Challenges and Drawbacks of a Non-Traditional Students - Research Paper Example

Running Head: CHALLENGES AND DRAWBACKS OF NON-TRADITIONAL Challenges and Drawbacks of Non Traditional of the ofthe Institution] Challenges and Drawbacks of Non Traditional Students Introduction There has been a large growth in non-traditional student higher education enrollment in general over the past 25 years. By the term non-traditional, most researchers refer to a variety of demographic and social characteristics to distinguish this population from the more traditional higher education students that have typically populated higher education campuses. These non-traditional students continue to be the fastest growing segment of higher education in America today. With this increasing non-traditional student population, the subject of nontraditional students will only become more important in the upcoming years (Southerland, 2006). But while there is a great influx of non-traditional students on the college campus, much of the higher education system is regrettably still not fully developing this non-traditional population (Beicastro & Purslow, 2006, p. 2). Unfortunately as well, there is still relatively little actual academic research on nontraditional students on college campuses (Kortesoja, 2005). The growth in the non-traditional undergraduate population is also found in the graduate school population in the United States. It is estimated that 50% of all graduate students are older than age 30 years (United States Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics, 1998, p. 55). Graduate schools are now facing the same issues as the undergraduate programs in working with these typically older students. Regrettably, there is very little research on non-traditional graduate students either (Kasworm et al., 2000, p. 453). Operational Definition According to the United States Department of Education, a non- traditional higher education student is a student who has one of the following characteristics: delays enrollment, attends part-time for at least part of the academic year, works full-time while enrolled, is considered financially independent for purposes of determining eligibility for financial aid, has dependents other than a spouse, is a single parent, or does not have a high school diploma. According to information from the Department of Education for the year 2000, 73% of all higher education students in the United States have at least one of these non-traditional characteristics. (United States Department of Education National Center for Educational Statistics, 2002, p. 25). When only focused on the characteristic of age, it is currently estimated that as many as 45% of college students are older than age 25 years (Beicastro & Purslow, 2006, p. 2). Talking about theological education, the same non-traditional student trends are also found in American theological education. The typical seminary student of the 21st century is very different from the seminary student of a generation ago. Numerous studies have shown that entering seminary students are "older" and more experienced in other careers than previous generations (Wheeler, 2001, pp. 1-4). Literature Review Unlike their younger counterparts, these non-traditional seminary students are either not able or are unwilling to make the financial sacrifice to pursue their education full-time. According to the Association of Theological Schools, 62.7% of all seminary students are married and 26.4% of all seminary students have families with children (Lonsway, 2002, p. 2). The majority of these students maintain their current careers during their studies, instead of "packing up their families" and moving on campus to pursue school full- time (Marshall, 2006, p. 615). In most settings, the number of students taking a full load of classes is decreasing in favor of only a part-time schedule and outside employment. Again, according to ATS, 41.4% of graduating seminary students had to work more than 20 hours a week to financially support their family and their seminary education (Lonsway, 2002, p. 9). The rational of this study was to look specifically at the idea of transformational leadership development in non-traditional seminary students. Since the 1980s, the most current influence in leadership development is the idea of transformational leadership. Instead of focusing on the transaction or exchange between leader and follower, the focus here is on the transformation of the follower by the leader. In this view, leadership is seen as a two-way relationship. The leader is seen as an enabler, facilitator, collaborator, and a meaning-maker. Topics such as vision, change, values, empowerment, quality, and character are a part of the transformational leadership vocabulary. More than 4,000 written case studies have been collected by researchers using the Personal-Best Leadership Experience Questionnaire. This Personal-Best Leadership Experience Questionnaire consists of 12 pages of 38 open-ended questions. In addition to these 4,000 written case studies, researchers have also had 7,500 additional respondents complete a shorter form of the same questionnaire. In addition to case studies, researchers also conducted more than 500 in-depth interviews with middle and senior level managers in a wide variety of public and private sectors. Purpose of the Study The rationale behind this study is the merger of these two important topics of leadership development of non-traditional students in theological education. First, while leadership is being studied extensively by business leaders, it has been noted by researchers that there is still a lack of empirical information on leadership development programs in higher education in general, much less seminary education (Pugh, 2000, p. 28). Second, the area of non-traditional students has just recently become a focus of research, but there is also little empirical data in this field of study. Using a known measure of transformational leadership qualities, the purpose of this study was to determine differences in LPI-SeIf scores between masters-level seminary students based on the independent variables of the age of the student, prior ministry experience, class load, gender, marital status, and parental status. For purposes of this study, nontraditional seminary student was defined as a student who had at least one of the following characteristics: older than age 29, taking less than 12 hours of classes a semester, married, or a parent Method Population and Sample The population considered for this study is the masters-level student population on the Dallas, Texas, campus of Dallas Theological Seminary. According to the registrars office, there were 1,254 masters-level seminary students enrolled on the main Dallas, Texas, for the fall semester of 2003. The sample for this study was the same as the population. All of the students in the population received the survey packet used in this study and had the opportunity to participate in this study. Instruments Two instruments are used in this study. The first instrument is the LPI-SeIf, second edition. As already discussed, the LPI-SeIf is developed to measure five leadership practices of exemplary leadership Challenging the Process Inspiring a Shared Vision Enabling Others to Act Modeling the Way Encouraging the Heart The second edition of the LPI-SeIf consists of 30 statements, six statements for measuring each of the five practices of exemplary leaders. Each statement has a point Likert scale (1 = almost never, 10 = almost always). Respondents are asked to use the Likert scale to indicate how often they practice the action described by the statement. Internal reliabilities as measured by Chronbach alpha for the LPI-SeIf range from 0.75 (Enabling) to 0.87 (Inspiring and Encouraging) . These reliabilities have been tested in a variety of settings by other statistical researchers. While LPIObserver (LPI- Observer) form is also offered to receive a true 360-degree evaluation of the individual, only the LPI-SeIf is used in this study. This decision to only use the LPI-SeIf in the study was made by the researcher due to logistical constraints and a desire for a greater return rate. While the internal reliability for the LPI-SeIf is slightly lower than that for the LPI-Observer, all of the factors are above the 0.75 level as measured by Chronbach alpha. There is no statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) between the LPI-SeIf and LPI-Observer on Challenging the Process and Modeling the Way. A second demographic survey form is also developed that asks the participants questions concerning the following factors: age, gender, marital status, parenting status, and course load. Procedures Firstly permission to use the LPI-SeIf free of charge for the purposes of this study was granted. With the help of the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness, a computer scanable demographic survey and LPI-SeIf survey were developed for the research, along with a cover letter. During the first week of classes, the survey packet was distributed to every masters-level student through the schools student mailbox system. Students were asked to complete the survey packet and return it to a designated mail slot. A total of 330 surveys were returned to the researcher by the due date. The completed surveys were processed by the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness at Dallas Theological Seminary and imported into SPSS 11.5 for Windows (SPSS) for analysis. Research findings Age The first null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the LPI-SeIf scores of non-traditional age and traditional age masters-level students. For purposes of this study, non-traditional age was defined as a student age 30 years or older. Of the 330 returned surveys, 166 of the respondents were age 29 years or younger (50.3% of the respondents), 95 of the respondents were age 30 to 39 years (28.8% of the respondents), 51 of the respondents were age 40 to 49 years (15.5% of the respondents), and 18 of the respondents were age 50 years or older [5.5% of the respondents) Class Load The second null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the LPI-SeIf scores of masters-level students at Dallas Theological Seminary who primarily take 12 or more credit hours a semester and the LPI-SeIf scores of masters-level students at Dallas Theological Seminary who primarily take fewer than 12 credit hours a semester. Of the 330 returned surveys, 226 of the respondents typically took 12 or more credit hours of classes a semester (68.7% of the total respondents) and 104 of the respondents typically took fewer than 12 credit hours of classes a semester (31.5% of the total respondents). Gender The third null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the LPI-SeIf scores of male and female masters-level students at Dallas Theological Seminary. Of the 330 returned surveys, 223 of the respondents were male (67.6% of the total respondents) and 107 of the respondents were female (32.4% of the respondents). When the results for the dependent variables were considered separately, there was also no significance found using a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha level of 0.01. Marital Status The fourth null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the LPI-SeIf scores of married and single masters-level students at Dallas Theological Seminary. Of the 330 returned surveys, 123 of the respondents were never married single adults (37.3% of the total respondents), 198 of the respondents were married adults (60.0% of the total respondents), and 9 of the respondents were divorced/ widowed single adults (2.7% of the total respondents). Parental Status The fifth null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the LPI-SeIf scores of students at Dallas Theological Seminary with children and students at Dallas Theological Seminary without children. Of the 330 returned surveys, 214 of the respondents did not have children (64.8% of the total respondents), 94 of the respondents had children living at home (28.5% of the total respondents), and 22 of the respondents had children who did not live at home (6.7% of the total respondents). There was, however, a significant difference found on Modeling the Way (p = 0.009). When Scheffé was employed as a post-hoc test for Modeling the Way, significance was found between the group of students without children and the group of students with children living with them at home (p = 0.040). This finding indicates that the group of students with children living at home scored significantly higher on the Modeling the Way section of the LPI-Self (M = 45.71, SD = 6.901) than the group of students with no children living at home with them (M = 43.51, SD = 7.089). Many non-traditional students feel awkward on todays seminary campus. Unfortunately for some of these students, school can be very intimidating. Conclusions In the other factors related to non-traditional student status, the findings are just as encouraging for non-traditional students. While the students who took fewer than 12 credit hours of classes a semester scored higher in all five areas of leadership, it was found in this study that class load was not a significant factor overall in leadership scores. It was interesting to note, however, that there was discovered to be a significant difference between the two groups of students in the area of Enabling Others to Act, with the part-time students scoring significantly higher than the full time students in this one area. The reasons for some students attending seminary part-time are probably numerous. Some are engaged in ministry full-time and are only able to take classes part-time. Other students work full-time in a secular job and are only able to take classes part-time. Still other students are only able to take classes part-time due to family commitments. And still other students are only able to take classes part-time due to financial considerations. In each one of these cases, however, this group of part-time students in this study is equal in their perceived leadership behaviors to the group of full-time students. In regard to gender, while female students scored higher on Challenging the Process and Encouraging the Heart and male students scored higher on the other three variables; there was no significant difference between the male and female students in this study. This finding confirms what other researchers have found concerning gender differences in transformation leadership characteristics (Sashkin & Sashkin, 2003, pp. 158-162). The fact that there was not a significant difference between male and female students should be an encouragement, especially to female seminary students. Instead of feeling intimidated by the more numerous male student population on campus, these female students should be affirmed in their own leadership abilities that they bring to seminary and develop while in school. It was found as well that marital status was not a significant factor overall in leadership practices. This finding should also be good news for those married students who desire to enter seminary. Instead of being intimidated by those students coming to seminary without a family, these married students should be affirmed in the own leadership abilities that they bring from work or family experiences and shown how the leadership lessons learned in other areas of life potentially relate to the ministry setting. References Association of Theological Schools of the United States and Canada. (2003). Fact Book on Theological Education, 2002-2003. Pittsburgh, PA: Association of Theological Schools. Banks, R. J. (1999). Reenvisioning Theological Education. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Banta, T. (2001). Assessing competence in higher education. In C. Palomba & T. Banta (Eds.), Assessing Student Competence in Accredited Disciplines. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Barna, G. (2001). A profile of protestant pastors in anticipation of pastor appreciation month. The Barna Update, 25, 1-4. Bash, L. (2003). Adult Learners in the Academy. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Belcastro, A., & Purslow, V. (2006, November). An integrative framework: Meeting the needs of the new-traditional student. Paper presented at the Faculty Work and the New Academy Meeting of the Association of American Colleges and Universities (Chicago, IL), November 9-11, 2006. Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (2003). Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Collins. Calian, C. S. (2002). The Ideal Seminary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Callan, P. M., & Finney, J. E. (2002). Assessing educational capital. Change, 34(A), 24-31. Clader, L. L. (2006). Speaking assessment in the local vernacular. Theological Education, 412), 11-20. Foster, C. R, Dahill, L. E., Golemon, L. A., & Tolentino, B. W. (2006). Educating Clergy: Teaching Practices and Pastoral Imagination. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hagedorn, L. S. (2005). Square pegs: Adult students and their "fit" in postsecondary institutions. Change, 37(1). Kalal, R. (1999). Weve got trouble. Christian Education Journal, J(I), 55-79. Kasworm, C. E., Sandmann, L. R., & Sissel, P. A. (2000). Adult learners in higher education. In A. Wilson & E. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kortesoja, S. (2005). Factors influencing nontraditional age student participation in postsecondary education: how do student motivations and characteristics relate to adult participation in credential programs? University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI) dissertation [unpublished]. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2000). Leadership Practices Inventory: Psychometric properties. Monte Sereno, CA: Kouzes and Posner International. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002a). The Leadership Challenge (3rd. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002b). The Leadership Practices Inventory: Theory and evidence behind the Five Practices of Exemplary Leaders. Monte Sereno, CA: Kouzes and Posner International. Lonsway, F. A. (2002). The Graduating Student Questionnaire: A Study of Five Years of Use 1996-1997 through 2000-2001. Pittsburgh, PA: The Association of Theological Schools. Lonsway, F. A. (2006). Level of education, age, and gender examined in profiles of ministry survey. Interpretation, Fall, (19), 1-3. Malphurs, A. (2003). Being leaders: The Nature of Authentic Christian Leadership. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Marshall, M. T. (2006). Do baptists really want an educated clergy? Vocation and charism for theological education. Review and Expositor, 103(3), 603-621. Martin, D. M. (2006). Theological education and the task of theology. Perspectives in Religious Studies, 33(2), 227-240. Michlitsch,J., & Sidle, M. W. (2002). Assessing student learning outcomes. Journal of Education for Business, 77(3), 125130. Moore, E. (2006). Educational identities of adult university graduates. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 149-163. Pugh, D. J. (2000). College Student Leadership Development, University of Georgia (Athens, GA) dissertation [unpublished]. Quimby,J. L., & OBrien, K. M. (2006). Predictors of well-being among nontraditional female students with children. Journal of Counseling & Development, 84(4), 451-460. Ross, D. B., & Driscoll, R. (2006, October). Test anxiety: age appropriate interventions. Paper presented at the American Counseling Association Southern Region Leadership Conference 9 (Huntsville, AL), October 26, 2006. Sashkin, M., & Sashkin, M. G. (2003). Leadership that Matters: The Critical Factors for making a Difference in Peoples Lives and Organizations Success. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Sissel, P. A, Hansman, C. A., & Catherine, K. (2001). The politics of neglect: Adult learners in higher education. Understanding and negotiating the political landscape of adult education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Fall, (91), 17-28. Southerland, J. N. (2006, November). Formulating a new model of college choice and persistence. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Conference (Chicago, IL). Anaheim, CA, November 2-4, 2006. Sundberg, E. (2001). Investigating the Nontraditional Student in the University System of Georgia, Atìanta, GA: Kennesaw State University. United States Department of Education National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). The condition of education 2002. Washington, D. C: United States Government Printing Office. Walker, J. (2001). Leadership development of students engaged in experiential learning.University of North Carolina at Greensboro (Greensboro, NC) dissertation [unpublished]. Wheeler, B. G. (2001). Is there a problem? Auburn Studies, 8, 1-28. Read More