Students who do not fit the definition of the traditional student are becoming an increasingly large segment of the college population. In order to effectively promote retention in today's college students, the student development professional must understand these changing demographic and academic characteristics. This study compared student development in nontraditional and traditional college students. Student development was measured using the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA). Nontraditional students were defined by the degree to which they ascribed to a set of nontraditional characteristics. This study of 163 students found that nontraditional students scored significantly lower than traditional students on all three Tasks measured by the SDTLA—Establishing and Clarifying Purpose, Developing Autonomy, and Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships. In addition, the more nontraditional characteristics the student ascribed to, the lower the reported level of development. Implications for student development practice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AstinA. W. (1999). Student involvement: A development theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529.
2.
BenshoffJ. M. (1993, November). Educational opportunities, developmental challenges: Understanding nontraditional college students. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Adult Development and Aging, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED363842).
3.
ButlerE. R., & MarkleyH. D. (1993). Developmental characteristics of nontraditional aged students. Kansas City, MO: American College Professional Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED365902).
4.
ChickeringA. W., & ReisserL. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
ElyE. E. (1997, April). The nontraditional student. Paper presented at the American Association of Community Colleges Annual Conference, Anaheim, CA (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 411906).
6.
GrahamS. W. (1998). Adult growth in college years: The effects of age and educational ethos. Journal of College Student Development, 39(3), 239–250.
7.
HazzardT. (1993). Programs issues and concerns regarding nontraditional students with a focus on a model orientation session. Florida State University, Tallahassee. (ERIC Document Reproduction No ED357813).
8.
HornL. J. (1996). Nontraditional undergraduates: Trends in enrollment from 1986 to 1992 and persistence and attainment among 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students. National Center for Education Statistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED402857).
9.
HornL. J., & BerktoldJ. (1998). Profiles of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary institutions: 1995–96 with an essay on undergraduates who work. Washington DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED419461).
10.
LavelleE., & RickfordB. (1999). A factor analytic model of college student development. NASPA Journal, 36(4), 301–313.
11.
MaplesM. F. (1995). Holistic adult development model. Unpublished manuscript.
12.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2003). Digest of educational statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
13.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2002a). Pocket projections: Projections of educational statistics to 2012. (NCES Publication No. 2002-033). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
14.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2002b). The condition of education 2002, special analysis: Nontraditional undergraduates. (NCES Publication No. 2002-025). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
15.
National Center for Educational Statistics (1996). Nontraditional undergraduates: Trends in enrollment from 1986 to 1992 and persistence and attainment among 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students. (NCES Publication No. 97-578). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
16.
NussE. M. (1996). The development of student affairs. In DelworthU. & HansonG. R. (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 22–42). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
PaceC. R. (1983). College student experiences: A questionnaire (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: University of California, Higher Educational Research Institute.
18.
PascarellaE. T., & TerenziniP. T. (2001). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
PetersonR. E. (1968). College student questionnaire technical manual (rev. ed.). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
20.
PhinneyJ. S. (1992). The multi-group ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156–176.
21.
PicklesimerB. K. (1991). The development and evaluation of the life-skills development inventory-college form. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia.
22.
PriceE. C. (1998, February). A comparison of learning styles and techniques in traditional and nontraditional community college students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Dallas, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED245145).
23.
RudolphF. (1991). The American college and university. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press.
24.
SantosJ. R. (1999, April). Cronbach's alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of Extension, 37(2). Retrieved November 11, 2002 from: http://joe.org/joe/1999april/tt3.html.
25.
SchoukatM., & SchoukatM. (1996). Making an educational difference based on adult life goals and ego identity status. Educational Research Quarterly, 20(2), 41–61.
26.
SuperD. E.ThompsonA. S.LindemanR. H.JordaanJ. P., & MyersR. A. (1981). The career development inventory (college and university form). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
27.
TylerD. A. (1993, May). At-risk nontraditional community college students. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development on Teaching Excellence and Conference of Administrators, Austin, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED361055).
28.
UpcraftM. L., & MooreL. V. (1990). Evolving theoretical perspectives of student development. In BarrM. & UpcraftL. (Eds.), New futures for student affairs (pp. 41–61). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29.
WachsP. M., & CooperD. L. (2002). Validating the student developmental task and lifestyle assessment: A longitudinal study. Journal of College Student Development, 43(1), 124–129.
30.
WinstonR. B.MillerT. K., & CooperD. L. (1999). Student development task and lifestyle assessment manual. Athens, GA: Student Development Associates.
31.
WinstonR. B.MillerT. K., & PrinceJ. S. (1987). Student development and task lifestyle inventory. Athens, GA: Student Development Associates.
32.
WinstonR. B.PhelpsR. E.MazzeoS., & TorresV. (1997). A short measure of students' autonomy development: The Georgia Autonomy Scales. College Student Affairs Journal, 17, 4–17.
