Insert Your Title Here



Running Head: EMPLOYMENT’S EFFECT ON STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTION

Effects of Off-Campus Employment on Student-Faculty

Interactions of Undergraduate Students

Create Your Own Theory Part 3: Final Written Analysis

Lindsay Smith

Indiana University

December 4, 2008

As of 2006, the percentage of full-time employed college students ages 16-24 totaled 46 percent, with 22 percent of those students working 20-34 hours per week (Planty, Hussar, Snyder, Provasnik, Kena, Dinkes, Kewal Ramani, and Kemp, 2008). Steady increases in student employment can be attributed to rising educational costs (Riggert, Boyle, Petrosko, Ash, and Rude-Parkins, 2008; Dundes and Marx, 2006-2007), the desire to earn spending money (Dundes and Marx, 2006-2007), and students’ interest in gaining real-world experience in their chosen fields (Kelley School of Business, Indianapolis, 2007-2008). At the Kelley School of Business, Indianapolis, where 78% of their students are between the ages of 18-28 and nearly three-fourths are full time, 70% are employed when admitted as Kelley Indianapolis undergraduates (Kelley School of Business, Indianapolis, 2007-2008).

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has devised a definition for students of nontraditional status which includes but is not limited to attending school part time and working full time (35 hours per week or more) (2002, p. 3). A 2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Society (NPSAS) study (as cited in Dundes and Marx, 2006-2007) states that 74% of undergraduates work an average of 25.5 hours per week while going to school. “Student employment is no longer an isolated phenomenon; it is an educational fact of life. For at least four decades, growing numbers of students have been employed while pursing postsecondary education” (Riggert et al., 2006). Since employment is a characteristic becoming more prevalent in students of today, for the purpose of this paper, I am defining traditional college students as ages 16-24, with full time student status, who work part time, up to 34 hours per week. As I discuss students who work off campus, versus those who work on campus, off-campus employment has to meet the following three criteria: 1) place of employment is not on campus property 2) source of income cannot be paid by the university or through a work-study program.

In the first section, I present a literature review that briefly examines relevant research on college students who work, student involvement, and psychosocial development. “Creating My Theory,” will outline how working off campus affects student-faculty relationships and the psychosocial development of traditionally aged full time students by using Arthur W. Chickering and Linda Reisser’s, “Seven Vectors,” (1993) as a foundation to address the differences in development between my theory and Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) psychosocial development theory. The final segment discusses how I would construct a qualitative research design to investigate the student-faculty involvement of students who work off-campus.

The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore the effects of off-campus employment on the student-faculty relationships of undergraduate students. As a traditional undergraduate college student, I worked a minimum of 25 hours per week off-campus. Common themes in my life at the time were to be financially well off, to pursue a career in business and feeling overwhelmed; all patterns that Alexander Astin (1993) recognized in students holding part-time jobs off campus and in those working full-time while attending college (p. 388). Although research currently exists to show the effects of off-campus work on academic achievement and persistence to graduation (Astin, 1993; Dundes and Marx, 2006; Riggert et al., 2006; Tinto, 1987), very little research reflects the relationship between off-campus employment and psychosocial development. The ultimate goal of this paper is to demonstrate that off-campus employment affects student-faculty relationships, thus altering the student’s psychosocial development.

I chose Chickering and Reisser’s, “Seven Vectors,” to highlight the psychosocial development of students who work off campus because of the depth in which the vectors have been constructed and its popularity within psychosocial student development. Because of the predominately-Caucasian demographics in the original study, other theorist have worked to propose models of psychosocial development that account more effectively for the experiences and development of Asian American students (Kodama, McEwen, Liang, and Lee, 2005), students of color (Pope, 2005; McEwen, Roper, Bryant, and Langa, 2005), and female students (Josselson, 2005). Only recently have theorist begun to study psychosocial development by categorizing students by enrollment demographics, such as traditional or nontraditional status (Macari, Maples, and D’Andrea, 2005-2006), which is why I feel it is important to explore the psychosocial development of students who work off campus.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to explore the effects of institution size or how other relationships that exist away from campus may facilitate or hinder a student’s involvement on campus. I also will not be able to explore George Kuh’s belief that, “institution-level policies, practices, and climate can influence student engagement” (as cited in Reason, Terenzini, and Domingo, 2007, p. 277). In addition, I will not explore race, gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation when addressing the correlations between psychosocial student development, student-faculty relationships, and off-campus employment. Nonetheless, it is undeniable that these relationships do exist and play varying degrees of importance to each individual student.

Review of Literature

In researching relevant theories that may be useful to my theory that off-campus employment affects student-faculty relationships and the psychosocial development of traditional college students, I initially looked to see what other scholars had used Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) psychosocial development theory, and in what context. I found that several theorists had explored psychosocial development as it relates to gender (Josselson, 2005) and race (Kodama et al., 2005; McEwen et al., 2005; Pope, 2005), but very few had addressed, “the developmental characteristics of today’s college students” (Macari, 2005-2006, p. 284) such as being a commuter student or working while in college. Although I found psychosocial theories on racial identity (Kodama et al., 2005; McEwen et al., 2005; Pope, 2005) beneficial in identifying how external factors, such as racism, coincide with psychosocial development to form a person’s identity, none of these theories address student-faculty interactions and how they affect a students development.

Student-faculty interaction is an extensively researched topic within the realm of student development theories. However, the majority of research has been done on the influence of student-faculty interaction on educational attainment, educational aspirations, and persistence at different kinds of institutions (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991, p. 394). In How College Affects Students (1991), Ernest Pascarella and Patrick Terenzini summarize a significant number of studies pertaining to student interactions with faculty. As important and essential as all of the studies say student-faculty interaction is, “a considerable body of evidence suggests that with the general exception of small and often selective liberal arts colleges, student-faculty contact in most institutions is largely restricted to formalized, somewhat structured situations” (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991, p. 393). This leads me to believe that, although off-campus employment may affect student-faculty interaction and the psychosocial development of students, great strides still need to be made in all campuses to create better student-faculty relationships.

Astin outlines in, What Matters in College? (1993), the effects of holding a job while in college. Astin considers working while in college as a form of involvement, and makes a distinction between students who work full time, hold part-time jobs off campus, and part-time jobs on campus. “Holding a part-time job off campus has a pattern of effects that is almost identical to the pattern associated with working full-time” (Astin, 1993, p. 388), which includes the goal of being very well off financially, smoking cigarettes, and feeling overwhelmed (Astin, 1993, p. 388). On the contrary, having a part-time job on campus is associated with a commitment to the goals of promoting racial understanding, an increased chance of being elected to a student office, and tutoring other students (Astin, 1993, p. 388).

The key aspects of Astin’s work, essential to my research, exist in the answer to why part-time employment on campus has such a different pattern of effect from off-campus employment. “The key to understanding this difference lies in the concept of involvement: compared to students who spend an equivalent amount of time working off campus, students who are employed on campus are, almost by definition, in more frequent contact with other students and possibly faculty” (Astin, 1993, p. 388).

The article, “Balancing Work and Academics in College: Why Do Students Working 10 to 19 Hours per Week Excel?,” studied full time students who worked and the impact it made on their GPA, effort, fatigue, and the overall effects of work (Dundes and Marx 2006-2007). The largest number of students reported, “that employment forced them to become more efficient, while also increasing their level of stress” (p. 113). Although this study was helpful in creating a starting point, 80 percent of the students in the study participated in a work-study program, which did not particularly pertain to my theory because of my definition of off-campus employment. One of the outcomes of the study was that, “students with the highest GPAs were more apt to have jobs that related to their post-graduate plans” (Dundes and Marx, 2006-2007, p. 112). They contributed these result to Pascarella and Terenzini’s (1991) findings, “that on-campus work may enhance social integration”, and in my opinion, student-faculty interaction, although the topic was not discussed.

Carol Lundberg’s article, “Working and Learning: The Role of Involvement for Employed Students” (2004), explores, “the ways in which working affects engagement with peers and faculty, and how that engagement affects learning for working students” (p. 203). She surveyed 3,744 undergraduates, 52% of which were older than 23, and found that, consistent with previous study findings, the number of hours students work off campus have a negative effect on engagement with peers and faculty, frequency of interaction with faculty and satisfaction with student relationships (Lundberg, 2004, p. 209). This article brought an interesting perspective to off-campus student employment, stating that, “perhaps working students gain support for their learning through relationships with colleagues and supervisors in the workplace” (Lundberg, 2004, p. 209). If this were true, it would support my theory that student faculty relationships are affected when students work off campus because they are replaced by relationships with colleagues and supervisors.

A major foundation for my theory is Chickering and Reisser’s, “Key Influences on Student Development: Student-Faculty Relationships” (1993, p. 316). Positive student-faculty relationships are grounded in, “accessibility, authenticity, knowledge and an ability to communicate with students” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 335), and “foster competence, autonomy, purpose and integrity” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 335). Characteristics of student-faculty interaction, outside of class are defined as, (1) contact with faculty that sometimes evolve into conversations about personal or career concerns, (2) relating class material to ‘real world’ matter such as internships, (3) focus on undergraduate research or teaching assistantships, and (4) contacts may be initiated by faculty, sometimes evolving into mentoring or sponsoring relationships (as cited in Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 321). It is from this perspective that I begin to explain my theory that off-campus employment affects student-faculty interaction and the psychosocial development of traditionally aged, full-time students.

From the Perspective of Students Who Work Off-Campus

Chickering and Reisser’s, Education and Identity (1993), explains the psychosocial development of college students by providing seven vectors of development that students achieve as they move through their college experience. “Movement along any one can occur at different rates and can interact with movement along the others. Each step from ‘lower’ to ‘higher’ brings more awareness, skill, confidence, complexity, stability and integration but does not rule out an accidental or intentional return to ground already traversed” (Chickering and Reisser, 2005, p. 181). This concept is ideal for the theory I propose due to the flexibility it allows scholars to expound upon different demographics of students, and the extent to which it illustrates a student’s personal growth.

Chickering and Reisser hypothesized that, “when student-faculty interaction is frequent and friendly and when it occurs in diverse situations calling for varied roles and relationships, development of competence, autonomy and interdependence, purpose and integrity are encouraged” (1993, p. 269). I speculate that when full-time students are employed off campus, development along these vectors is distorted, thus making their student-faculty interaction infrequent, narrow in conversation, and limited in the number of roles and relationships developed. I will discuss my theory by detailing each of the vectors involved in student-faculty relationships, explaining along the way how I believe working off campus alters a student’s psychosocial development.

Vector 1: Developing Competence

Chickering and Reisser (1993) focus on three forms of competence- intellectual, physical and manual, and interpersonal- as well as an overarching sense of competence that reflects people’s assessment of their capabilities (p. 53). Although each component is part of a larger whole (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 54), according to Chickering and Reisser, student-faculty relationships foster the development of intellectual competence and a sense of competence (1993, p. 269), specifically. Despite their interrelatedness (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 54), for the purposes of this paper, I will only focus on these two components of developing competence in order to analyze the effects of off-campus employment on student-faculty relationships.

“Fostering intellectual competence in students is the top priority of most postsecondary institutions” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 53), and includes, “using the mind’s skills to comprehend, reflect, analyze, synthesize and interpret” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p.53). In addition, it involves, “developing the ability to reason, solve problems, weigh evidence, think originally, and engage in active learning” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 53). Because this competence is a reflection of academic aptitude, initially it appears that students working off-campus are on equal grounds with those on campus more frequently. However, it is difficult for students working off campus to gain exposure to faculty to develop these skills if they are instead using their time for traveling and working off campus. With this said, I expect that students who work off campus are more likely to describe lower levels of intellectual competence when interviewed because of the opportunities missed in exchange for employment.

A student’s overall sense of competence is, dependant on their ability to, “solve, or otherwise cope with, life’s problems and to maintain equilibrium” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 78), but it is also subjective, and based on an, “increased trust in one’s abilities” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 79). Although a student may work on campus, and be of equal ability to a student who works off campus, I speculate that the student who works at an off-campus location has more confidence in their abilities, and a sense of competence, because they have tested their skills in the outside world and have endured. On the other hand, a student who has developed a strong relationship with faculty members may be just a confident in his abilities. According to Pascarella and Terenzini, “the degree of student-faculty social contact has a significant positive association with bachelor’s degree completion and educational attainment through doctoral degree” (1991, p. 395). Without the encouragement of faculty, a student who works off campus, with no faculty relationships, may feel confident enough to apply for a job, but not confident enough to attain an advanced degree.

Developing competence as a whole leads to increasing readiness to take risks and try new things (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 82). Intellectual competence is the academic, cultural and analytical knowledge that allows us to attain scholarly relationships with faculty not possible in the workplace. Although some skills in the first vector can be improved by employment off campus, the student’s lack of development in intellectual competence is what initially begins the infrequent, narrow conversations between faculty and students who work off campus.

Vector 3: Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence

The third vector involves, “a greater tolerance for other’s points of views” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 116), “becoming one’s own person and taking responsibility for self-support” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 115). There are three components noted by Chickering and Reisser (1993) as essential for moving through autonomy toward interdependence: (1) emotional independence- freedom from the need for reassurance; (2) instrumental independence- ability to solve problems in a self-directed manner; and (3) interdependence- awareness of one’s place in the larger community (p. 117). The third vector is where I believe students who work off campus show the greatest development when compared to their peers due to their experiences in the workplace and outside of the college community.

“Emotional independence begins with disengagement from the parents, proceeds through reliance on peers and role models, and moves toward a balance of comfort with one’s own company and openness to others, without the need to cling” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 122). It is at this point when students begin to form new modes of relationships with authority figures (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 330), begin to interact with faculty and advisors more, and come to see them as mentors and sources of information. These, “relationships of inspiration, informality, openness, and warmth have particular implications for the development of autonomy” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 329). However, because of the amount of time spent off campus, “perhaps working students gain support for their learning through relationships with colleagues and supervisors in the workplace” (Lundberg, 2004, p. 209). Because of the amount of time working students spend off campus, “these relationships may compensate for the lesser interaction that working students enjoy with faculty and peers” (Lundberg, 2004, p. 209).

Although emotional independence is important in moving towards interdependence, I believe that instrumental independence may be more influential in the development of students working off campus. Colleges often, “leave instrumental independence out of the curriculum, offering instead only academic problems and theoretical discussions with no chance to experiment” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 133). Students who work off campus have plenty of experience in practicing, “the ability to leave one place and function in the other” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 132), as well as becoming self-sufficient. Working teaches you new ways to solve problems if only because you are responsible for solving the problem. In an environment where education is the focus, someone is usually willing to stop and make something a teachable moment if necessary. I predict that students who do not work off-campus learn to rely on emotional independence, leaving their problem solving abilities underdeveloped.

Interdependence is realized, “when you recognize that you can’t operate in a vacuum, that your life is inevitably connected to others and to society” (Chickering and Schlossberg, 2002, p. 37). Without diverse experiences to broaden and challenge a student’s perspectives, it is irrelevant whether a student is employed off-campus or not. It is difficult for me to predict whether off-campus employment will have a positive or negative affect on interdependence; however, according to Chickering and Reisser, “a close friendship with an older person during this period of redefinition can provide perspective on peer relationships (1993, p. 331). As I have shown, these relationships can potentially take place in the workplace or on campus.

Vector 6: Purpose

Chickering and Reisser consider vocational plans and aspirations, personal interests and interpersonal and family commitments (1993, p. 212) as the three major elements of developing purpose, their sixth vector of student development. “Probably the principal way faculty members assist the development of purpose is by recognizing that effective teaching will raise questions of purpose or will add new dimensions to the questions already there” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 328). As previously mentioned, students who work off campus my develop student-faculty-type relationships with persons at work because of their inability to create meaningful interactions with faculty when on campus (Lundberg, 2004, p. 209). For students on campus, student-faculty interaction may begin in the classroom, and continue out of the classroom when students have further questions and ideas. For students who work off-campus, those ideas and questions may arise while at work, which create interactions in the workplace that resemble student-faculty relationships.

I expect the most prevalent way students and faculty interact when helping students develop vocational plans and aspirations is through career counselors. “Students who work with career counselors, take career exploration courses and workshops, arrange internships, and discuss future plans with their instructors, are much more likely to identify future directions” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 216). It is difficult to predict how interactions with students who work off campus will be affected at this point because there are so many variables that go into why a student visits a career counselor. A student has many situations and opportunities throughout their college career to visit a career counselor, yet so many do not take advantage. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss all of these variables; however, interactions with faculty in discussing vocational plans and aspirations can be helpful to any student in developing a purpose or goal for themselves.

“It is not surprising that students with the most diverse, rich, and meaningful interests often seem to vacillate most about future plans” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p.225). Communication with faculty members or advisors can facilitate conversations about difficult choices, and help student make decisions based on their personal interests, the second element in developing purpose according to Chickering and Reisser (1993, p. 212). Students working off-campus may not experience rich, diverse college experiences because of their absorption in the working environment. Therefore, they may see themselves as quite limited when looking for personal interests because they did not give themselves time to develop them.

Interpersonal and family commitments create the third element of purpose, bringing the whole picture into focus. A plan that balances all three elements of purpose is difficult to maintain, and is often a work in progress. It is always helpful for students to have mentors and other respected adults they know offer information to guide them in their journey. Faculty members can assist students, “through appropriate self-disclosure. By letting students know our own occupational history, and by sharing our feelings about it and the reasons for our moves, we permit students to vicariously test their own occupational plans and aspirations” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p.329). Students working off campus who have not developed relationships with faculty are at a disadvantage and are unable to learn from others’ mistakes.

Vector 7: Integrity

“Students bring to college an array of core values and beliefs- that is, assumptions about what is right and wrong, true and false, good and bad, important and unimportant” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 235). Faculty can encourage student integrity through questions that challenge the student’s critical thinking, therefore strengthening the student’s values and belief systems. Students who work off-campus, I would reason, do not get as many opportunities as those on campus to interact with faculty. When compared to an educational environment, a professional environment is not as open to questioning other people’s beliefs and values. However, integrity can still be cultivated in the workplace through positive role models and an, “environment that emphasizes diversity [and] critical thinking” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 235).

One of the best ways college staff can assist is, “by inviting students to find their own way- of acting, communicating, and performing in the world. This requires personal dialogue and time to reflect…” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 249), but it also requires time for students to decide what they believe in, and whether their actions are congruent with their principles and standards. On the other hand, those who work off campus that have not developed relationships with college faculty may not encounter the same experiences when attempting to challenge the ideas of a coworker or supervisor. Without the safety of a learning environment surrounded by peers and professors, a lesson in integrity may also turn into a lesson in insensitivity.

Methodology

Participants

Participants for this study will be from Indianapolis University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) in Indianapolis, IN, and will be full-time, undergraduate students who have designated in a survey response that they work off campus as defined by my definition of off-campus employment. These students will also have designated on their response that they work no more than 34 hours per week and are between the ages of 18 and 24.

Participants will come from those who respond to an email sent to IUPUI email addresses asking students to participate in a study to examine the relationship between student communication with faculty and off-campus employment. With the intentions of interviewing 12-16 students, I will accept the first 25 students that responded completely and satisfactorily to the email.

Instruments

I will collect data on students using qualitative interviews with general, open-ended questions, in order to gain a better understanding of how off-campus employment affects how students interact with faculty on campus and out of the classroom. Questions during the interview will attempt to attain the student’s thoughts, feelings, and beliefs on how successful they feel they have been in communicating with faculty outside of class throughout their college experience. I will also ask questions that will be able to acknowledge their development along Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) vectors associated with student-faculty relationships.

I will acquire some of these questions from the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA) (Winston, Miller and Cooper, 1999 as cited in Macari et al., 2005- 2006, p. 288). This instrument measures three of Chickering and Reisser’s Vectors of Student Development including, “Developing Purpose”, “Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships”, and “Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence” (Macari et al., 2005-2006, p. 288).

Procedure

One-on-one interviews, although the most time consuming, will be conducted so that each student is comfortable sharing opinions or thoughts without fear of information leaving the study. I will be the only interviewer in order to keep interviewing techniques and processes as consistent as possible throughout the study. For statistical purposes, to ensure that participants still qualify for the study, and to make the participant more comfortable to answer open ended questions, I will initially ask the participant the following items: a) age, b) what year of college they are in, c) whether they are a commuter or residential student, d) confirm they are a full time student, and e) how many hours per week they typically work. After participants are finished answering the qualifying questions, open-ended questions relating to the study will be asked.

Conclusion

The purpose of my study is to gain a better understanding of how off-campus employment affects student-faculty relationships on campus and the psychosocial development of undergraduate students. I used Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) Vectors of Student Development to explain how I believe off-campus employment affects student-faculty interaction and alters their psychosocial development.

A limitation to this qualitative study is that I did not choose to focus strictly on residential or commuter students. I included this as a question during the interview process so that the information could be disclosed when the results of the study are given. It is beyond the scope of this paper to delve into the experiences of commuter and residential students on a mainly commuter college; however, it is note worthy that, “hours per week spent commuting to campus produces a pattern of effects very similar to the pattern described…for off-campus work and full-time work” (Astin, 1993, 390). Additionally, because the majority of IUPUI students commute to school, the results of this study may only be valid at this campus and may not carry over to other universities. Therefore, further research or duplication of this study would be needed in order to justify extending the results of this study to other institutions.

The significance of this study is that trends towards student employment are growing, and as educators, we need to find ways to assist our students in improving student-faculty interaction. Chickering and Reisser believe that one must redefine relationships with parents and gain the support of nonparental adults and peers before relationships with faculty, professors and advisors can occur (Chickering and Reisser, 1993, p. 269).

I believe that students must first be made aware that it is okay to communicate with their professors so that the process of redefining relationships can begin. Many students who work off campus do not spend time getting involved in campus life, nor do they realize that it is beneficial to their development and their future. I believe the results of this study, if completed, would prove this result.

References

Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Chickering, A.W. and Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A.W. and Reisser, L. (2005). The seven vectors. In Wilson, M.E. & Wolf-Wendel, L.E. (Eds.). ASHE Reader on College Student Development Theory,181-189. Boston: Pearson.

Chickering, A.W. and Schlossberg, N.K. (2002) Getting the most out of college. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Dundes, L., & Marx, J. (2006-2007). Balancing work and academics in college: Why do students working 10 to 19 hours per week excel? Journal of College Student Retention, 8(1), 107-120.

Josselson, R. (2005). Identity. In Wilson, M.E. & Wolf-Wendel, L.E. (Eds.). ASHE Reader on College Student Development Theory, 191-199. Boston: Pearson.

Kelley School of Business, Indianapolis. (2007-2008). Career Placement office 2007-2008 Annual Report. Retrieved November 1, 2008 from Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI), Kelley School of Business Web site:

Kodama, C.M., McEwen, M.K., Liang, C.T.H., and Lee, S. (2005). An asian American perspective on psychosocial student development theory. In Wilson, M.E. & Wolf-Wendel, L.E. (Eds.). ASHE Reader on College Student Development Theory,219-228. Boston: Pearson.

Lundberg, C.A. (2004). Working and learning: The role of involvement for employed students. NASPA Journal Winter 2004, 41(2), 201-215.

Macari, D.P., Maples, M.F., and D’Andrea, L. (2005-2006). A comparative study of psychosocial development in nontraditional and traditional college students. Journal of College Student Retention. 7(3-4), 283-302.

McEwen, M.K., Roper, L.D., Bryant, D.R., and Langa, M.J. (2005). Incorporating the development of african-american students into psychosocial theories of student development. In Wilson, M.E. & Wolf-Wendel, L.E. (Eds.). ASHE Reader on College Student Development Theory, 211-218. Boston: Pearson.

Pascarella, E.T. and Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Provasnik, S., Kena, G., Dinkes, R.,Kewal Ramani, A., and Kemp, J. (2008). The condition of education 2008 (NCES 2008-031). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Pope, R.L. (2005). The relationship between psychosocial development and racial identity of college students of color. In Wilson, M.E. & Wolf-Wendel, L.E. (Eds.). ASHE Reader on College Student Development Theory, 201-209. Boston: Pearson.

Reason, R.D., Terenzini, P.T., and Domingo, R.J. (2007). Developing social and personal competence in the first year of college. The Review of Higher Education. Spring 2007 30(3), 271-299.

Riggert, S.C., Boyle, M., Petrosko, J.M., Ash, D., Rude-Parkins, C. (2006). Student employment and higher education: Empiricism and contradiction. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 63-92.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college. Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Nontraditional Undergraduates, NCES 2002-012 by Susan Choy. Washington, DC: 2002.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download