter also highlights the survey sampling criteria, strategy, and rationale. The
researcher outlines the proposed data collection and instrumentation, and subsequent procedures
for data analysis. The chapter includes the validity and reliability aspects of the study, the ethical
considerations, and the study limitations.
Participating Stakeholders
While a complete analysis would include all stakeholders, for practical purposes the
stakeholder group for this study is KU alumni. The research project included PTs who
successfully completed their bachelor’s degrees between June 2016 and February 2020 from KU.
Findings from the study help inform best practices for future student success. Graduates (KPTs)
47

provided an understanding of the obstacles faced in attending college, while also successfully
overcoming those obstacles. KPTs also provided insight into organizational resources for the
various institutions they attended and suggestions for improvement. Accordingly, KPTs directly
relate to the research questions and conceptual framework for PT persistence. The graduation
timeframe between June 2016 and February 2020 provided recent data with a large participant
pool of 9,068 post-traditional graduates. As the students enrolled at KU as early as July 2012, the
participant timeframe between 2016 and 2020 encompasses PTs who may have attended part-
time, attending KU for as long as seven years and six months. Participants also may have
attended transferred to KU from other institutions prior to 2012. By comparison, the
measurement for full-time student degree attainment nationally is within six years (Library of
Congress, 2019).
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
In a quantitative study, it is important to define the characteristics of participants to
ensure the study’s research criteria are met (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). For this study, the goal
was to evaluate factors that affect undergraduate student persistence. Accordingly, inviting
participants that successfully persisted and attained an undergraduate degree aligns to the
problem of practice, research questions, and the conceptual framework in Figure 2. As
researchers often define PTs as 25 years of age and older (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2015; Soares, 2013), the research project participants aligned to this age at the time of
their undergraduate degree program. The following outlines the two criteria for participants.
Criterion 1
Graduates achieved their bachelor’s degree from KU. Graduates may have begun their
degree at another institution and transferred to KU for completion.
48

Criterion 2
Graduates will have been at least 25 years of age or older at the time they began their
respective degree programs.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The research project utilized census sampling, inviting all PT graduates (N = 9,068) to
participate in the study based on availability (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Pazzaglia et al., 2016).
According to Pazzaglia et al. (2016), a large participant pool enables a greater number of
respondents and increases the likelihood of generalizing results to the overall population. The
study involved single-stage sampling, which occurs when the researcher has access to the
participants’ names and can sample directly (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). For this study, KU
accessed the graduates’ names on behalf of the researcher to maintain confidentiality. KU
maintains the list of alumni data in KU’s secure database and protects the data with internal
cyber security protocols. The researcher collaborated with KU representatives throughout the
research process to ensure alignment regarding survey methods and data collection procedures.
KU’s analytics team enabled the distribution of the survey via email through KU’s
communications team on behalf of the researcher.
Because the university operates in more than 10 states in addition to online nationwide,
the graduates are in various geographic regions. As a result, KU facilitated communication with
the potential participants electronically. To recruit and encourage participation, the initial email
highlighted the value of KPT feedback, shown in Appendix A. Participants were not offered any
incentive for participation; rather, participants were encouraged to participate for the social
exchange benefit of helping future students (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The researcher
provided participants the opportunity to complete the survey over a three-week period to enable
49

time amidst competing priorities. As PTs often have competing work priorities and dependent
children (Bergman et al., 2014; Goings, 2018), the researcher administered the survey during the
fall of 2020. This timeframe enabled participants to participate with minimal potential conflicts,
avoiding summer and holiday seasons. KU sent three reminder emails during the collection
period to maximize response rates.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The research design incorporated quantitative research methods. Quantitative research is
an approach that tests objective theories by examining the correlations between variables
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As the goal of the study was to understand the trends and
correlations of the post-traditional student population, a survey design approach enables helpful
insights. A survey design provides a quantitative description of trends and attitudes of a
population, or tests for associations between variables (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). An
electronic survey method was a preferred approach for this study given the geographic
distribution of students throughout the U.S. The survey was cross-sectional, meaning that the
data was collected at one point in time (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). To facilitate data
collection, KU and the researcher utilized the survey product Qualtrics (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). To ensure secure data storage, KU received responses, and provided the researcher the
response data through an encrypted data transfer process. The researcher subsequently stored
response data in the University of Southern California’s Qualtrics protected database.
The survey questions are presented in Appendix B. The survey incorporated a variety of
questions created by the researcher based upon relevant literature, and derived from the proposed
influences in Tables 1 and 2. To engage participants and help prevent survey fatigue, the survey
featured a variety of question formats and length to help create interest (Robinson & Leonard,
50

2019). The survey included nominal, ordinal, interval, and open-ended questions, providing
various types of measurement to assess the research questions (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The
ordinal questions reflected verbal labels on all scale points to mitigate participants with extreme
response styles (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The ordinal questions designed by the researcher
featured four-point Likert-type scales with options including “strongly agree,” “agree,”
“disagree,” and “strongly disagree” (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The absence of a midpoint or
“neutral” option ensured that participants provided an opinion regarding the influences that
affected their persistence in school.
In addition to the questions formed by the researcher, the survey incorporated four
questions from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich et al.,
1991). The MSLQ assesses college students’ motivations and use of learning strategies through
81 questions using a seven-point Likert-type scale (Pintrich et al., 1991). The survey includes
four questions adapted from the MSLQ that address intrinsic goal orientation:
 In a class like this, I prefer course material that really challenges me so I can learn
new things.
 In a class like this, I prefer course material that arouses my curiosity, even if it is
difficult to learn.
 The most satisfying thing for me in this course is trying to understand the content as
thoroughly as possible.
 When I have the opportunity in this class, I choose course assignments that I can learn
from even if they don't guarantee a good grade (Pintrich et al., 1991, p.9).
These questions comprise a single module within the MSLQ with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.74,
demonstrating internal consistency reliability (Pintrich et al., 1991). As Pintrich and associates
51

designed the MSLQ for current students at the course level (Duncan & McKeachie, 2005), these
survey questions have been adapted for graduates. The modified versions of questions that were
used in the study survey are included in Appendix B.
Data Analysis
The researcher conducted several types of data analyses. First, the researcher calculated
frequencies to identify levels of responses, and conducted subsequent descriptive statistical
analyses. To examine the relationships between variables, the researcher conducted inferential
analyses utilizing nonparametric techniques including chi-squares (Salkind & Frey, 2020). For
the open-ended questions, the researcher used open coding in the first phase of analysis, created
empirical codes and applied a priori codes from the conceptual framework. The researcher
conducted a second phase of analysis involving aggregating empirical and a priori codes into
analytic/axial codes. In the third phase of data analysis, the researcher identified pattern codes
and themes that emerged in relation to the conceptual framework and research questions.
Validity and Reliability
To maximize the validity and reliability of a quantitative study, the researcher should
demonstrate careful attention to the research procedures, the data collection, and the data
analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To safeguard the validity of the research, the study
encompassed a large sample (N = 9,068), providing an increased likelihood of respondents to
generate a subsequent confidence level of 95% or greater with a margin of error less than 5%
(Johnson & Christensen, 2014; Pazzaglia et al., 2016). Additionally, the participants were former
undergraduate students over age 25, which ensures that the participants’ experiences align to the
research questions (Pazzaglia et al., 2016). The researcher facilitated content validity checks by
providing the potential survey questions to university administrators and soliciting feedback in
52

advance of the study (Salkind & Frey, 2020). The researcher also pretested survey questions with
PT graduates outside of the potential participant pool.
To strengthen reliability, the researcher standardized the methods of communication with
participants by corresponding through email and sending the survey electronically consistently
across the population. To optimize response rates, the initial email emphasized the value of the
survey and enable confidential responses to increase participants’ willingness to participate
(Pazzaglia et al., 2016). Three subsequent reminders were emailed to KPTs to encourage
participation during the collection timeframe. The documentation provided transparency of the
research study, and illustrated the study limitations (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). To evaluate the
data, the researcher utilized StatsIQ, a statistical analysis program within Qualtrics. The analysis
included evaluation of individual questions for internal consistency reliability when possible.
Researchers use this process to gauge whether specific items are consistent with one another
(Salkind & Frey, 2020). These steps increased the likelihood of generalizing results to other
settings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Ethics
The research study had underlying ethical considerations involving multiple constituents.
Foremost, the research serves the interest of the institution and its colleagues. The research will
likely benefit future individual students, as the findings may lead to future best practices and
subsequent improvement in student graduation rates. These benefits extend to the institution and
potentially peer institutions that also serve PTs. The research may also benefit participants as
they reflect upon their experiences and gain personal insight. Should the research reveal negative
treatment of former students, the institution may experience some harm.
53

Researchers must ensure several ethical practices when conducting research (Glesne,
2011). Prior to conducting research, the researcher secured approval from the University of
Southern California (USC) Institutional Review Board (IRB). The researcher also secured
subsequent approval from KU IRB. The IRB review process helps ensures researchers utilize
appropriate measures to minimize potential risks to participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
When conducting a study, researchers should demonstrate beneficence, protecting
participants from harm and safeguarding participant privacy whenever possible (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Study participants should have informed consent, including voluntary
participation, and the flexibility to withdraw from the study without penalty at any time
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Glesne, 2011). For this study, the researcher provided participants
these important voluntary options. The researcher also assured participants of their
confidentiality of responses. The researcher also provided participants with the option to view
the aggregate findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Positionality
The paradigm of inquiry for this problem of practice is pragmatism. The pragmatic
worldview incorporates concepts in specific contexts, with applications and solutions to practical
problems (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Saunders et al., 2019). The subsequent axiology,
ontology, and epistemology stem from this worldview umbrella. Axiology is the role of values
and ethics in a research project, both on the part of the researcher and those individuals involved
in the study (Saunders et al., 2019). The researcher places a high value on learning and degree
attainment to meet overall workforce needs. Ontology is the nature of reality, distinguishing
various objects and their ties (Aliyu et al., 2015; Saunders et al., 2019). Following the pragmatic
worldview, the ontology centers around what works. The ontology flows to epistemology, as
54

these two concepts form a mutual reality (Wilson, 2008). Epistemology refers to the assumptions
about knowledge, what is valid knowledge, and the sharing of knowledge (Saunders et al., 2019).
In this study, KPTs possess extensive knowledge regarding their personal experiences, and can
provide valuable input regarding potential solutions to shape future KU student practices. The
researcher’s role is to serve as a facilitator and reveal the essence of the participants’ experiences
(Stringer, 2014).
As KU communicated with participants on behalf of the researcher, participants were not
aware of the researcher’s personal identity. Thus, it is highly unlikely that participants have any
perceived imbalances in relation to the researchers’ background or positionality.
Limitations and Delimitations
There were several potential limitations to the study. The research assumed that
participants were truthful in responses. With any convenience sampling, it is important to note
that those who choose to participate may lend to bias in sharing their personal preferences
(Locke et al., Spirduso, 2010). If non-respondents had chosen to participate, the responses may
have altered the survey results, resulting in response bias (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The research project had several delimitations. As the purpose of the study was to
highlight the factors that successfully contributed to student persistence, the scope of the study
was limited to KU graduates. Students who withdrew prematurely may have differing degrees of
success attribution and goal orientation when compared with successful students. The study also
did not include other stakeholder groups beyond graduates. Stakeholders such as faculty, staff,
and employers may have different insights regarding their perceived obstacles that students faced
on the path to graduation. The study was also limited to graduates from a private university
where more than 70% of students are post-traditional. For universities with predominantly
55

traditional-aged students, the campus culture may have a greater effect on PTs as the minority
student population.

56

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of the study was to examine the factors that contribute to post-traditional
undergraduate student success. These factors include individual motivations, institutional
influences, and environmental influences. The research questions that guided the study are as
follows:
1. What individual factors affect post-traditional student persistence to graduation?
2. What organizational factors affect post-traditional student persistence to graduation?
3. What environmental factors affect post-traditional student persistence to graduation?
4. What are the relationships between various factors that affect post-traditional student
persistence to graduation?
The study involved a theoretical framework based upon Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The framework describes how environments shape individuals’
behavior, and individuals in turn influence their respective surrounding environments. In relation
to Bronfenbrenner’s model, the individual influences include the student’s knowledge, success
attributions, and self-efficacy. The micro influences and micro environmental influences include
students’ family, peers, and employers, as well as the university faculty, staff, and culture.
To complete the study, KU collected the data in Qualtrics and sent the data set
electronically to the researcher. The researcher subsequently analyzed the data in Qualtrics’
StatsIQ, evaluating findings in relation to the research questions and theoretical framework. The
researcher conducted both descriptive and inferential analyses for various survey questions. To
determine the type of inferential analyses, the researcher selected variables for comparison in
StatsIQ. StatsIQ subsequently produced nonparametric statistics most relevant to the respective
57

survey questions’ level of measurement. Open-ended responses were coded in Excel
incorporating a priori and open codes.
This chapter outlines the quantitative survey results and findings, including the
participating stakeholders and the influences that affected their respective paths to graduation.
The summary of participating stakeholders contains the respondents’ demographic information.
The individual influences section comprises the graduates’ knowledge and motivational factors.
The organizational influences section includes the online learning modalities and participants’
overall completion time. Another section summarizes the obstacles that PTs faced while
attending college, as well as the individuals that helped or hindered their persistence to
graduation. Lastly, a summary of findings concludes the chapter.
Participating Stakeholders
A survey was sent electronically to KU alumni (N = 9,068) who completed their
bachelor’s degrees between June 2016 and February 2020. Alumni were 25 years of age or older
at the time of their initial enrollment. Alumni were provided three weeks to respond to the survey
during the fall of 2020. KU sent three reminder emails to alumni to encourage participation. A
total of 266 alumni responded to the survey overall, resulting in a response rate of 2.9%. The
response rate provides a 95% confidence level with a margin of error of 5.9%. The following
summarizes participants’ responses to optional demographic questions.
The researcher invited participants to share their gender identity, as well as their
race/ethnicity. Of the respondents who indicated their gender (n = 206), 55.3% identified as
female, 44.2% as male, and 0.5% preferred not to answer. Alumni were asked to share their
race/ethnicity, which 205 alumni answered with 212 responses. Participants reflected an
ethnically diverse group of alumni: 50.9% indicated White or Caucasian; 23.1% African
58

American or Black; 18.9% Hispanic, Latino, or Mexican; 3.8% Asian; 1.9% American Indian or
Alaska Native; and 1.4% Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, or Filipino. The response summary
is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3
Participant Race/Ethnicity

Note. n = 205. Participants were asked, “Please share your race/ethnicity (Optional). Check all
that apply.”

0
20
40
60
80
100
White or
Caucasian
African
American or
Black
Hispanic Latino Mexican Asian American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Native
Hawaiian or
Pacific
Islander
Filipino
No. of Respondents
Race/Ethnicity
59

Participants reflected a variety of personal experiences as PT alumni. Ninety respondents
(33.8%) indicated they were first-generation college students, and 92 respondents (34.6%) shared
that they were caring for children under the age of 18. Fifty-one participants (19.2%) indicated
they were an active service member or veteran of the U.S. armed forces. Three respondents
(1.1%) indicated they enrolled as international students studying in the U.S.
Participants were also asked to indicate the year in which they were born (n = 199), and
responses revealed a wide range of participants’ ages spanning from 30 to 68 years of age.
Specifically, 4% of respondents were over age 60, 23.1% between 50 and 59 years of age, 36.2%
between 40 and 49 years of age, and 36.7% between 30 and 39 years of age (see Figure 4). As all
respondents graduated from college within the past four years, the age span reflects a diverse
spectrum of adult learners at the time of the participants’ enrollment in their degree programs.

60

Figure 4
Participant’s Age

Note. n = 199. Participants were asked, “Please share the year you were born. (Optional)”.

Graduates were asked to share their respective bachelor’s degree program (n = 208). The
majority of graduates (39.9%) indicated attaining a business degree, with another 31.3% of
participants attaining a degree in technology. The remaining participants achieved degrees in
healthcare (6.3%), accounting (6.7%), justice administration (1.0%), media arts (1.0%), or
another unspecified degree (13.9%). A summary of participant’s bachelor’s degrees is presented
in Figure 5.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 70
No. of Respondents
Years of Age
61

Figure 5
Participant’s Bachelor’s Degree Program

Note. n = 208. Participants were asked, “My bachelor’s degree is in….”

In summary, responses indicate a diverse group of participants in race/ethnicity, age, and
experiences. As the majority of participants (63.3%) are over age 40, participants’ attainment of
their bachelor’s degrees reflects commitment, and their feedback provides relevant insights to
address the problem of practice for undergraduate student persistence.
Individual Influences
Participants were asked a series of survey questions to assess their individual knowledge
and motivation. To assess motivation, participants were asked to indicate their self-efficacy,
motivation to attain their degrees, goal orientation, and overall drive to persist to graduation. To
assess knowledge influences, participants described the degree to which participants sought
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Accounting Business Healthcare Justice
Administration
Media Arts Technology Something else
No. of Respondents
Bachelor's Degree Program
62

academic support services while attending college. Overall results reveal that the majority of
participants demonstrated self-efficacy throughout the majority of their degree programs,
intrinsic goal motivation, and sought academic support from a variety of sources.
Student Self-Efficacy
The vast majority of students demonstrated self-efficacy in their abilities to complete
their degree programs. To evaluate self-efficacy, alumni were asked to indicate if they felt
confident “when I first began my undergraduate degree,” “during the majority of my classes,”
and “when I graduated” (n = 260). Overall responses reveal that the majority of participants were
confident throughout their journey to complete their bachelor’s degrees. At the start of their
undergraduate degrees, 85.0% of respondents felt confident, with the mode of response “strongly
agree” at 44.6% of respondents. Similarly, 91.2% of participants felt confident during their
majority of their classes, and 90.4% felt confident upon graduation. More than half of graduates
(55.8%) expressed that they “strongly agreed” that they felt confident upon graduation, reflecting
a greater number of confident participants than at the start of their degrees. While 15.0% of
alumni expressed that they did not feel confident when they first began their college career, 9.6%
indicated a lack of confidence as they graduated, reflecting some participants experienced
increased confidence. The results are presented in Table 3.

63

Table 3
Participant’s Confidence Throughout Their Undergraduate Journey

When I first began my
undergraduate degree
During the
majority of my
classes When I graduated
Strongly agree 116 104 145
Agree 105 133 90
Disagree 28 17 11
Strongly disagree 11 6 14
Total participants 260 260 260

To evaluate participants’ confidence throughout their respective degree programs, a
Pearson chi-square was calculated to examine the relationship between participants who
indicated they were confident as they began their undergraduate degrees and those who
expressed confidence during the majority of their classes. There was a strong statistically
significant relationship between these two variables as displayed in Table 4, x
2
(9, n = 260) =
166; p < .001. The effect size, Cramér’s V, was meaningful at 0.461. Similarly, a Pearson chi-
square was calculated to examine the relationship between respondents who were confident at
the onset of their programs and those who were confident when they graduated. A statistically
significant relationship exists between these two variables as shown in Table 5, x
2
(9, n = 260) =
51.1; p < .001. The effect size, Cramér’s V, was moderate at 0.256. These results reveal that
students who were confident as they began their degree programs were also likely to be
confident during the majority of their classes as well as upon graduation. Conversely, students
who were lacking confidence as they began their degrees were also likely to be lacking
confidence during classes or upon graduation.

64

Table 4
Relationship Between Participants’ Confidence at Start of Degree and During Classes
I felt confident during the majority of my classes
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
I felt confident
when I first
began my
undergraduate
degree
Strongly agree 82 (78.8%) 29 (21.8%) 3 (17.6%) 2 (33.3%)
Agree 17 (16.3%) 83 (62.4%) 5 (29.4%) 0 (0.0%)
Disagree 5 (4.8%) 18 (13.5%) 5 (29.4%) 0 (0.0%)
Strongly disagree 0 (0.0%) 3 (2.3%) 4 (23.5%) 4 (66.7%)
Total participants 104 (100.0%) 133 (100.0%) 17 (100.0%) 6 (100.0%)

Note. A statistically significant relationship was found between these variables, x
2
(9, n = 260) =
166; p < .001.

Table 5
Relationship Between Participants’ Confidence at Start of Degree and at Graduation
I felt confident when I graduated
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
I felt confident
when I first
began my
undergraduate
degree
Strongly agree 77 (53.1%) 24 (26.7%) 6 (54.5%) 9 (64.3%)
Agree 47 (32.4%) 55 (61.1%) 3 (27.3) 0 (0.0%)
Disagree 18 (12.4%) 8 (8.9%) 1 (9.1%) 1 (7.1%)
Strongly disagree 3 (2.1%) 3 (3.3%) 1 (9.1%) 4 (28.6%)
Total participants 145 (100.0%) 90 (100.0%) 11 (100.0%) 14 (100.0%)

Note. A statistically significant relationship was found between these variables, x
2
(9, n = 260) =
51.1; p < .001.

Additional Pearson chi-square tests were conducted to examine the effect of participants’
self-efficacy to other demographic factors. No statistically significant relationships was found
between participants’ ages and participants who felt confident at the onset of their programs,
65

during the majority of their classes, or upon graduation. No statistically significant relationships
were found between participants’ ethnicities and their confidence at any point in their degree
journeys. These results reveal that neither participants’ ages nor ethnicities directly affected their
self-efficacy in college.
Reasons to Attain Undergraduate Degrees
Alumni shared the reasons that they sought to attain their undergraduate degrees, and
were provided with the option to select one or more reasons (n = 260). The mode of response
was “for my career goals”, selected by 72.3% of participants. Alumni also cited financial
support, with 102 participants (39.2%) supporting their family, and 75 participants (28.8%)
supporting themselves. Alumni also highlighted the importance of serving as a role model for
their families, as indicated by 93 participants (35.8%). Roughly 20% of participants mentioned
that they pursued their degrees for the enjoyment of learning. Participants were also provided an
option to select “other” reasons with text responses. Seven graduates mentioned that their degree
was a “personal goal,” citing “pride and accomplishment”: “… [I completed my degree] to prove
to myself that I could do it and for my ancestors who were denied their freedom and education.”
The results are featured in Figure 6.

66

Figure 6
Reasons to Complete Undergraduate Degrees

Note. n = 260. Participants were asked, “My primary reason to complete my undergraduate
degree was… (Check all that apply)”.

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
For my career
goals
To provide
financial
support for
my family
To serve as a
role model for
my family
To provide
financial
support for
myself
For the
enjoyment of
learning
Other
No. of Respondents
Reasons to Complete Undergraduate Degrees
67

Table 6
Relationship Between Participants’ Primary Reason to Complete Degree and Current Career
My primary reason to complete my degree
was… for my career goals.
Selected Did not select
My bachelor’s
degree is
relevant to my
current career.
Strongly agree 84 (44.9%) 20 (27.0%)
Agree 66 (35.3%) 25 (33.8%)
Disagree 24 (12.8%) 16 (21.6%)
Strongly disagree 13 (7.0%) 13 (17.6%)
Total participants 187 (100.0%) 74 (100.0%)

Note. A subtle but statistically significant relationship was found between these variables, x
2
(3,
n = 261) = 13.0, p < .01.

Participants were also asked to indicate whether “my bachelor’s degree is relevant to my
current career” (n = 261) using a four-point Likert-type scale. Nearly 75% of graduates agreed,
with 104 graduates (39.8%) indicating “strongly agree” and 34.9% indicating “agree”. Another
15.3% of participants disagreed, and 10.0% strongly disagreed. A Pearson chi-square was
calculated to examine the relationship between participants who felt that their bachelor’s degree
was relevant to their current career and those who indicated that their primary reason to complete
their bachelor’s degree was for their career goals. A subtle but statistically significant
relationship was revealed between these two variables, x
2
(3, n = 261) = 13.0, p < .01, displayed
in Table 6. The effect size, Cramér’s V, was moderate at .223. These findings indicate that
participants who initially sought their degrees for their career goals are likely employed in
careers that are relevant to their degrees, and vice versa.

68

Intrinsic Goal Motivation
To assess intrinsic goal orientation, alumni responded to four questions using a seven-
point Likert-type scale (n = 208). The questions were adapted from one module of the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.74, demonstrating
internal consistency reliability (Pintrich et al., 1991). In analyzing PT responses to these four
questions, overall findings revealed strong intrinsic goal orientation for the majority of PT
alumni, shown in Table 7. The first question asked participants “I preferred course material that
aroused my curiosity, even if it was difficult to learn.” The majority of alumni (83.2%) indicated
affirmative responses, as the mode of response was “very true of me” with 106 respondents. An
additional 10.6% of alumni indicated a neutral response, and 6.2% disagreed. Participants
indicated similar responses to the question regarding challenging course material, to which
85.1% of respondents indicated favorable responses, 10.6% neutral, and 4.3% disagreed.
Additionally, 83.2% of alumni agreed that “the most satisfying thing for me was learning course
content as thoroughly as possible”, while 9.6% were neutral and 7.2% disagreed. The fourth
question asked, “When given the opportunity on class assignments, I chose topics that I could
learn from even if they didn’t guarantee a good grade.” While the majority of participants
indicated that this statement was true of them (66.4%), 16.8% of alumni indicated a neutral
response, and another 16.8% disagreed. The participant’s responses to this question suggest that
while students were intrinsically motivated, grades were also considered important when
selecting class topics for some participants, and potentially of greater importance to some alumni
than learning itself.

69

Table 7
Participant Response Summary: Survey Questions Assessing Intrinsic Goal Orientation
Response
Category
Survey Question
1. I preferred
course
material that
aroused my
curiosity,
even if it was
difficult to
learn.
2. I preferred
course
material that
challenged
me so I could
learn new
things.
3. When given
the opportunity
on class
assignments, I
chose topics that
I could learn
from even if
they didn’t
guarantee a
good grade.
4. The most
satisfying thing
for me was
learning
course content
as thoroughly
as possible.
7 (Very true of me) 106 103 64 97
6 45 46 31 45
5 22 28 43 31
4 22 22 35 20
3 6 4 16 9
2 3 2 7 5
1 (Not at all true of me) 4 3 12 1
Total Respondents 208 208 208 208

Given the variance in participants’ responses for those motivated for learning amidst
good grades, Pearson’s chi-square was calculated to examine the relationship between “when
given the opportunity on class assignments, I chose topics that I could learn from even if they
didn’t guarantee a good grade” and “course material that aroused my curiosity” as shown in
Table 8. A statistically significant relationship exists between these variables, x
2
(36, n = 208) =
102; p < .001, with a moderate effect size of .286. These results indicate that participants who
were motivated for the sake of curiosity were also likely to be motivated for selecting class
topics that would benefit their learning.

70

Table 8
Relationship of Participant Responses to Two Intrinsic Goal Motivation Questions

Response
Category
When given the opportunity on class assignments, I
chose topics that I could learn from even if they didn’t
guarantee a good grade.
1 (Not at
all True
of Me)
2 3 4 5 6 7
(Very
True
of
Me)

I preferred
course material
that aroused
my curiosity,
even if it was
difficult to
learn.
1 (Not at all
true) 1 1 1 0 0 0 1
2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
3 1 1 1 0 2 0 1
4 4 1 1 11 4 0 1
5 1 1 3 8 4 2 3
6 4 1 6 7 10 11 6
7 (Very true) 1 1 4 9 22 17 52
Total
Respondents 12 7 16 35 43 31 64

Note. A statistically significant relationship was found between these variables, x
2
(36, n = 208)
= 102; p < .001.

As these four questions were initially adapted from the MSLQ and previously
demonstrated internal consistency reliability (Pintrich et al., 1991), Pearson’s r was calculated to
compare the relationship between variables. When comparing question one (“course material that
aroused my curiosity”) with question two (“course material that challenged me”), a strong
positive correlation was identified (r = .794; n = 208; p < .001). Similarly, a strong statistically
significant correlation exists between question one (“course material that aroused my curiosity”)
and “the most satisfying thing for me was learning course content as thoroughly as possible (r =
.452; n = 208; p < .001). A positive correlation was also revealed between “course material that
71

aroused my curiosity” and “when given the opportunity on class assignments, I chose topics that
I could learn from even if they didn’t guarantee a good grade” (r = .455; n = 208; p < .00001).
These results indicate that the majority of alumni were intrinsically motivated to attain
their degrees. Grades were also considered important by many participants when selecting class
topics, and potentially of greater importance to some alumni than learning itself. Alumni who
preferred challenging and compelling course content were also more likely intrinsically
motivated for the sake of learning. Conversely, PTs who did not prefer challenging course
content were less motivated for the sake of learning.
Knowledge Influences
To help assess knowledge influences, PT alumni were asked whether they sought
academic support help outside the classroom, and if so from which sources (n = 205). The
majority of respondents (80.0%) sought academic support outside of the classroom, and did so
from a variety of sources as shown in Figure 7. The mode of response was “faculty teaching my
classes,” which 46.3% of respondents indicated. Numerous alumni also indicated that they
sought academic support from their classmates (39.5%), family members (31.7%), university
tutoring services (27.8%), and friends outside school (25.4%). A few participants sought
alternative sources including external tutors, external websites, and co-workers.

72

Figure 7
Participant’s Sources for Academic Support Outside the Classroom

Note. n = 205. Participants were asked, “During my time at college, I sought academic support
help outside the classroom from the following sources…(Check all that apply)”.

Individuals who sought academic support outside the classroom were also asked to
indicate whether the support they received made a positive impact in their college success (n =
165). The vast majority of respondents (95.7%) indicated that the academic support made a
positive impact. Over half of respondents (53.9%) indicated they “strongly agreed” in the
positive effect of academic support, while 41.8% agreed, 3.0% disagreed, and 1.2% strongly
disagreed.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Faculty
teaching
my classes
Classmates Family
members
University
tutoring
services
Friends
outside
school
Co-workers Tutors
outside
school
External
websites
Other I did not
seek
academic
support
help
No. of Respondents
73

The researcher examined the relationship between participant’s use of academic support
outside of the classroom with the prior knowledge experiences of participants. Pearson chi-
square tests were calculated to compare the relationship between “sought academic support
outside the classroom” overall and participants who were first-generation college students,
members or veterans of the U.S. armed forces, and PTs who were parents caring for children
under the age of 18 respectively. No statistically significant relationships were found between
these variables. Pearson chi-square tests were also computed to evaluate specific academic
support sources with participants who indicated they were first-generation college students,
members or veterans of the U.S. armed forces, and PTs who were parents caring for children
under the age of 18. A subtle but statistically significant relationship was revealed between first-
generation college students and participants who sought academic support services specifically
from “faculty teaching my classes”, x
2
(1, n = 266) = 13.3, p < .001. The effect size, Cramér’s V,
was moderate at .224. Similarly, a subtle but statistically significant relationship was uncovered
between participants who were caring for children under the age of 18 and those who pursued
academic support from “faculty teaching my classes”, x
2
(1, n = 266) = 4.38, p < .03. A subtle
relationship was also found between participants who were caring for children under the age of
18 and received academic support from “friends outside school”, x
2
(1, n = 266) = 10.6, p < .001.
A subtle but statistically significant relationship was also discovered between respondents who
were an active service member or veteran of the U.S. armed forces and selected “classmates” for
academic support help, x
2
(1, n = 266) = 9.79, p < .01. No statistically significant relationship
was found between participants’ ages and individuals that sought academic support services from
faculty, family members, classmates, or university tutoring services.
74

These results reflect the importance of the individuals in the participants’ environment to
provide academic support on the journey to graduation. The majority of graduates (80.0%)
sought academic support outside the classroom. Faculty teaching students’ specific classes were
the most frequent source of academic support outside the classroom overall. First-generation
college students were more likely to seek academic support help from faculty teaching their
specific classes. Students who were caring for children under the age of 18 also more often
sought help from the faculty teaching their classes as well as their friends outside school. A
theme also surfaced for students who were active service members or veterans of the U.S. armed
forces, as these students sought academic help from their classmates. Regardless of the source of
support, 95.7% of students who received academic support indicated that the support made a
positive impact in their college success.
Organizational Influences
Participants were asked several questions to identify how college or university factors
affected persistence to graduation. These questions included the participants’ enrollment in
online courses, enrollment classification as full-time or part-time, transfers between institutions,
and the participants’ overall completion time to graduation. The following sections summarize
the participants’ responses.
Online Learning Modality
Alumni were provided an open-ended question to share the reasons why they chose to
enroll in online courses (n = 195). The majority of alumni (70.8%) shared that they preferred
online courses for a variety of reasons including overall convenience and the learning modality.
However, 22.0% of respondents indicated that they preferred campus courses and selected online
due to a lack of other convenient options.
75

Convenience of Online Classes
The majority of graduates (70.8%) indicated they selected online learning due to the
convenience, including flexibility for course offerings and time saved amidst employment and
caregiving for others. Of these respondents, 66 cited the convenience in relation to their
competing work schedules. One graduate shared, “Attending in person courses would have been
impossible for me with my work schedule/commitments.” Another respondent shared that they
chose online because of “the number of hours I worked (55+).” Another graduate explained,
“Working two jobs to support my financial needs to my family, I would not have enough time to
take an on-campus courses. Only online courses would fit onto my daily schedule.” These
comments reflect the convenience of online courses in saving valuable time for PTs.
Eighteen participants indicated that they chose online for the flexibility to care for
children, 12 of which were balancing childcare with work and school. One participant said, “I
work full time and have 3 children. I needed to create my own class hours.” Another graduate
expressed, “Between working, being a mom, and a wife, I didn't have time to physically go to
class. When my daughter was sleeping and I wasn't at work, I was completing my college
degree.” Another respondent shared, “I was working full time, married and raising three
children. The flexibility in hours was the only way I could get it done and not have conflicts.”
Another alumnus articulated:
I work full time and had a family I was helping to raise. Going to a brick and mortar
building at set times multiple times a week was not possible. My job didn’t have steady
hours. I had to work until the job was done.
Another 11 participants noted the convenience of online in relation to their overall family needs.
One graduate explained how “going to work and completing college on location would have
76

hampered my time with family.” Another respondent said, “I worked full time during the day
and needed to be home in the evening to care for my family. Physically attending classes was not
a viable option.” Another alumnus said, “My husband was military and deployed often, it [online
classes] gave me the chance to work full time and still move around.” In summary, online classes
provided flexibility and time for PTs to complete college amidst work, family, and caregiving
responsibilities.
Preferred Online Learning Modality
Ten participants expressed that they preferred the learning experience that the online
modality provided. Alumni shared that online “was new and challenging”, and how they “like
the knowledge of doing my work independently by using technology.” One graduate shared that
the “ability to take courses around my schedule and classes were non-bias. Didn't matter how I
looked or how much I money I had.” Another participant confided, “I was afraid and somewhat
embarrassed about being my age and going back to school. Being in the classroom was
something I didn't feel I could sustain when the fear and embarrassment overwhelmed me.” Two
participants cited physical health limitations that posed challenges to attend classes in person.
Preferred Onsite Learning Modality
While the majority of participants preferred online learning for convenience, 43
participants (22.0%) indicated that they preferred campus classes, 26 of which indicated that they
had limited or “no other options” than online courses due to a lack of campus courses at one or
more of the institutions they attended. One participant expressed, “I didn’t have a choice. Some
of the classes were only offered online.” Another graduate indicated how “it turned out my local
campus didn’t really offer many classes onsite”, while another shared how “no on site [sic]
classes were available for ¾ of my classes (which i [sic] was also lied to about when I signed
77

on).” Four participants cited campus closures at one or more institutions. Ten participants
selected online classes as a secondary option given the need for convenient class options. One
participant shared that they were “busy with employment. I would actually prefer on site
courses.” As one participant expressed, “Online courses were convenient but there is nothing
better than in campus. If I had to choose, I would only do live classes, not online.”
Several graduates explained the reasons why they preferred campus classes, highlighting
the learning environment and ability to interact with peers and faculty. One expressed, “It
[online] was the only option left for me to graduate. In reality, I opted for in-person classes, for
99% of my classes, due to many factors such as questioning, networking, before/after class
tutoring, and various other factors.” Another graduate said, “Some of the more difficult classes
are better on-site than online.” Another alumnus explained, “Actually, I preferred the physical
classroom courses because of the capability to interact with students and the professors in the
lecture rooms. Only a few courses were necessary to take online for my degree.” Overall, some
graduates preferred the campus learning environment for the in-person interaction, yet attended
online classes due to a lack of convenient campus class options.
Institutions and Completion Time to Graduation
To identify influences for overall completion time to graduation, alumni were requested
to indicate the number of institutions that they attended to complete their bachelor’s degrees (n =
213). While 39.4% of alumni indicated that they only attended one institution (KU), the majority
of graduates (60.6%) attended multiple institutions: 34.3% attended two institutions, 17.4%
attended three institutions, 3.3% attended four institutions, and 5.6% attended five or more
institutions. To assess whether PT alumni attended college continuously, alumni were asked to
share if they had taken any sessions off from college (n = 213). Roughly half of alumni (51.6%)
78

indicated that they took no sessions off from college, which suggests that some graduates
transferred between institutions without interruption between semesters. Of the students who
took at least one session off, 23.0% took off one time, 11.3% two times, 4.7% three times, 2.3%
four times, and 7.0% five or more times.
Participants shared the total length of time it took them to complete their bachelor’s
degrees, including time if they attended other institutions for an associate’s degree or bachelor’s
transfer courses, and any breaks from college (n = 208). The majority of participants (77.4%)
completed their bachelor’s degrees within six years, with 25.0% completing in less than 3 years,
35.1% between 3 and 4 years, and 17.3% completing between 5 and 6 years. However, 15.4% of
participants took more than 10 years to finish their degrees as shown in Figure 8.

79

Figure 8
Participant’s Time to Complete Bachelor’s Degree

Note. n = 208. Participants were asked, “Please share the total length of time to complete your
bachelor’s degree, including time if you attended other institutions(s) for an associate degree or
bachelor’s transfer courses, and any breaks from college. (Optional)”.

Graduates also were asked to share whether they attended college full-time, part-time, or
a mix of both during their bachelor’s journey (n = 208). More than two thirds of graduates
(69.2%) indicated that they attended full-time during all sessions, while 20.2% attended a
combination of full-time and part-time, and the remaining 10.6% attended part-time. To examine
whether participants’ full-time attendance in college was influenced by the support received
others, chi-squared tests were conducted to compare variables. No statistically significant
relationships were determined between participants’ full-time/part-time attendance and help
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
< 3 Years 3 to 4 Years 5 to 6 Years 7 to 8 Years 9 to 10 Years 10+ Years
No. of Respondents
Time to Complete Bachelor's Degree
80

provided by participants’ spouses/partners, children, extended family members, university
faculty, university staff, or employers.
To examine the effect of participants’ ages in relation to degree progress, additional chi-
square tests were conducted. No statistically significant relationships were found between
participants’ ages and the number of institutions attended. No statistically significant
relationships were uncovered between participants’ ages and the number of breaks taken from
college Additionally, no statistically significant relationship was discovered between ages of
students and completion time to graduate.
Several analyses were conducted to gain additional insight into completion time. A
Pearson chi-square was calculated to assess the relationship between the amount of time taken by
participants to complete their bachelor’s degree and the number of times of that participants took
sessions off. There was a significant relationship between the two variables, x
2
(25, n = 208) =
59.7; p < .001, with a moderate effect size of .240. The results are shown in Table 9. A Pearson
chi-square was also calculated to examine the relationship between the amount of time taken by
participants to graduate and the number of institutions that participants attended. There was also
a significant relationship between these two variables, x
2
(20, n = 208) = 52.4; p < .001,
displayed in Table 10. The effect size, Cramér’s V, was moderate at .251. A Pearson chi-square
test was also calculated to examine the relationship between completion time and the
participant’s degree program, and no statistically significant relationship was found between
these variables.

81

Table 9
Relationship Between Participant’s Time to Graduate and Number of Sessions Taken Off
Number of times
sessions were
taken off
Number of years to complete bachelor’s degree
< 3 Years 3 to 4
years
5 to 6
years
7 to 8
years
9 to 10
years
10+
years
Not at all 34 47 10 3 2 9
One time 10 15 12 2 2 8
Two times 5 7 8 0 0 4
Three times 1 3 3 0 1 2
Four times 0 0 2 1 1 1
Five or more times 2 1 1 1 2 8
Total participants 52 73 36 7 8 32

Note. A statistically significant relationship was found between these variables, x
2
(25, n = 208)
= 59.7; p < .001.

Table 10
Relationship Between Participant’s Time to Graduate and Number of Institutions Attended
Number of
institutions
attended
Number of years to complete bachelor’s degree
< 3 Years 3 to 4
years
5 to 6
years
7 to 8
years
9 to 10
years
10+
years
One 26 36 15 1 0 3
Two 15 28 14 3 3 9
Three 7 7 6 2 2 12
Four 2 0 0 0 1 4
Five or more 2 2 1 1 2 4
Total participants 52 73 36 7 8 32

Note. A statistically significant relationship was found between these variables, x
2
(20, n = 208)
= 52.4; p < .001.

82

These relationships suggest that the longer that students took to complete their degrees,
the more likely they were to have either taken sessions off and/or transferred between
institutions. The greater the instances of breaks and/or institutions attended by participants, the
longer time to degree completion. Conversely, alumni who graduated in the shortest amount of
time were more likely to have attended one institution and/or remained continuously enrolled in
college.
Consideration for Withdrawing from College
Participants were asked whether they considered withdrawing from school altogether (n =
213), to which 61.0% of respondents indicated “no”, while 39.0% indicated “yes.” Participants
who answered affirmatively were invited to share the reasons that they considered withdrawing,
displayed in Figure 9. The mode of response was “not enough time with work priorities”, which
42 alumni expressed. Time was also a factor for 24 participants who indicated the need to care
for immediate family members. Thirty-nine alumni cited financial obstacles. Seventeen
graduates indicated that “academics were too challenging.” Seventeen graduates also indicated
that they “did not feel supported by faculty” at one or more of the institutions attended, and 12
respondents indicated that they “did not feel supported by staff.”

83

Figure 9
Participant’s Reasons That Were Considered to Withdraw from College Altogether

Note. n = 213. Participants were asked, “Please share the reason(s) you considered withdrawing
from school altogether. (Check all that apply)”.

Nineteen participants selected “other” reasons that they considered withdrawing from
college, and participants were provided an option to enter text. Of the 19 participants, 5
participants voiced a loss of motivation, indicating “was not motivated to succeed”, and “… I
was mentally done with working g [sic] full time and going to school”. Another participant
shared, “I was battling within myself about what I was doing. Was it really going to matter.
Should I go on. I was tired and depressed.” Three of the 19 alumni referenced spouse/family
issues that caused them to consider withdrawing from college, including “divorce process I was
unable to focus on class”, and “divorce occurred, life seemingly fell apart.” Three other
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Not enough
time with
work
priorities
Financial
obstacles to
pay for
tuition
Not enough
time given
the need to
care for my
immediate
family
Other Did not feel
supported
by faculty
Academics
were too
challenging
Did not feel
supported
by staff
No. of Respondents
84

respondents indicated issues at one or more of the institutions they attended. As a participant
described, “[I] felt like I was not getting the proper education I deserved because most of my
classes were online instead of in person.” Another participant shared, “Courses were
understaffed with facilitators that were not knowledgeable and material and labs that were out of
date with available tools.” Additional respondents reported other reasons including personal
health concerns, job loss, debt, and ‘VA [Veterans Affairs] educational issues.”
These findings reveal that 39.0% of graduates considered withdrawing from school
altogether at one time or another, and for a variety of reasons. The most frequent reason cited
was a lack of time with work priorities (42), with financial obstacles cited as nearly as often (39).
Graduates also cited caregiving reasons, academic reasons, personal reasons, and a lack of
support from others.

Table 11
Participant’s Perceived Fit with Peer Classmates and College/University Culture
Participant
Responses
As an adult college student, I felt
like I fit in with the college
culture.
As an adult college student, I felt
like I fit in with my peer
classmates.
Strongly Agree 62 62
Agree 99 105
Disagree 33 31
Strongly Disagree 14 10
Total participants 208 208

85

Cultural Fit with the College/University
Graduates were asked to share if they felt like they fit in with their peer classmates and
with the college culture while they attended college as adult learners (n = 208). The majority of
graduates indicated that they fit in with both the college culture (77.4%) and with their peer
classmates (80.3%) as displayed in Table 11. The remaining graduates expressed feeling that
they did not fit in: 4.8% of graduates indicated “strongly disagree” in their fit with peer
classmates, while 6.7% selected “strongly disagree” in their fit with the college culture at one or
more of the institutions they attended.
Several analyses were conducted to evaluate the relationship of perceived cultural fit with
participants’ other characteristics. A Pearson chi-square was calculated to assess the relationship
between graduates’ fit with the college culture and race/ethnicity, as well as between graduates’
fit with peer classmates and race/ethnicity. No statistically significant relationships were found
between these variables. Similarly, a Pearson chi-square was computed to examine the
relationship between graduates’ gender identity and their perceived fit with the college culture
and peer classmates, and no statistically significant relationships were found. Additionally, no
statistically significant relationships were found between participant’s cultural fit and their status
as a first-generation college student, as a caregiver for children under age 18, or as an active
service member or veteran of the U.S. armed forces. No statistically significant relationship was
uncovered between participants’ ages and feeling of fit with peer classmates or the university
culture.
To evaluate the relationship of self-efficacy and cultural fit, a Pearson chi-square was
computed to evaluate the relationship between participants’ confidence and their perceived
cultural fit with the college culture. A statistically significant relationship was revealed between
86

“as an adult college student, I felt like I fit in with the college culture” and “I felt confident
during the majority of my classes,” x
2
(9, n = 208) = 28.7; p < .001, shown in Table 12. A
statistically significant relationship was also found between participants’ who fit in with the
college culture and “I felt confident when I graduated”, x
2
(9, n = 208) = 32.3, p < .001,
displayed in Table 13. However, no statistically significant relationship was found between
participant’s who fit in with the college culture and “felt confident when I first began my
undergraduate degree.” These results indicate that the majority participants who experienced a fit
with the college culture also felt confident during their classes and upon graduation, yet did not
necessarily feel confident as they first started their degree programs. Conversely, participants
who did not feel they fit with the college culture were more likely to also feel a lack of
confidence.

Table 12
Relationship Between Participants’ Fit with College Culture and Confidence During Classes
I felt confident during the majority of my classes
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
As an adult
college student,
I felt like I fit in
with the college
culture.
Strongly agree 32 28 2 0
Agree 34 58 5 2
Disagree 10 19 3 1
Strongly disagree 5 4 2 3
Total participants 81 109 12 6

Note. A statistically significant relationship was found between these variables, x
2
(9, n = 208) =
28.7; p < .001.

87

Table 13
Relationship Between Participants’ Fit with College Culture and Confidence at Graduation
I felt confident when I graduated.
Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
As an adult
college student,
I felt like I fit in
with the college
culture.
Strongly agree 47 12 1 2
Agree 48 42 4 5
Disagree 14 15 1 3
Strongly disagree 6 2 2 4
Total participants 115 71 8 14

Note. A statistically significant relationship was found between these variables, x
2
(9, n = 208) =
32.3, p < .001.

Statistically significant relationships were also found between graduates’ self-confidence
and their perceived fit with peer classmates. A Pearson chi-square was calculated to examine the
relationship between graduates who felt “confident during the majority of my classes” and their
feeling of fit with peer classmates, and a statistically significant relationship was uncovered, x
2

(9, n = 208) = 37.3, p < .001. The effect size, Cramér’s V, was moderate at .245. A Pearson chi-
square was also computed to evaluate between respondents who felt that they fit with peer
classmates and “felt confident when I graduated,” and a statistically significant relationship was
also determined x
2
(9, n = 208) = 26.0, p < .01. The effect size was also moderate at .204. No
statistically significant relationship was found between participants who felt they fit in with peer
classmates and participants who felt confident when they first began their undergraduate degrees.
Similar to the relationships found with graduates’ fit with the college culture, these results reflect
that graduates who experienced cultural fit with their peer classmates were also most likely to
88

feel confident during the majority of their classes and upon graduation, yet not necessarily felt
confident as they began their undergraduate course of study.
Obstacles and Support Systems
The survey provided alumni with an opportunity to cite specific obstacles they faced, as
well as to identify individuals that helped or hindered them to persist in college through
quantitative and open-ended responses. The following sections provide a detailed account of
participants’ responses.
Obstacles to Degree Completion
Participants were asked to identify specific obstacles that they faced in completing their
degrees (n = 214), summarized in Figure 10. The mode of response was “work,” indicated by
124 participants (57.9%), with 68 participants ranking as the number one obstacle. Seventy-
seven graduates (36.0%) also experienced academic obstacles on their path to graduation, 27 of
which rated as their biggest challenge. Respondents also experienced personal medical/health
issues, as indicated by 69 graduates (32.2%), 31 of which ranked as their largest obstacle. PTs
also experienced obstacles as they cared for others: 59 PT alumni (27.5%) cited “caregiving for
children” as an obstacle, with 25 alumni rating as their top obstacle. Additionally, 36 PTs
(16.8%) indicated “caregiving for someone other than my children” as an obstacle, with 15 PTs
ranking as the largest obstacle. Participants were provided an opportunity to select “other” which
was selected by 63 participants, 31 of which provided an optional text response: 12 PTs
described financial obstacles, 5 described additional employment / second jobs, while 14 others
described a myriad of personal obstacles including “death of my brother,” “having to do all
online because my branch closed,” and “being homeless.”

89

Figure 10
Participant’s Obstacles While Completing Bachelor’s Degree

Note. n = 214. Participants were asked, “Were any of the following obstacles you faced in
completing your degree? (Drag and drop each option into 1 of the 2 boxes. Rank each box in
order of importance)”.

These results reveal that the majority of graduates experienced one or more obstacles on
their path to graduation. Obstacles surfaced in a variety of ways including work, caregiving for
others, and personal issues. The obstacles cited also align to the participants’ reasons cited for
considering withdrawing from college altogether.

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Work Academic Medical/ health Caregiving for
children
Caregiving for
others
Other
No. of Respondents
Obstacles Faced
Ranked 6
Ranked 5
Ranked 4
Ranked 3
Ranked 2
Ranked 1
90

Individuals that Helped Degree Attainment
Graduates were invited to highlight the individuals that impacted their ability to finish
their respective degrees, either positively or negatively, and to rank the degree of impact (n =
229). The vast majority of PT alumni (98.7%) indicated individuals that “helped me to finish my
degree”, with 219 participants (95.6%) citing two or more individuals. The details of the
categories and rankings are described below.
PT alumni indicated a wide range of individuals that helped them throughout their
bachelor’s journey, including their spouses/partners families, friends, employers, and university
staff and faculty as shown in Figure 11. The overall mode of response was “university faculty”,
to which 153 participants (67.7%) indicated as helping, and 22 participants ranking as the biggest
positive influence. Similarly, 149 participants expressed that the university staff positively
affected their persistence, with 28 participants rating staff as the greatest help. An equivalent
number of participants (148) indicated “spouse or partner” as helpful. Additionally,
“spouse/partner” was the overall ranked mode of response for the number one individual that
helped them to finish their degree, as indicated by 78 participants. Exactly half (113) of the total
respondents indicated that their children helped them, with 43 respondents valuing as the second
most important individual(s). Extended family members also played a role of support, as
indicated by 98 participants (43.4%), 23 of which ranked as the most important. Expanding
beyond the participant’s immediate family, 84 alumni (37.2%) indicated their friends outside
college supported them, with 15 respondents rating their friends as the number one influence.
More than half of participants, or 128, expressed that their classmates helped them, with 18
participants ranking as number one. Roughly a third of participants (77) indicated that their
employers assisted, and 9 alumni rated employers as the number one individual. Participants had
91

an opportunity to indicate “other individuals” who helped them, to which six alumni signified
“myself” as the number one individual, and seven others referenced a variety of immediate
family members. These findings reflect the importance of PT’s support network in positively
affecting persistence to graduation.

Figure 11
Individuals that Helped Participants Finish Their Bachelor’s Degree

Note. n = 229. Participants were asked, “Please share the individuals that impacted your ability to
finish your degree. (Drag and drop each option into 1 of the 3 boxes. Rank those included in each
box in order of importance)”. This chart displays participants’ respective rankings of persons
selected for “Helped me to finish my degree.”
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
University
faculty
University
staff
Classmates Spouse/
partner
Children Extended
family
Friends
outside
college
Employer Other
No. of Respondents
Individuals That Helped Participants Finish Their Bachelor's Degrees
Ranked 9
Ranked 8
Ranked 7
Ranked 6
Ranked 5
Ranked 4
Ranked 3
Ranked 2
Ranked 1
92

As the majority of PTs identified their spouse/partner as the number one individual to
help them finish their degrees, several correlation analyses were conducted to examine the
relationship between help provided by spouse/partner and with help provided by others.
Pearson’s r was computed to assess the relationship between help from spouse/partner and help
from faculty. There was a negative correlation between the two variables (r = -.350; n = 102; p <
.001). These findings suggest that while both groups of individuals were helpful, alumni that had
more help from a spouse/partner may have experienced or required help from faculty to a lesser
degree, and vice versa. Pearson’s r was also calculated to assess the relationship between help
from spouse/partner and help from staff. Similarly, findings revealed a negative correlation
between these two elements (r = -.376; n = 95; p < .001), suggesting that PTs who received help
from staff may have not received or required as much help from a spouse/partner, and vice versa.
Additional correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between help from
spouse/partner and other individuals. In comparing the relationship between help from
spouse/partner and help from classmates, there was a subtle negative correlation (r = -.262; n =
83; p < .01). As in the aforementioned comparisons, these results indicate that as PTs
experienced from a spouse/partner, they may not have experienced or required support from
classmates. Conversely, in evaluating the relationship between help from spouse/partner and help
from children, there was a subtle yet positive correlation (r = .222; n = 85; p < .04). These
findings suggest that as participants experienced help from their spouse/partner, they were also
likely to experience help from their children if applicable. No statistically significant
relationships were identified between help from spouse/partner and help by employer, friends
outside of college, or extended family members.
93

Pearson’s r was calculated to evaluate the relationship between participants who ranked
their employers as helping participants who indicated “work” as their top obstacle. A positive
correlation was revealed between these two variables (r = .355; n = 43; p < .01). These results
suggest that participants who perceived work as an obstacle were also likely to experience help
from their employers.
As the largest number of participants indicated that faculty members helped them overall,
several analyses were conducted to identify the correlation between help provided by faculty and
help provided by others. Pearson’s r was calculated to examine the relationship between help
from faculty and help from university staff. There was a positive correlation between these two
variables (r = .370; n = 122; p < .001). Pearson’s r was also computed to evaluate the
relationship between help from faculty and help from classmates. A subtly positive correlation
was determined between these two variables (r = .236; n = 94; p < .02). These results indicate
that students who sought or received help from faculty were also most likely to engage or receive
help from university staff and/or classmates. No statistically significant relationships were found
between help provided by faculty in relation to help from extended family members, friends
outside college, or employers.
Methods of Support
Participants were invited to describe why they ranked the individuals they did for
“helping you finish your degree” in an open-ended question (n = 182). Respondents shared
appreciation for specific individuals including university personnel, peers, spouses/partners,
family members, children, and employers. Across all groups, a theme surfaced involving
emotional support, as 61.5% of respondents described support and encouragement received from
others. In numerous cases, individuals in the participants’ support network were the defining
94

difference for participant’s persistence to graduation. One alumnus shared, “Without their
support I could not accomplish what I did”, while another shared, “They motivated me and
wouldn’t let me fail.” Another respondent stated, “They believed in me and provided me with
positive vibes that I will be able to get my degree.” PT alumni also described how the emotional
support received from others positively affected their persistence to graduation. One participant
expressed, “They motivated me daily and more so at times when I wanted to quit,” while another
shared, “They helped to push me and carry-on when I was burnt out.” Another graduate
articulated, “They helped me by motivating me when I wanted to give up.” Another alumnus
expressed:
I returned to school later in life because I had my children at a young age. Everyone in
my family was so encouraging and so were all of my friends. To me it was a compliment
to hear "I don't know how you are doing everything" and anyone saying they were proud
of me was the best thing I could hear.
As 97% of respondents cited two or more individuals helped them overall, many alumni
expressed positive tributes to multiple individuals, including how “it truly took a village” as one
alumnus shared. One graduate articulated, “Everyone is some form or fashion contributed to my
success, whether that was in mental, physical, emotional or financial support.” Another
participant expressed the help of his spouse, children, and university staff:
My wife pushed me for years to get my degree, and when I finally enrolled, she
encouraged and helped me every day to completing it. My kids were a huge motivating
factor on why I finished my degree. So just from finding my own external 'why' (my
family), motivated me a lot more than any internal why. Lastly, the entire staff (from
admissions, to education, to career services) at [KU] were so encouraging and helpful.
95

These results reveal how individuals overall provided students valuable emotional support and
encouragement to help them graduate. The following sections describe specific support received
from respective groups of individuals including university personnel, peers, spouses/partners,
family members, children, and employers,
Support from University Personnel
Forty-six graduates described how they received help from either faculty members (17),
staff members (10), or both (19). Graduates who received help from both faculty and staff
described receiving overall support and encouragement. Participants explained how “staff and
faculty were fantastic” and “the faculty and staff went above and beyond to make sure I
graduated.” One alumnus shared, “The faculty and staff of [KU] were always around to answer
questions, address issues, and give guidance whenever I needed them with very few exceptions.”
Another graduate shared, “My professors and University staff have always been instrumental.”
Graduates described specifically how faculty members helped them by providing positive
encouragement and/or academic support. One participant described learning “creative thinking
skills taught by professors.” Alumni described how faculty were accessible to answer questions.
One alumnus shared how “the professors actually invested time in me and helped me understand
rather than just letting me slip through the cracks.” Another graduate shared, “Some of the
faculty that taught me my classes just taught in a way that showed they cared for your education
and you excelling.” Another participant shared an example of faculty encouragement: “At one
point, early in my school beginnings … I was homeless and living in my truck. Teachers
encourage [sic] me to continue with my education.”
University staff helped alumni by providing positive encouragement or support in their
functional area of expertise. In the area of functional support, one respondent expressed, “The
96

university staff helped me getting registered for classes and checking what was more convenient
in order to get the best out of my financial aid.” Another participant articulated, “As far as the
staff, if it wasn’t for them [sic] I would have had issues being able to attend and staying
enrolled.” Respondents described emotional support provided to them by staff members. One
participant shared how “University staff were the only ones directly assuring me with my degree
completion,” and another respondent exclaimed, “My counselor … was amazing and incredibly
helpful! I probably wouldn’t have finished without her help and dedication!” Another alumnus
described it thus:
When I considered going back to school I had not been in school, with the exception of
my associates [sic] degree earned in the Air Force, 33 years. I had dropped out of
Electrical Engineering school with a low grade point average. I wasn't sure I could even
get into school let alone finish. The admissions staff, finance and academic advisors
showed me how I could do it and got me on the path. There were times when I wanted to
quit. Times that I questioned what I was doing and if I should go on. I was even at risk of
being expelled if I didn't successfully complete my last class. I believe I had failed it once
and dropped out of it another time. The academic advisor told me to “FINISH
STRONG". So [sic] I picked myself up with all my doubt and depression and did.
Overall, university faculty and staff positively affected student persistence to graduation. In
addition to providing meaningful support and encouragement, faculty provided valuable
academic support, while staff members provided assistance in their areas of functional expertise.
Support from Spouses/Partners
Thirty-three alumni described how their spouses/partners helped by providing emotional
encouragement as well as by assuming domestic responsibilities to enable time to complete
97

college. One participant shared that “my spouse pushed and encouraged me the whole way,” and
another expressed that their “partner was up late nights with me.” Numerous participants cited
examples of how their spouses/partners helped at home, including “entertaining the kids during
my study time,” or taking “care of all household chores.” Another respondent shared, “It is
important to have a support team. My spouse is at the top of the list. Fielding all the everyday
needs of the family while I worked and studied was beyond what I could have ever imagined.”
As another alumnus explained, “Without my spouses [sic] and extended families help, I wouldn’t
have been able to attend [college] and be a mom and have a full time [sic] career.”
Support from Family Members
Thirty-three respondents referenced how they received help from extended family
members, including emotional support and academic support. In the area of emotional support,
alumni described how their family support was “crucial” to their persistence in college.
Graduates shared how family “motivated me to finish college” and were “very supportive and
committed to my successful college life.” One alumnus shared, “My family helped through the
days that were hard,” while another articulated, “Without the support of my spouse and family
(both immediate and extended) completing my degree would not have been possible.”
Five participants shared how their families provided them academic support, indicating
“they helped me study when I needed it.” As one graduate described,
My immediate family has some background in math and physics, which was invaluable
in some more complex coursework. … The most relevant positive influences were
topically related family members who were able to provide insight where the courses did
not and some classmates who actually provided positive influences to the group context.

98

Support from Children
PTs’ children were also cited as a source of motivation by 21 participants, either by
children providing direct encouragement, or PT’s desire to “give them [children] a good
example.” In the area of motivation, participants shared how their children were the “biggest
cheerleaders” and how their children “were very supportive with me going back to college.” One
respondent explained, “Two of my adult children and I are enrolled in college. We share ideas as
well as support and encourage each other.” Another participant acknowledged that his children
“didn’t get as much attention and were very supportive.” As for setting a positive example, one
alumnus shared, “My kids were my reason to go back [to college].” while another said, “my kids
were my main focus to finish [my] degree.” Another alumnus explained, “I did it for my family.
I was 40 when I graduated. I wanted to show my son that you can accomplish anything you put
your mind to.”
Support from Employers
Twelve alumni indicated how employers helped their degree attainment in a variety of
ways including schedule flexibility, financial support, and career advancement opportunities. As
one alumnus explained, “My boss allowed me the flexibility I needed if I needed to take some
time to attend meetings, classes or complete assignments.” Similarly, another alumnus shared
how “my employer gave me time off so I could focus on final exams or projects.” Another
respondent shared how their employer “… took on my work load at times to allow me to
concentrate on school.” Several participants noted financial assistance from their employers to
fund their degree programs. As one participant described, “My employer paid for a good portion
of my degree.” Employers also influenced participants through career opportunities. One
participant indicated, “My employer encouraged me to earn my degree for a promotion,” while
99

another participant exclaimed, “Knowing that I would receive a promotion and a raise from my
employer helped too!”
Support from Peers
Seventeen graduates described how their co-workers and friends outside of college
helped them through encouragement as well as academic support. One participant shared that
“friends were supportive of my goals”, while another expressed, “I had community based on
close friends.…” Graduates referenced appreciation for academic support. As one alumnus
explained, “Luckily for me, some of my friends and coworkers have taken similar courses and/or
have experience in this field, so I was able to get a lot of help from them when I needed it.”
Another graduate shared, “I had a [sic] entry level position in my degree field and my co workers
[sic] were advanced professionals in my degree field so they were the most helpful.”
Ten participants described how their classmates provided them emotional support or
academic support. Emotional support comments included how “classmates were always
supportive” and “only 1 particular classmate was encouraging and we encouraged each other.”
Participants shared how classmates provided academic support as they “helped answer some of
my questions” and “worked closely with me to help me complete assignments.” Another
graduate shared, “Fellow students were also friendly and most were receptive to assistance and
to being assisted by me. We all worked as a team to graduate and finish our degrees.”
In summary, the majority of graduates experienced support from a multitude of
individuals, with a theme of emotional support and encouragement across all groups of
individuals. Graduates described academic support from faculty, classmates, extended family
members, and friends outside of college. Spouses/partners provided support by assuming
domestic responsibilities to enable alumni time to complete college. University staff members
100

provided needed functional support. Employers provided schedule flexibility, financial support,
and career advancement opportunities.
Individuals that Hindered Degree Attainment
Graduates were asked to highlight the individuals that impacted their ability to finish
their respective degrees, either positively or negatively, and to rank the degree of impact (n =
229). While 226 participants highlighted individuals that helped them in completing their
bachelor’s degrees as mentioned previously, 145 participants cited individuals that “hindered me
from finishing my degree” (Figure 12). Fifty participants indicated their employer hindered
them, with 24 respondents ranking as the greatest hindrance. Participants also indicated that their
families hindered them, with 27 citing their spouse/partner, 27 mentioning their extended family,
and 20 indicating their children. For those participants that cited their spouse/partner, 17 ranked
as the greatest hindrance. Another 14 respondents ranked their extended family members as the
greatest hindrance, while 7 participants indicated their children as the greatest hindrance.
Participants also mentioned how their peer groups negatively impacted their degree attainment:
29 indicated their friends outside of college, with 13 ranking as the greatest hindrance.
Additionally, 26 alumni referenced their classmates as obstacles, with 15 ranking as the top
hindrance. Alumni also indicated that University faculty and staff hindered them at one or more
of the institutions attended, with 12 alumni referencing staff members, and 11 participants
referencing faculty. Participants were provided an option to select “other” which was the mode
of response with 66 respondents. In the “other” category, participants could also enter a text
response, for which 20 participants indicated “no one” and 14 participants provided detail: two
individuals cited their coworkers as hindrances, and two others referenced themselves as a
101

hindrance. Additional participants cited people including “mom,” “outsiders,” “military
deployment,” “debtors,” and “friend,” and “boyfriend.”

Figure 12
Individuals that Hindered Participants from Finishing Their Bachelor’s Degree

Note. n = 229. Participants were asked, “Please share the individuals that impacted your ability to
finish your degree. (Drag and drop each option into 1 of the 3 boxes. Rank those included in each
box in order of importance)”. This chart displays participants’ respective rankings of persons
selected for “Hindered me from finishing my degree.”

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
University
faculty
University
staff
Classmates Spouse/
partner
Children Extended
family
Friends
outside
college
Employer Other
No. of Respondents
Individuals That Hindered Participants From Finishing Their Degrees
Ranked 6
Ranked 5
Ranked 4
Ranked 3
Ranked 2
Ranked 1
102

As employers were regarded as a hindrance by the largest number of participants,
Pearson’s r was computed to examine the relationship between the hindrance of employers in
comparison to the help provided by various individuals. A strong negative correlation was
revealed between participants that indicated their employers were hindrances and participants
that indicated they received help from extended family members (r = -.568; n = 22; p < .01).
These findings indicate that the more that participants experienced obstacles at work, the
participants were more likely to receive or seek help from their extended family. No statistically
significant relationships were found between employers ranked as hindrances and help provided
by spouses/partners, classmates, friends, or university staff or faculty.
Descriptions of Hindrances
Alumni were invited to explain in open-ended responses why they ranked the individuals
they did for hindering their ability to complete their respective degrees (n = 117).
Participants described a number of hindrances by their respective spouses/partners, children,
family members, employers, peers, and university personnel. Findings revealed themes involving
an absence of emotional support and encouragement, and demands placed on the PTs’ time that
hindered them from finishing their degrees. The following sections summarizes participant’s
responses.
Hindrances by Employers
Nineteen alumni expressed how their employers hindered their degree attainment in the
area of time commitments, either with work schedule conflicts or the number of hours worked.
Participants shared how they were “always at work”, and how “it was difficult to work and
attend school.” One respondent described how “my work schedule often interfered with being
able to complete assignments in what I consider a timely manner.” Another participant shared
103

that their employer “gave no flexibility or opportunity to work on schoolwork so time was very
limited.” In the area of the number of hours worked, one alumnus explained, “I worked long
hours and had some time constraints traveling from home to work. I couldn't get a favorable
schedule that would allow me to take more classes to complete the degree in a shorter time.”
Another graduate shared, “My employer and coworkers created a difficult situation. I was only
supposed to work 40 hours a week but we continually had staffing issues and I wound up
working 60 to 80 hours weekly throughout my degree.” Another participant described how their
work schedule impacted their course selections: “My employer wasn’t understanding in the need
for the school schedule, so I had to rely, toward the latter half, on on-line platform which was
extremely difficult because of the high demand for my time on the job.” Two participants
indicated that they quit their respective jobs due to time constraints competing with school. As
one participant described, “One of my jobs would not agree to let me go to my classes one night
a week. So [sic] I quit that job and got a new one in the field I was pursuing.” These comments
highlight how PTs who are working face challenges in balancing employment while attending
college. As one alumnus summarized, “Trying to work full time and meet the obligations of my
job while also completing my coursework was a challenge. Not all employers are flexible.”
Hindrances by Peers
Thirteen alumni described how their classmates detracted from their progress, 11 of
which cited challenges with group projects including being “difficult,” “a burden,” and “a
headache.” One respondent described how “group assignments were difficult to complete in
tandem when on a 24/7 course schedule.” Another participant shared, “Many times working in
groups classmates did not pull their weight; therefore [sic] in order to stay on the Dean’s list I
had no choice, but to complete their part of the assignments too.” Another alumnus articulated,
104

“Many times the classmates would not do their part. One time I even had a classmate tell me
they were busy at a bar and wouldn’t be getting me their part at all.” These findings reveal that
some PTs who persisted to graduation compensated for their classmates’ lack of work by
investing additional time and effort in order to prevail.
Three graduates explained that their friends outside of college hindered degree
completion by inhibiting PTs from focusing on school. One participant shared, “Friends that
were no [not] in school were a hindrance because they were a distraction from studying, since
they did not have the same responsibilities that I did.” Another graduate expressed that their
friends “went through up and down during their studies and career goals.” As one participant
explained,
I know some of the biggest HATERS (Having Anger Towards Everyone Reaching
Success) comes from our own inner circles (ie [sic] friends and family). Just because they
could not do it, they will tell you that you cannot make it too.
Hindrances by Spouses/Partners and Children
Thirteen participants described how their spouses/partners hindered their ability to
complete their degrees given an absence of emotional support and by placing constraints on PT’s
time. PTs described how their spouses/partners “didn’t want me to attend [college].” One
alumnus said, “My spouse never supported me in my educational goals,” and another explained,
“It just wasn’t important if I went back to college or not with my ex husband [sic].” Another
alumnus described, “My spouse was the only one that didn't want me to finish my college
degree. He kept trying to find ways that would hinder me in getting classwork done.” Eight
respondents specifically cited their spouses/partners’ need for the PT’s time and attention. One
participant explained, “My boyfriend (ex now) couldn’t stand that I was giving my attention to
105

something other than him.” Another alumnus said, “It took a lot of time away from my wife to
finish my degree and she would get upset at the amount of time that I would spend on my course
work.” As one participant shared, “[My] significant other felt alienated due to loss of attention &
discouraged me by proclaiming I wasn’t capable of completing my task.” Another respondent
shared, “My now ex husband [sic] made it almost impossible to finish my degree. He refused to
allow me the time to study or do my work. He did everything in his power to hinder me from
completing.”
Five PTs described how young children hindered their educational pursuits as the
children required care or the PT’s personal time. Graduates described how young children “need
their parents’ attention”, and “made my college life more stressful by interrupting when I am
busy or causing a loud outburst that disrupted my work or restful sleep.” One respondent
explained, “I did complete my degree but I really stressed myself and put my health at risk by
going to school full time while having a full time [sic] job, a husband, three kids and an elderly
parent to take care of.”
Hindrances by Family Members
Similar to hindrances by spouses/partners, 11 PTs described how their extended family
members did not provide them emotional support or conversely placed demands on the PT’s
personal time. One graduate shared that their “family was not supportive in my educational
pursuits,” and another graduate expressed, “My mom was very negative.” Another PT expressed
that their “family members always questioned why I was not spending time with them instead of
studying.” Three of the 11 PTs also described how their extended family members did not
perceive the value in continuing education. As one PT shared, “My extended family, especially
my mother’s side, is rather anti education.” Another PT explained that “they didn’t get a job in
106

field to get the debt paid so they believe is a waste of time.” Another respondent said that their
family members “did not approve. Thought I was too old.”
Hindrances by University Personnel
Participants described a few instances in which they experienced hindrances by
university personnel at one of the institutions they attended. One PT described that the college or
university “willingly misinformed me of my degree choice and costs.” As another graduate
articulated,
At the start of my degree my path was amazing, a semester into my degree, my career
path was removed from the curriculum, and I was lied to about the classes i [sic] wanted
to take being absorbed into the new classes I was given.
Two graduates described issues with faculty at one of the institutions they attended: “One
professor encouraged me to ‘coast through the class, and retake at another time.’” Another
alumnus said, “I had a professor report me about cheating but found out that the part of the paper
that matched was cited as it should have been and was only 7%.”
These findings reveal how individuals in the participants’ environments had adverse
effects on participants’ persistence to graduation. These adverse effects included a lack of
emotional support and encouragement, and demands placed on the PTs’ time that hindered them
from finishing their degrees. Despite these hindrances, participants were able to ultimately
succeed in achieving their goals.
Summary of Findings
Overall findings suggest themes of intrinsic motivation, external motivation, and support
from others that helped PTs persist to graduation amidst a myriad of obstacles and competing
priorities. The vast majority of respondents (98.7%) received helped from others, with 95.6% of
107

graduates citing two or more individuals. In numerous cases, these individuals were described as
the defining difference in PTs’ persistence to graduation. However, 64.2% of respondents cited
individuals that hindered them from finishing their degrees, largely due to a lack of emotional
support and/or additional time constraints placed upon them by individuals.
Individual Influences
A multitude of participants were motivated to complete their bachelor’s degrees for
intrinsic as well as external reasons. In the area of intrinsic goal motivation, 83.2% of
respondents preferred course material that aroused their curiosity, and 85.1% preferred
challenging course material to learn new things. The of respondents also felt confident as they
began their undergraduate degrees (85.0%), throughout most of their classes (91.2%), and upon
graduation (90.4%), reflecting self-efficacy in PT’s attainment of their degrees. The
preponderance of graduates also experienced motivation for external reasons. More than 72% of
graduates pursued their degree for their career goals, and 74.7% indicated that their bachelor’s
degree is relevant to their current career. Many graduates were also motivated to attend college
for reasons beyond their careers including serving as a role model for their families (35.8%).
Numerous alumni experienced academic challenges on their path to graduation. More
than a third of respondents (36.0%) cited that they experienced academic obstacles, 27 of which
rated as their biggest obstacle. Seventeen graduates indicated that they considered withdrawing
from college altogether because the “academics were too challenging.” To remedy academic
issues, 80.0% of respondents pursued some level of academic support outside the classroom,
95.7% of which indicated that the support received made a positive impact in their college
success.
108

Nearly 40% of respondents (83) considered withdrawing from college altogether, largely
due to competing priorities with work, finances, and caregiving of others in addition to academic
challenges. Respondents also experienced personal medical/health issues, as indicated by 69
graduates (32.2%), 31 of which ranked as their largest obstacle. More than 60% of respondents
attended two or more institutions, and nearly half of respondents took at least one break from
college. While the majority of PTs completed their degrees their degrees within six years
(77.4%), more than 15% of graduates took in excess of 10 years to graduate. Ultimately, these
participants managed to overcome obstacles over extended periods of time in order to succeed.
Environmental Influences
Post-traditional graduates faced environmental obstacles as they pursued their bachelor’s
degrees, including work, caregiving for children, and caregiving for others. Conversely, the
majority of participants also received substantial support from individuals in their surrounding
environments, and in some cases were the primary reason for PT’s ability to persist to
graduation.
More than half of respondents (57.9%) indicated “work” as an obstacle to their finishing
their degrees, with 68 participants rating as the number one obstacle. Alumni described time
constraints with work, either in the total hours worked or the work schedule itself. However,
roughly a third of respondents (77) indicated that their employers helped them amidst these
challenges. Comments from alumni revealed that their employers helped by providing schedule
flexibility, financial support, and career advancement opportunities.
While numerous graduates faced obstacles in caring for children, other PTs were
motivated and encouraged by their children. Ninety-two participants were caring for children
under the age of 18, and 59 participants cited “caregiving for children” as an obstacle to their
109

persisting in college. Graduates mentioned how their young children required their attention,
while others described their children as their “cheerleaders” and their motivation to set an
example.
Spouses/partners helped nearly 65% of respondents finish their degrees, while another
12% of respondents indicated that their spouses/partners hindered them from finishing their
degrees. For those participants that indicated their spouses/partners helped them, 78 participants
ranked spouses/partners as their number one support. In comparison to other helpful individuals,
more participants ranked spouses/partners number one than any other support source.
Partners/spouses helped by providing emotional encouragement as well as by assuming domestic
responsibilities to enable time for PT’s to complete college. Conversely, for those participants
who indicated partners/spouses hindered them, participants experienced a lack of emotional
support and constraints on their time. A correlation was found between help provided by
spouses/partners and help from children, reflecting potential consistency of support from the
PT’s immediate family.
Extended family members helped 43.4% of respondents finish their degrees, yet hindered
11.9% from finishing. Similar to the hindrances from spouses/partners, participants referenced a
lack of emotional support and demands on the PT’s time. For graduates who experienced support
from extended family members, graduates shared appreciation for receiving emotional support as
well as academic support.
Participants’ classmates and friends outside college also influenced participants’ degree
completion, both positively and negatively. More than half of respondents (56.6%) indicated that
their classmates helped them to finish their degrees, and more than a third of respondents
(37.2%) indicated that friends outside college helped them. Graduates described that their peers
110

helped them to finish their degrees through encouragement as well as academic support.
Conversely, 11.5% of respondents mentioned their classmates hindered them from finishing their
degrees, and 12.8% of respondents indicating that friends were a hindrance, citing a lack of focus
and classmates’ lack of participation in group projects.
Organizational Influences
The majority of PT alumni expressed feeling that they fit with the college culture (77.4%)
and with their peer classmates (80.3%). A relationship was found between participant’s feeling
of cultural fit and their confidence as they attended the majority of their classes, as well as their
confidence upon graduation. The feeling of fit could have been positively influenced by KU’s
student population which is largely comprised of diverse adult learners over age 25.
The majority of PT graduates indicated a need for convenient class offerings to fit with
their competing priorities. More than 70% of respondents cited a preference for online learning,
largely due to the convenience amidst competing priorities. However, 22.0% of respondents
indicated they preferred campus classes, yet class availability was limited either on the part of
the respective institution or PTs’ access. Some PTs described that the preferred campus classes
due to the interactivity with faculty and peers, suggesting that these relationships positively
affected students’ educational experiences.
Faculty and staff played an important role in supporting graduates. More than two-thirds
of graduates (67.7%) indicated that they experienced help from faculty, and nearly 10% of
participants (22) ranked faculty as their number one support. Similarly, 65.0% of respondents
indicated that staff members helped them, with 12.2% of graduates (28) ranking staff members
as their number one support. A positive correlation was revealed between participants who
sought help from faculty and participants who also sought or received help from staff. A negative
111

correlation was found between graduates who were lacking in help from their spouses/partners
and who received help from faculty and/or help from staff, highlighting the importance of the
role of faculty and staff as supporters in the absence of PTs’ external support. Faculty were also
the primary source for academic support outside the classroom for 95 participants (46.3%),
greater than all other sources including university tutoring services which were ranked fourth
among academic support sources.
Several PT graduates described a hindrance in completing group projects, as some
classmates were unresponsive, requiring additional time for PTs to complete/coordinate. To
ensure satisfactory academic progress, several PTs cited completing their classmates’ work
beyond their own portion of the project. These additional demands on PTs’ time amplified the
list of PTs’ competing priorities. While the lack of classmates’ inherent completion of group
project assignments is the responsibility of those classmates, the organization influences this
outcome through the curriculum design and grading policies.
In sum, the preponderance of PTs faced an array of obstacles on their path to graduation,
and received support from multiple individuals in order to persist. While these findings reflect
the bulk of respondents, others experienced a lack of support with individuals in their
surroundings, and a handful of PTs cited themselves as their sole source of motivation and
support. Despite hindrances, these participants all succeeded in achieving their bachelor’s
degrees, reflecting a common grit and perseverance to reaching their goals.
112

Chapter Five: Recommendations
This chapter provides a summary of the recommendations from the study. The purpose of
the study was to examine the factors that contribute to post-traditional undergraduate student
persistence. The study incorporated a conceptual framework based upon Urie Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological model that describes how environments shape individuals’ behavior, and individuals
in turn influence those respective environments. Accordingly, the study included individual
influences, environmental influences, and organizational influences. The research questions that
directed the study were as follows:
1. What individual factors affect post-traditional student persistence to graduation?
2. What organizational factors affect post-traditional student persistence to graduation?
3. What environmental factors affect post-traditional student persistence to graduation?
4. What are the relationships between various factors that affect post-traditional student
persistence to graduation?
The study answered all research questions. As outlined in Chapter Four, findings revealed a
multitude of factors that affected students’ persistence, as well as several variables with
statistically significant relationships.
This chapter begins with a summary of the influences that the study validated. Next, the
chapter includes recommendations for practice by higher education institutions that serve post-
traditional students. These recommendations include curriculum implications, class offerings,
university support networks, and university policies and procedures. The chapter also provides a
summary of the strengths and weakness of the study’s approach. The chapter concludes with
limitations and delimitations of the study, as well as implications for future research.

113

Influence Summary
Prior to the study, the researcher identified several individual, micro, and macro
influences that affect PT persistence according to relevant literature. These influences were
presented in Chapter Two. After the conclusion of the study, the researcher evaluated whether
the influences were present in the study findings. The researcher considered a threshold of at
least 65% of related survey question responses to affirm whether the influence was present.
In the area of individual factors, the study validated three of the anticipated influences,
shown in Table 14. One of these influences is the need for academic support for the rigors of
college. Another influence is that the majority of graduates demonstrated self-efficacy. The study
also revealed that graduates experienced both intrinsic motivation and extrinsic goal orientation.
The study did not validate the students’ metacognitive strategies, as the final survey did not
include questions in this area.

Table 14
Study Validation of Individual Influences
Influence Ecological model placement Study results
PTs need knowledge skills for
the rigors of college

Individual Present
PTs need metacognition of their
skills in math and reading

Individual Not present
PTs’ success attributions affect
their outcomes in school.

Individual Present
PTs’ self-efficacy affects their
persistence in school.

Individual Present

114

The study also confirmed seven anticipated influences in the students’ surrounding micro
and macrosystems, displayed in Table 15. Applying the ecological model by Urie
Bronfenbrenner, the students’ microsystems and macrosystems encompass environmental and
organizational influences. The environmental influences that the study validated include PT’s
employment demands, care for dependent children, and support or lack thereof from family
members. The organizational influences include the support or hindrances from faculty and staff
members, as well as campus resources, namely availability of convenient course offerings.

115

Table 15
Study Validation of Micro and Macro Influences
Influence Ecological model placement Study results
PTs’ life experience may
contribute to success in school.

Microsystem Not present
PT’s employment demands
place constraints on time to
complete college.

Microsystem Present
PT’s family members provide
support to PTs while attending
college, particularly for
dependent childcare.

Microsystem Present
PTs with dependent children
need childcare support to
persist in college.

Microsystem Present
Faculty interactions with PTs
affect PT persistence.

Microsystem Present
Staff interactions with PTs
affect PT persistence.

Microsystem Present
The campus resources affect
student persistence.

Microsystem Present
Intersection of PTs’ employers
with school

Macrosystem Present
The legacy culture of traditional
students affects PTs, as
legislative measurements and
nomenclature are not fully
inclusive of PTs.

Macrosystem Not Present

Overall, the study authenticated the majority of the individual, environmental, and
organizational influences that were identified prior to the study. The findings were also in
116

alignment with the relevant literature. These findings, coupled with the literature, inform the
subsequent recommendations for practice by higher education institutions.
Recommendations for Practice
As the participants in this study all successfully attained their bachelor’s degrees,
identifying the conditions that helped these students succeed helps to inform future practices for
institutions. The following sections provide recommendations for higher education institutions
that serve post-traditional students. These recommendations include curriculum implications,
convenient offerings, university support networks, and university policies and procedures.
Curriculum Implications for Group Projects
The literature and the study revealed that PTs face competing priorities, namely work and
caregiving for others, that place additional demands on PTs’ time that impedes college
persistence. As PTs’ time is a premium, finding ways to save time is essential to support
persistence to graduation, while also ensuring graduates are adequately prepared to succeed in
the workplace.
This study revealed how group projects at one or more institutions hindered PTs’ degree
attainment, as classmates’ lack of participation amplified the additional project time
requirements. Universities often consider group projects as a needed component in curricula, as
graduates are likely to experience working in teams during their careers and need group work to
be prepared for the global workforce (Blau et al., 2019). With the student needs and study
findings in mind, higher education institutions should carefully consider the time requirements
for PTs to complete coursework outside of the classroom, and evaluate the structure of group
projects to optimize learning outcomes without inadvertently hindering student persistence.
117

Higher education institutions that serve PTs should carefully consider the implementation
of group projects to ensure optimal effectiveness. At the institution level, colleges and
universities should consider macro-level frameworks for group projects to ensure optimal
learning outcomes and consistency across courses. Subsequently, curriculum designers and
faculty tasked with group project design should contemplate the learning objectives and whether
the group work will impart benefits that students cannot glean from working individually
(Svinicki & Schallert, 2016). These curriculum designers should also thoughtfully structure
group projects to ensure group member learning and accountability while safeguarding PT time
commitments.
To examine effective structure for group projects, Choi and Ro (2012) facilitated a study
at a large Florida university with 379 undergraduates who had experienced an average of three
group projects per semester. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 48 years old, and 73.4%
of participants were employed for an average of 27 hours per week at the time of the survey.
Results revealed that the more positive attitudes the students had toward group projects, the more
often students had group projects that complemented the specific course, that instructors
supported during the entire project process, and included fair evaluation techniques. The
researchers implied that less effective instructors often focused only on the final outcome of the
project, investing little to no time on orientation or the project’s purpose. Choi and Ro suggested
the need for faculty to pre-design individual student assignments to ensure equitable workload
distribution. The researchers also recommended designating class time for the project and
incorporating regular checkpoints throughout the process. To reinforce individual student
accountability, the authors proposed peer evaluations at the middle and conclusion of the project,
as well as individual spot quizzes or individual presentations of the group’s progress.
118

In sum, as PTs experience numerous time constraints, institutions need to ensure that
group projects are essential to learning outcomes without placing undue time requirements upon
PTs. Some research suggests that the final result of group work is largely greater than the sum of
the individual components and that students may achieve higher level outcomes that they would
have working independently (Svinicki & Schallert, 2016). However, these outcomes are
dependent on classmates contributing their thought leadership and effort to group assignments.
Structuring group assignments to ensure student learning and accountability, as well as providing
students time during class for group meetings, can help PTs succeed in college.
As the majority of PTs face additional time constraints, PTs need convenient services to
save time. Colleges and universities should consider aligning faculty and staff support hours at
times that are convenient to students, particularly evenings and weekends. Institutions should
also consider course schedules and learning modalities that support PTs’ need for convenience.
Convenient Offerings
The study findings revealed that PTs have a need for convenient services given the PTs’
time constraints. These findings also aligned to the relevant literature on the array of demands
played upon PTs’ time (Markle, 2015; Martin et al., 2014; Samuels et al., 2011; Xuereb, 2014).
Given PT’s time constraints, institutions should consider designing convenient course options
and services to meet the needs of the PT student population. Convenient services include the
available hours of university personnel to provide student support. Convenient course options
include online learning as well as evening and weekend classes to accommodate PTs’ schedule
limitations.

119

Convenient Course Options
The study findings revealed that PTs have a primary need convenient course options
given competing priorities. The majority of study respondents (70.8%) indicated a preference for
online learning, largely for flexibility and convenience amidst their work schedules and
caregiving for others, yet not necessarily for the modality itself. Participants also indicated the
importance of connectivity with their respective faculty and staff members, suggesting that
synchronous activities are meaningful. Given these findings, it is important for higher education
institutions to consider offering convenient class options in multiple modalities to meet students’
needs.
As online learning saves time for students given the absence of commute time to a
campus, institutions that serve PTs should consider maximizing online course offerings
whenever possible. The relevant literature underscores the importance of convenient class
options, including online options, to support PT persistence to graduation (Capps, 2012;
Davidson & Holbrook, 2014; Pontes & Pontes, 2012). Online course options also enable
institutions to serve smaller cohorts of students in respective programs. With the global pivot to
online learning amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, online course options may also become more
prevalent across the higher education industry.
While the majority of respondents preferred online learning, 22.0% of respondents
indicated a preference for campus classes. However, PTs indicated they were unable to select
campus classes, either because of the respective institution’s limited class options or PTs’ access
to the location. Institutions that serve PTs should be mindful of the days and times of required
campus classes, notably evening and weekend offerings, given PT’s preponderance for
employment.
120

Several PTs indicated that their preference for campus classes was largely due to the
personal interaction with peers and faculty. To meet this need while also meeting the PTs’ need
for convenience, institutions should also consider adopting optional synchronous activities into
the online learning environment. When facilitating asynchronous online learning, institutions
should incorporate opportunities for students to interact with instructors and peers. Colleges and
universities can consider blended learning options to complement distance online education and
promote live interactions between students and faculty (Melkun, 2012). However, institutions
should be mindful of balancing requisite time commitments for interactions, as PTs’ convenience
is paramount.
In sum, providing PTs with convenient course offerings, coupled with options to interact
with classmates and faculty, supports PT persistence to graduation. As PT’s time is at a
premium, convenient course options are essential to PT success. Accordingly, institutions need
to establish convenient operating hours for PTs to connect with faculty and staff outside of the
classroom.
Convenient Available Hours by University Personnel
This study, along with the relevant literature, revealed that PTs are often employed while
attending college (Bergman et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2014; Plageman & Sabina, 2010). More
than half of the respondents cited “work” as an obstacle to finishing their degrees, and the
majority of respondents cited work as their number one obstacle. Historically, institutions that
serve traditional students have maintained office hours during weekdays for services such as
financial aid and academic advising. As PTs may likely work during weekdays, PTs who rely
upon evening and weekend classes generally have limited university support services (Kasworm,
121

2014). Institutions that serve PTs should ensure that staff and faculty have designated support
hours during evenings and/or weekends to accommodate PTs’ work schedules.
By establishing convenient staff operating hours, institutions can more readily connect
with PTs amidst PTs’ limited availability, supporting PT persistence to graduation. In addition to
providing time for interactions, institutions must also ensure that the interactions between PTs
and university personnel are meaningful.
University Personnel Support
The research confirmed the importance of faculty and staff interactions with PTs in
supporting PT persistence. The majority of respondents expressed feeling that they fit with the
college culture. The majority of respondents also indicated that faculty and/or staff members
helped them to persist, largely by providing emotional encouragement in addition to functional
support. Nearly 10% of respondents ranked faculty as their number one support source, and 12%
ranked staff members as their top source of support. The study revealed a negative correlation
between graduates who were lacking in help from their spouses or partners and who received
help from faculty or staff, emphasizing the importance of the role of university personnel in
providing needed emotional and/or academic support. Similarly, the relevant literature shows
that responsive staff and faculty members contribute positively to student retention (Bergman et
al., 2014; Howley et al., 2013; Sorey & Duggan, 2008).
University Personnel Connections with Post-Traditional Students
The study findings inform the recommendation for institutions to employ committed,
caring, and responsive faculty and staff members. Establishing strong connections between PTs
and university personnel contributes positively to persistence (Bohl et al., 2017; Capps, 2012).
These meaningful connections serve as the foundation for creating an optimal culture. To create
122

cultural change amongst personnel, Schein (2017) described how organizational culture
encompasses three levels. These levels include artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and basic
underlying assumptions in an organization. Applying this methodology to the problem of
practice, institutions can create a culture to optimize PT persistence by embedding activities and
focusing colleagues’ attention into items involving service and care. Institutions should optimize
hiring practices to ensure top talent is in place that can relate to PTs (Collins, 2001). As
individuals’ work performance is a product of their individual ability and their motivation
(Bolman & Deal, 2017), organizations should closely evaluate employees’ competencies and
commitment during the recruiting process as well as on an ongoing basis. Accordingly,
universities should consider coaching and training to develop staff and faculty members’
relationship skills. Lastly, institutions should incorporate expectations into accountability
measurements to focus staff and faculty on meaningful service-related outcomes.
University Academic Support Services
In addition to cultivating an emotionally supportive environment, institutions that serve
PTs should also consider resources to enable and promote academic support for PTs outside of
the classroom. The study showed that 36.0% of participants experienced academic obstacles, and
a number of graduates cited that they considered withdrawing altogether because the “academics
were too challenging”. Given that the graduates in this study ranged in age from 30 to 68 years
of age, it is likely that many students were away from college for extended time periods prior to
enrolling. The extended time away from formal learning environments may also affect PTs’
academic preparation, and the literature demonstrates that academic preparation affects PT
persistence (Francois, 2014; Luna-Torres, 2018). While this particular study did not assess
participants’ academic preparation prior to college, the majority of respondents (80.0%) sought
123

academic support outside of the classroom, reinforcing the need for some level of support. The
study showed that faculty teaching PTs’ classes were the most frequent source of support,
followed by classmates, family members, and university tutoring services. With these results in
mind, institutions should consider building into faculty expectations the time to provide PT
tutoring support. Universities should also consider promoting accessible university tutoring
services to aid in academic efforts specifically for PTs.
In sum, faculty and staff can help support PT persistence through encouraging
interactions, and by providing PTs’ earnest support in their respective area of expertise. Notably,
academic support is of particular importance given the preponderance of PTs that sought
academic assistance. To reinforce these efforts, universities should also align policies and
procedures to encompass PTs.
University Policies and Procedures
To further support PT persistence to graduation, institutions should consider aligning
policies and procedures to the relevant research that supports persistence activities. This study
revealed that 60.6% of participants attended two or more institutions, and 22.6% took longer
than six years to finish their bachelor’s degrees. These findings inform the recommendation for
higher education institutions to provide transfer-friendly credit policies, and align persistence
measurements and nomenclature to encompass post-traditional students.
Transfer-Friendly Credit Practices
As many PTs have limited time available for college, institutions should seek ways to
save PTs’ time through transfer credits. Transfer credits reduce the overall number of classes
needed for degree completion, preserving PTs’ time as well as cost. Given the high
preponderance of PTs that attended multiple colleges, institutions that serve PTs should foster
124

transfer-friendly credit practices, such as pre-determined articulation agreements with other
institutions and seamless processes to evaluate incoming credits.
Another dimension to honoring transfer credits is through PLA. The literature
demonstrates that PTs with PLA persist at higher rates compared with students who do not have
a PLA (CAEL, 2010; Hayward & Williams, 2015; Klein-Collins et al., 2020). PLA can transpire
in a variety of forms including student portfolios, evaluation of corporate and military training,
and standardized exams. These approaches enable PTs to apply their previous learnings into
course credit, saving PTs’ valuable time as well as cost for tuition. To establish PLA practices,
institutions can connect with external resources such as the Council for Adult and Experiential
Learning (CAEL). Researchers with CAEL recommend that PLA have multiple options enabling
PTs to apply a large range of coursework (Klein-Collins et al., 2020). The researchers also
suggest that institutions actively promote PLA to all students by embedding throughout the
student lifecycle, including external marketing and internal reinforcement from staff and faculty
(Klein-Collins et al., 2020). Additionally, CAEL highlights the importance of establishing
transfer-credit policies to accept PLA credits that other accredited institutions previously
awarded to PTs (Klein-Collins et al., 2020).
Awarding transfer credits to PTs when possible, either from accredited institutions or
from PLA, saves PTs valuable time on their path to graduation. In addition to these time savings,
institutions should be mindful of the internal measurements and nomenclature employed to
address PTs.
Graduation Measurements and Nomenclature
The U.S. measurement for undergraduate graduation rates predominantly evaluates the
percentage of first-time full-time students earning a bachelor’s degree within six years (Cataldi et
125

al., 2019; Library of Congress, 2019). This measurement does not accommodate post-traditional
students for two reasons. First, by definition the measurement focuses upon first-time full-time
students ages 18-24, excluding PTs. Second, the measurement focuses upon completion within
six years, also characterized as “150% of ‘normal time’” by the U.S. Department of Education
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2018). The definition of “normal time” for graduation
within four years implies that additional time for completion is abnormal, and excludes PTs that
attend part-time over multiple years. This study revealed that 22.6% took longer than six years to
finish their bachelor’s degrees, with 15.4% of participants taking in excess of 10 years. Thus, by
measuring graduation within six years, educational institutions are not fully capturing degree
attainment outcomes. This finding also aligns with relevant research (Kasworm, 2014). To
accommodate the diverse undergraduate population, graduation rates should include post-
traditional students, as well as time horizons to encompass all graduates beyond six years. While
ED accountabilities drive these measurements, institutions should consider self-reporting these
graduation rates when PTs are part of their student population.
In addition to the graduation measurements for PTs, the nomenclature surrounding PTs
needs to evolve from “nontraditional” in the spirit of inclusion. Since ED has defined the term
“nontraditional” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015), educators have frequented its
use, yet the term “non” references a deviation from the norm (Soares, 2013). ED, along with
colleges and universities, should consider aligning with the American Council on Education in
promoting “post-traditional” to identify these significant students with a view to the future
(Postsecondary National Policy Institute, 2018; Soares, 2013).
In sum, PTs face a variety of individual, environmental, and organizational obstacles on
their path to graduation. The spirited graduates in this study overcame a myriad of challenges
126

and competing priorities in order to attain their degrees. Institutions seeking to enhance PT
persistence can incorporate orientations to bridge PTs’ learning to the college environment, as
well as structuring group projects to complement PTs’ time constraints. Institutions should also
provide convenient class options and modalities such as online learning, while also incorporating
methods to provide meaningful staff and faculty interactions. University personnel should also
maintain a student-focused mindset, encompassing the nomenclature, policies, practices, and
measurements to support PT needs.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The conceptual framework adapted from Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model
provided several strengths for evaluating PT persistence. First, the individual level encompassed
the students’ personal self-efficacy, knowledge, and motivation. Second, the surrounding
microsystem and mesosystem provided a framework to view the factors that influenced PTs’
persistence in college, including PTs’ employment and campus culture. The framework also
incorporated the relationships between PTs and their respective families, friends, children,
faculty, and staff members. As the research revealed, these relationships helped and/or hindered
PTs’ persistence to graduation.
The framework adaptation of the ecological model presents a few weaknesses. First,
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model does not encompass the element of time. Bronfenbrenner’s
later bioecological model includes the dimension of time, yet suggesting the need for research
studies to be longitudinal in nature (Tudge et al., 2009). As this study was conducted at one point
in time, the ecological model framework was relevant; however, a longitudinal view of the
graduates’ perceptions throughout their learning journeys may provide further interpretations.
Additionally, the contextual framework is based on the lens of the individual, and does not
127

encompass the viewpoints of others that intersect with the individual (e.g., employers, family,
university personnel).
Limitations and Delimitations
There were several limitations in this study. First, the research assumes that participants
were truthful in responses. Second, the researcher was also unable to conduct a wave analysis, as
KU sent the responses to the researcher after the full survey period was complete. Lastly, while
the overall sample size was generally representative providing a 95% confidence level with a
margin of error of 5.92%, a higher response rate may have resulted a greater likelihood of
generalizability of findings.
The study involved several delimitations. The research comprised single institution
consisting of post-traditional graduates who completed their undergraduate degrees between June
2016 and February 2020. By limiting the study to graduates, the study excluded students who did
not complete their degrees. Students who withdrew prematurely may have differing degrees of
success attribution, goal orientation, or obstacles when compared with successful students. The
study also did not encompass other stakeholder groups such as families, faculty, staff, or
employers which may have had differing insights regarding perceived obstacles that PTs
experienced during college. The study was also limited to graduates from a private university
where the majority of students are post-traditional. For institutions that have predominantly
traditional-aged students, PTs may have different experiences relating to the campus culture.
Lastly, as graduates completed their degrees between 2016 and February 2020, PTs attending
college in the COVID-19 era may experience different obstacles on their path to graduation.

128

Future Research
The findings from this study revealed several considerations for future research. As the
majority of participants attended two or more institutions, additional research regarding the
transfer process could reveal insights into overall PT persistence. This research could include
reasons for transferring, as well as whether PTs’ lost college credits in the transfer process that
amplified PT’s time to graduation. Similarly, evaluating graduates’ reasons for extended time to
graduation could also reveal new insights, as 15.4% of participants took longer than 10 years to
complete their degrees.
Given the age range of participants, and the need for PTs to secure academic support
outside of the classroom, additional research into knowledge factors may reveal additional
insights into PT persistence. The study did not encompass the PTs’ metacognitive capabilities,
prior academic success in school, nor the triangulation of prior learning experience. While all
participants in this study ultimately overcame academic obstacles to attain their bachelor’s
degrees, understanding the knowledge success factors may help inform academic support for the
future.
Examining PTs that did not persist to graduation may also provide additional insights.
One influence that the study did not validate was the legacy culture of traditional students, most
likely given the preponderance of PTs at KU. PTs that did not persist may have experienced
different perceptions of college culture from varied institutions, contributing to their withdrawal
from school. Additionally, researching non-graduates’ self-efficacy and motivation may also
reveal whether these elements are reasons that students did not persist. The relevant literature
reinforces the importance of self-efficacy in supporting student persistence (Perry & Hamm,
2017), including the correlation between PT’s self-efficacy and grade point averages (Warden &
129

Myers, 2017). Research suggests that as people have greater belief in their capabilities, they set
higher goals and demonstrate greater commitment to achieve those goals (Bandura, 2012). While
this study validated that that the majority of graduates felt confident as they began their
undergraduate degrees, during most of their classes, and as they graduated from college, it is
unknown whether non-graduates are lacking in self-confidence.
Conclusion
To meet workforce demands in the global economy, higher education institutions need to
produce qualified graduates. As post-traditional students comprise more than 4.4 million
undergraduates in the U.S. (NCES, 2019b), PTs are an impressive portion of enrollments.
However, PTs are graduating at lower rates than traditional students within the ED established
six-year time horizon. A national study revealed 45.8% of PTs graduate within six years,
compared with 64.1% of students ages 20 or younger (Shapiro et al., 2019). While the overall PT
graduation rate beyond six years is unclear, it is essential for higher education institutions to help
adult learners persist to graduation to meet workforce needs.
This study examined PTs that graduated to provide insights into factors that affected their
persistence. Incorporating Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, the methodological
framework for the study examined PTs’ individual factors, micro environmental factors, and
macro environmental factors. The research revealed that the majority of these adult learners
demonstrated self-efficacy, were intrinsically motivated, and were extrinsically motivated to
attain their degrees. These determined learners encountered a myriad of obstacles in their
surrounding environments on their respective paths to graduation. The obstacles included
employment, caregiving for others, financial barriers, academic challenges, job losses, health
issues, and personal tragedies. The majority of respondents (60.6%) attended two or more
130

institutions, and in more than 15% of cases, students took longer than 10 years to complete their
degrees. Despite a variety of barriers, these students persisted to graduation. The vast majority of
participants (98.7%) indicated that others helped them to persist, including spouses/partners,
children, family members, friends, employers, peers, university staff, and university faculty. For
many graduates, these impactful individuals were the defining difference in helping PTs to
prevail.
Higher education institutions that serve PTs can implement several practices to support
PT persistence to graduation. As PTs have likely been away from the formal learning
environments for extended periods of time, institutions should consider provide academic
support services with PTs in mind. Institutions should consider university polices that save PTs’
time, including transfer-friendly credit practices and prior learning assessment options. As PTs’
time is at a premium given their competing priorities, institutions should thoughtfully design
group projects to minimize time constraints while adequately preparing students for workforce
team settings. Institutions should also consider the need for convenience when scheduling
courses and university services, notably by providing evening and weekend options. Offering
online course options, while also maintaining optional synchronous connectivity options with
faculty, provides PTs with needed time and support. Given the positive impact that university
faculty and staff members had in helping these students to persist, it is paramount for institutions
to employ committed, caring, and responsive faculty and staff members that can relate to post-
traditional learners. Providing these students with meaningful interactions enables a lifeline for
persistence. Lastly, the higher education industry should encompass PTs in graduation
measurements and nomenclature. Defining these students as “post-traditional,” rather than
“nontraditional,” provides a positive forward-looking evolution in the spirit of inclusion.
131

Redefining the graduation time horizon measurement beyond six years is essential to encompass
all graduates and measure the lifelong journey of these courageous learners.

132

References
Aliyu, A. A., Singhry, I. M., Adamu, H., & Abubakar, M. M. (2015). Ontology, epistemology
and axiology in quantitative and qualitative research: Elucidation of the research
philosophical misconception. In Proceedings from The Academic Conference:
Mediterranean Publications & Research International on New Direction and Uncommon.
University of Agric, Abekuta.
Arbona, C., Fan, W., & Olvera, N. (2018). College stress, minority status stress, depression,
grades, and persistence intentions among Hispanic female students: A mediation model.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 40(4), 414–430.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986318799077
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.),
Self-efficacy beliefs for adolescents (pp. 307–337). Information Age Publishing.
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of
Management, 38(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606
Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate
student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 485–540.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543055004485
Berger, J. B., & Braxton, J. M. (1998). Revising Tinto’s interactionalist theory of student
departure through theory elaboration. Research in Higher Education, 39(2), 103–119.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018760513769
133

Bergman, M., Gross, J. P. K., Berry, M., & Shuck, B. (2014). If life happened but a degree
didn’t: Examining factors that impact adult student persistence. The Journal of
Continuing Higher Education, 62(2), 90–101.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2014.915445
Blau, G., Petrucci, T., Rivera, M., & Ghate, R. (2019). Exploring the impact of receiving sender-
based negative and positive feedback on team-level process outcomes using a mobile
application. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 17(1), 76–98.
https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12170
Bohl, A. J., Haak, B., & Shrestha, S. (2017). The experiences of nontraditional students: A
qualitative inquiry. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 65(3), 166–174.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2017.1368663
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(6th ed.). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119281856
Brewer, S. A., & Yucedag-Ozcan, A. (2013). Educational persistence: Self-efficacy and topics in
a college orientation course. Journal of College Student Retention, 14(4), 451–465.
https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.14.4.b
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Harvard University Press.
Capps, R. (2012). Supporting adult-student persistence in community colleges. Change: The
Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(2), 38–44.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2012.655218
134

Carnevale, A. P., Strohl, J., Ridley, N., & Gulish, A. (2018). Three educational pathways to good
jobs: High school, middle skills, and bachelor’s degree. Georgetown University Center
on Education and the Workforce.
Chang, M. J., Sharkness, J., Hurtado, S., & Newman, C. B. (2014). What matters in college for
retaining aspiring scientists and engineers from underrepresented racial groups. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 555–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21146
Choi, Y., & Ro, H. (2012). An empirical study of hospitality management student attitudes
toward group projects: Instructional factors and team problems. Journal of College
Teaching and Learning, 9(4), 303–312. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v9i4.7301
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don’t. Harper
Collins Publishers.
Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. (2010). Fueling the race to postsecondary success:
A 48-institution study of prior learning assessment and adult student outcomes
(ED524753). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED524753.pdf
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dasinger, J. A. (2013). Causal attributions and student success in developmental mathematics.
Journal of Developmental Education, 36(3), 2–12.
Davidson, J. C., & Holbrook, W. T. (2014). Predicting persistence for first-time undergraduate
adult students at four-year institutions using first-term academic behaviors and outcomes.
The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 62(2), 78–89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2014.915447
135

Donaldson, J. F., & Graham, S. (1999). A model of college outcomes for adults. Adult Education
Quarterly, 50(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369905000103
Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the motivated strategies for learning
questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 117–128.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4002_6
Erb, S., & Drysdale, M. T. B. (2017). Learning attributes, academic self-efficacy and sense of
belonging amongst mature students at a Canadian university. Studies in the Education of
Adults, 49(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2017.1283754
Francois, E. J. (2014). Motivational orientations of non-traditional adult students to enroll in a
degree-seeking program. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource
Development, 26(2), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20060
Gardiner, H., & Kosmitzki, C. (2007). Lives across cultures: Cross-cultural human development
(4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
Goings, R. B. (2018). Making up for lost time: The transition experiences of nontraditional black
male undergraduates. Adult Learning, 29(4), 158–169.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159518783200
Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (1999). The shaping of higher education: The formative years in the
United States, 1890 to 1940. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), 37–62.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.13.1.37
Hayward, M. S., & Williams, M. R. (2015). Adult learner graduation rates at four U.S.
community colleges by prior learning assessment status and method. Community College
136

Journal of Research and Practice, 39(1), 44–54.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2013.789992
Howley, C., Chavis, B., & Kester, J. (2013). “Like human beings”: Responsive relationships and
institutional flexibility at a rural community college. Journal of Research in Rural
Education, 28(8), 1–14.
Hudson, L., Kienzl, G., & Diehl, J. (2007). Students entering and leaving postsecondary
occupation education: 1995-2001. U.S. Department of Education.
Hunter-Johnson, Y. (2017). Demystifying educational resilience: Barriers of Bahamian
nontraditional adult learners in higher education. The Journal of Continuing Higher
Education, 65(3), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2017.1275230
Jameson, M. M., & Fusco, B. R. (2014). Math anxiety, math self-concept, and math self-efficacy
in adult learners compared to traditional undergraduate students. Adult Education
Quarterly, 64(4), 306–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713614541461
Johnson, M. L., Taasoobshirazi, G., Clark, L., Howell, L., & Breen, M. (2016). Motivations of
traditional and nontraditional college students: From self-determination and attributions,
to expectancy and values. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 64(1), 3–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2016.1132880
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Kasworm, C. E. (2014). Paradoxical understandings regarding adult undergraduate persistence.
The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 62(2), 67–77.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2014.916587
137

Kasworm, C. E., & Pike, G. R. (1994). Adult undergraduate students: Evaluating the
appropriateness of a traditional model of academic performance. Research in Higher
Education, 35(6), 689–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02497082
Klein-Collins, R., Taylor, J., Bishop, C., Bransberger, P., Lane, P., & Leibrandt, S. (2020). The
PLA boost: Results from a 72-institution targeted study of prior learning assessment and
adult student outcomes. The Council for Adult and Experiential Learning.
https://www.cael.org/pla-impact
Knowles, M. S. (1978). Andragogy: Adult learning theory in perspective. Community College
Review. 5(3), 9–20. https://doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1177/009155217800500302
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lee, J. A. (2010). Students’ perceptions of and satisfaction with faculty diversity. College
Student Journal, 44(2), 400–412.
Library of Congress. (2019). Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act. Retrieved
November 28, 2019 from https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/senate-bill/580
Locke, L. F., Silverman, S. J., & Spirduso, W. W. (2010). Reading and understanding research
(3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Lovell, E. D. (2014). College students who are parents need equitable services for retention.
Journal of College Student Retention, 16(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.16.2.b
Lumina Foundation. (2016). Strategic plan for 2017 to 2020.
https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/strategic-plan-2017-to-2020-apr17.pdf
Lumina Foundation. (2019). A stronger nation: Learning beyond high school builds American
talent. https://luminafoundation.org/stronger-nation/report/2020/#page/downloads
138

Luna-Torres, M., McKinney, L., Horn, C., & Jones, S. (2018). Understanding loan use and debt
burden among low-income and minority students at a large urban community college.
Journal of Student Financial Aid, 48(1), 2–28.
Markle, G. (2015). Factors influencing persistence among nontraditional university students.
Adult Education Quarterly, 65(3), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713615583085
Martin, K., Galentino, R., & Townsend, L. (2014). Community college student success: The role
of motivation and self-empowerment. Community College Review, 42(3), 221–241.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552114528972
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Wang, K., Hein, S., Diliberti, M., Forrest
Cataldi, E., Bullock Mann, F., & Barmer, A. (2019). The Condition of Education 2019.
U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019144.pdf
McKay, H., Cohn, B., & Kuang, L. (2017). Prior learning assessment redesign: Using evidence
to support change. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 64(3), 196–201.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2016.1229506
Melkun, C. H. (2012). Nontraditional students online: Composition, collaboration, and
community. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 60(1), 33-39.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2012.649128
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Milen, J. F., & Berger, J. B. (1997). A modified model of college student persistence: Exploring
the relationship between Astin’s theory of involvement and Tinto’s theory of student
departure. Journal of College Student Development, 38(4), 387–400.
139

Murphy, M. C., & Zirkel, S. (2015). Race and belonging in school: How anticipated and
experienced belonging affect choice, persistence, and performance. Teachers College
Board, 117(12), 1–40.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Demographic and enrollment characteristics of
nontraditional undergraduates 2011-2012. U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015025.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Digest of Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_303.40.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). College Navigator.
https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019a). Definitions and data.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97578e.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019b). Digest of Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_303.45.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Trends in nontraditional student enrollment.
Retrieved March 15, 2020 from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97578f.asp
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent
developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research (Vol. 2). Jossey-Bass.
140

Park, J. J., Kim, Y. K., Salazar, C., & Hayes, S. (2019). Student-faculty interaction and
discrimination in STEM: The link with retention. Research in Higher Education, 61,
330–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-019-09564-w
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys (part 2 of 3) (REL2016-160). U.S.
Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Perry, R. P., & Hamm, J. H. (2017). An attribution perspective on competence and motivation:
Theory and treatment interventions. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.),
Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (pp. 61–84). The
Guilford Press.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of
the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). The University of Michigan.
Plageman, P. M., & Sabina, C. (2010). Perceived family influence on undergraduate adult female
students. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 58(3), 156–166.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2010.491768
Pontes, M. C. F., & Pontes, N. M. H. (2012). Enrollment in distance education classes is
associated with fewer enrollment gaps among nontraditional undergraduate students in
the U.S. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(1), 79–89.
Postsecondary National Policy Institute. (2018). Post-traditional students in higher education.
https://pnpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Post-Traditional-Students-Factsheet-
FINAL_2018.pdf
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE
Publications.
141

Rust, D. Z., & Ikard, W. L. (2016). Prior learning assessment portfolio completion: Improved
outcomes at a public institution. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 64(2), 94–
100. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2016.1177871
Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2020). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (7th
ed.). SAGE Publications.
Samuels, W., Beach, A. L., & Palmer, L. B. (2011). Persistence of adult undergraduates on a
traditionally-oriented university campus: Does Donaldson and Graham’s model of
college outcomes for adult students still apply? College Student Retention, 13(3), 351–
371. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.13.3.e
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students
(8th ed.). Pearson Education.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Shapiro, D., Ryu, M., Huie, F., Liu, Q., & Zheng, Y. (2019). Completing college: 2019 National
Report (Signature Report 18). National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.
Soares, L. (2013). Post-traditional learners and the transformation of postsecondary education:
A manifesto for college leaders. American Council on Education.
https://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Post-Traditional-Learners.pdf
Sorey, K. C., & Duggan, M. H. (2008). Differential predictors of persistence between
community college adult and traditional-aged students. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 32(2), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920701380967
Stout, R., Archie, C., Cross, D., & Carman, C. A. (2018). The relationship between faculty
diversity and graduation rates in higher education. Intercultural Education, 29(3), 399–
417. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2018.1437997
142

Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Svinicki, M. D., & Schallert, D. L. (2016). Learning through group work in the college
classroom: Evaluating the evidence from an instructional goal perspective. In M. B.
Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 513–558).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26829-3_10
Tennant, A. (2014). The effect of mathematics on the college graduation rates of adult students.
The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 62(1), 17–28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2014.872004
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. The University of Chicago
Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226804545.001.0001
Tudge, J. R. H., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B. E., & Karnik, R. B. (2009). Uses and misues of
Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory
& Review, 1(4), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00026.x
U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). Educational attainment: 2018 American Community Survey 1-year
estimates. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/demo/education-attainment/cps-
detailed-tables.html
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019). Unemployment rates and earnings
by educational attainment. https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/unemployment-earnings-
education.htm
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). Labor force statistics from the
current population survey. https://bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea05.pdf
143

van Rhijn, T. M., & Lero, D. S. (2014). The influence of self-efficacy beliefs for student parents
attending university. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(4), 541–555.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2014.884178
Waller, S. N., Costen, W. M., & Wozencroft, A. J. (2011). If we admit them, will they stay?
Understanding the role of social connectedness in the retention of African American
students in a recreation and leisure studies program. Schole: A Journal of Leisure Studies
and Recreation Education, 26(1), 30-48.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1937156X.2011.11949670
Walls, J. K. (2016). A theoretically grounded framework for integrating the scholarship of
teaching and learning. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(2), 39–
49. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v16i2.19217
Walton, G. M., & Brady, S. T. (2017). The many questions of belonging. In A. J. Elliot, C. S.
Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (2nd ed., pp.
272–293). The Guilford Press.
Warden, D. N., & Myers, C. A. (2017). Nonintellective variables and nontraditional college
students: A domain-based investigation of academic achievement. College Student
Journal, 51(3), 380–390.
Webb, M. (1989). A theoretical model of community college student persistence. Community
College Review, 16(4), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/009155218901600406
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing.
Wyatt, L. G. (2011). Nontraditional student engagement: Increasing adult student success and
retention. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(1), 10–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2011.544977
144

Xuereb, S. (2014). Why students consider terminating their studies and what convinces them to
stay. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(2), 145–156.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787414527395

145

Appendix A: Recruitment Email
RE: Knowledge University Alumni Invited to Participate in Study

Dear [name],

As a Knowledge University graduate, you have demonstrated what it takes to be successful in your
academic pursuits. As such, your participation in a study of student success factors is requested on
behalf of a doctoral student at the University of Southern California by completing the brief survey
below. Please note, individual responses will be confidential and reviewed solely by the researcher.

Sincerely,

Knowledge University Alumni Relations

146

Appendix B: Survey Questions
Thank you again for your interest in participating in this survey, being used to help identify
factors that contribute to success in college. The data and learnings from this survey will be used
as part of a doctoral research program to inform ways to improve student success. Through this
survey, you can help to inform best practices for future students and help them achieve their
educational goals.
As a reminder, all survey responses will be kept confidential. Individual responses will not be
associated with any specific names or identifying information. Your participation in this study is
voluntary and you are still free to withdraw at any time.
CONSENT
Please select “yes” if you would like to continue to the survey. By selecting "yes" below, you
agree that you have read and understand the provided information above and have had the
opportunity to ask questions. You understand that your participation is voluntary and that you are
free to withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and without cost or penalty.
(Option to select Yes or No)

147

Question
Number
Survey Question Response Options

Research
Question(s)
1 My primary reason to
complete my undergraduate
degree was… (Check all that
apply)
 For my career goals
 To provide financial support
for myself
 To provide financial support
for my family
 To serve as a role model for my
family
 For the enjoyment of learning
 Other [Text box]

2
2 My bachelor's degree is
relevant to my current career.
 Strongly agree
 Agree
 Disagree
 Strongly disagree
2
3 I felt confident…
 When I first began my
undergraduate degree
 During the majority of my
classes
 When I graduated

 Strongly agree
 Agree
 Disagree
 Strongly disagree

2
4 Please share the individuals
that impacted your ability to
finish your degree. (Drag and
drop each option into 1 of the
3 boxes. Rank those included
in each box in order of
importance.)
 Helped me to finish my
degree
 Hindered me from
finishing my degree
 Had no effect on my
finishing my degree / Not
applicable

 Spouse or partner
 Children
 Extended family members
 Friends outside college
 Classmates
 Employer
 University Faculty
 University staff
 Other individuals [Text box]

3, 4
5 Please explain why you
ranked the individual(s) you
did for “helping you finish
your degree.”
[Text box]

3
148

Question
Number
Survey Question Response Options

Research
Question(s)
6 Please explain why you
ranked the individual(s) you
did for “hindered your ability
to complete your degree”.

[Text box]

3
7 Were any of the following
obstacles you faced in
completing your degree?
(Drag and drop each option
into 1 of the 2 boxes. Rank
each box in order of
importance.):
 Was an obstacle
 Was not an obstacle
 Work
 Personal medical/health
reasons
 Caregiving for children
 Caregiving for someone other
than my children
 Academic obstacles
 Other obstacle [Text box]

3, 4
8 Total number of institutions I
attended to get my Bachelor’s
degree (including the college
where you graduated):
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5 or more
3
9 On the path to completing my
bachelor’s degree, I took at
least one session off:

 Not at all
 One time
 Two times
 Three times
 Four times
 Five or more times
2
10 Did you ever consider
withdrawing from school
altogether?

 Yes
 No
[If “no” selected, survey
advanced to Question 12]

2
11 [Skip logic from above for
respondents that select “yes"]
Please share the reason(s) you
considered withdrawing from
school altogether. (Check all
that apply)
 Academics were too
challenging
 Not enough time with work
priorities
 Not enough time given need to
care for my immediate family
 Financial obstacles to pay for
tuition
 Did not feel supported by
faculty
 Did not feel supported by staff
 Other [Text box]
2,4
149

Question
Number
Survey Question Response Options

Research
Question(s)
12 For the following statements,
please answer how “true of
me” you feel each is:
 I preferred course material
that aroused my curiosity,
even if it was difficult to
learn.
 I preferred course material
that challenged me so I
could learn new things.
 When given the
opportunity on class
assignments, I chose topics
that I could learn from
even if they didn’t
guarantee a good grade.
 The most satisfying thing
for me was learning course
content as thoroughly as
possible.
Likert-type 7 from 1 (not at all
true of me) to 7 (very true of me)

2
13 As an adult college student, I
felt like I fit in…
 With the college culture
 With my peer classmates

 Strongly agree
 Agree
 Disagree
 Strongly disagree

3,4
14 I chose to enroll in online
courses because…

[Text box] 3
15 During my time at college, I
sought academic support help
outside the classroom from
the following sources…
(Check all that apply)
 Faculty teaching my classes
 University tutoring services
 Classmates
 Family members
 Friends outside school
 Other [Text box]
 I did not seek academic support
help

1, 3
16 (Skip Logic from above for
respondents that provided a
source:) The academic
support I received outside the
classroom made a positive
impact in my college success.

 Strongly agree
 Agree
 Disagree
 Strongly disagree

1, 3, 4
150

Question
Number
Survey Question Response Options

Research
Question(s)
These last few questions are for classification purposes only and are optional.
17 When I attended college, I
was… (Check all that apply)
 A first-generation college
student
 An active service member or
veteran of the U.S. armed
forces
 An international student
studying in the U.S.
 Caring for children under age
18

Demographic
Questions
18 My bachelor's degree is in…  Accounting
 Business
 Healthcare
 Justice Administration
 Media Arts
 Technology
 Something else [Text box]

19 I attended college…  Full-time during all sessions
 Part-time during all sessions
 Mix of full-time and part-time

20 Please share the total length
of time to complete your
bachelor's degree, including
time if you attended other
institution(s) for an associate
degree or bachelor's transfer
courses, and any breaks from
college. (Optional)

 Less than 3 years
 Between 3 and 4 years
 Between 5 and 6 years
 Between 7 and 8 years
 Between 9 and 10 years
 More than 10 years

21 Please share the year you
were born. (Optional)
 Drop-down with years between
1940 and 1995

22 Please share your gender
identity. (Optional)
 Female
 Male
 Prefer to describe (text box)
 Prefer not to answer

151

Question
Number
Survey Question Response Options

Research
Question(s)
23 Please share your
race/ethnicity. (Optional)
(Check all that apply)
 African American or Black
 American Indian or Alaska
Native
 Asian
 Hispanic
 Latino
 Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander
 White or Caucasian
 Additional (Text box)
 Prefer not to answer

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The global economy has evolved in recent decades, resulting in increased demand for credentialed, skilled workers in a variety of industries. To meet this need, the U.S. higher education industry continues its pursuit of producing qualified graduates. Colleges and universities historically focused on serving traditional-aged students, characterized as 18 to 24 years old

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

How do transition challenges affect the persistence of Chinese international undergraduate students?

PDF

Mama learns: examining factors that influence intent to persist in student mothers

PDF

A pathway to persistence: perspectives of academic advising and first-generation undergraduate students

PDF

Advising and acculturation variables as predictors of satisfaction, sense of belonging, and persistence among international undergraduates

PDF

Independent research internship experiences of underrepresented minorities in biological sciences: an interview case study

PDF

Rethinking Hispanic attrition rates at U.S. post-secondary institutions: an evaluation study conducted at Latino private college

PDF

Factors influencing the academic persistence of college students with ADHD

PDF

An examination of outsourcing student services for online graduate students

PDF

Community college students in STEM: a quantitative study investigating the academic beliefs of students enrolled in online and on campus information technology courses

PDF

The moderating effects of racial identity and cultural mistrust on the relationship between student-faculty interaction and persistence for Black community college students

PDF

Experiential learning curriculum supporting guided pathways in California community colleges

PDF

Motivational and academic outcomes in retained middle school students

PDF

Factors that contribute to community college career and technical education student success

PDF

Examining the factors leading to the continued underrepresentation of Latinas in STEM

PDF

An exploration of the experiences of undergraduate adult learners in an adult degree program from the theoretical framework of self-authorship

PDF

An examination of traditional versus non-traditional superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve student achievement

PDF

Developing a sense of belonging and persistence through mentoring for first-generation students

PDF

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

PDF

A customer relationship management approach to improving certificate completion

PDF

Factors impacting retention rates amongst underrepresented students: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator King, Amy A. (author)

Core Title An examination of factors that affect post-traditional undergraduate student persistence

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/29/2021

Defense Date 02/22/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Adult,adult learners,adult learning,distance learning,emotional encouragement,emotional support,faculty support,Higher education,intrinsic goal orientation,nontraditional,non-traditional,OAI-PMH Harvest,online learning,persistence,post-traditional,retention,self-efficacy,staff support,transfer credit,undergraduate

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Canny, Eric (committee chair), Phillips, Jennifer (committee member), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email amyking@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-433057

Unique identifier UC11667443

Identifier etd-KingAmyA-9370.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-433057 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KingAmyA-9370.pdf

Dmrecord 433057

Document Type Dissertation

Rights King, Amy A.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA