View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Nontraditional Students and Credit for Prior Learning-Analytical Thinking, Clout, Drives, and Motives

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Nontraditional Students and Credit for Prior Learning-Analytical Thinking, Clout, Drives, and Motives
Language: English
Authors: Catherine A. Cherrstrom (ORCID 0000-0002-4903-053X), Carrie J. Boden (ORCID 0000-0001-5991-5908), Todd Sherron (ORCID 0000-0003-3871-2727)
Source: Journal of Continuing Higher Education. 2024 72(2):237-252.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Adult Education
Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Nontraditional Students, Credits, Prior Learning, Logical Thinking, Learning Motivation, Adult Students, Adult Learning, Writing Assignments, Student Evaluation, College Students, Language Usage, Psychological Patterns, Hispanic American Students, Minority Serving Institutions
DOI: 10.1080/07377363.2023.2222247
ISSN: 0737-7363
1948-4801
Abstract: This study examined nontraditional students using linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC) of their reflective writing assignments. Participants included 364 adult students enrolled in a degree completion program. Data comprised a multiweek reflective writing assignment and demographic data, linguistically and statistically analyzed. The study found that nontraditional students have low clout, a high drive for achievement, and a high motive of allure. In addition, students participating in credit for prior learning (CPL), also referred to as prior learning assessment (PLA), have statistically higher analytical thinking, drive for affiliation, and reward as motive. These results offer implications for prospective and nontraditional students, for academic advisors and instructors, and for higher education institutions and CPL programs.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1432093
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF8rM8j4VrbAmyRe5So_OCTAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCGtWpt30I0DCjr5rAIBEICBmuwU3pwXSDaviz3fHC4lP8b6d5sUyeAlHfpP8KnWw7oai6CbbFvqlTg8KB5vdr5fHVlNYkiQtRBJgyYwDcjD15inPp9lqDZPCtQrllgxboo-fAxb-CrgHZDVMLYUQoiJCIQfW4sXifUGd9ImOHZvUUUbkjLaZyrcWEOPwobCS0GQSx81jmumbQ6ELGvOpTNE0xLxlKyS1v68tgI=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0178530603;gwp01may.24;2024Jul23.05:09;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0178530603-1">Nontraditional Students and Credit for Prior Learning—Analytical Thinking, Clout, Drives, and Motives </title> <p>This study examined nontraditional students using linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC) of their reflective writing assignments. Participants included 364 adult students enrolled in a degree completion program. Data comprised a multiweek reflective writing assignment and demographic data, linguistically and statistically analyzed. The study found that nontraditional students have low clout, a high drive for achievement, and a high motive of allure. In addition, students participating in credit for prior learning (CPL), also referred to as prior learning assessment (PLA), have statistically higher analytical thinking, drive for affiliation, and reward as motive. These results offer implications for prospective and nontraditional students, for academic advisors and instructors, and for higher education institutions and CPL programs.</p> <p>Keywords: Credit for prior learning (CPL); prior learning assessment (PLA); nontraditional students; adult learners; analytical thinking; drives; motives</p> <p>Many Americans are missing the opportunity to access jobs and careers, higher wages, lower unemployment, greater job satisfaction, and employee benefits including health care and retirement (Cherrstrom & Boden, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref1">11</reflink>]; Loveless, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref2">33</reflink>]; Ma et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref3">34</reflink>]). According to the U.S. Census Bureau ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref4">61</reflink>]), 91.2% of Americans aged 25 and older have a high school diploma but only 37.8% have a bachelor's degree. In the workplace, those with a high school diploma earn an average of $42,068 per year, whereas those with a bachelor's degree earn an average of $69,368 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref5">61</reflink>]). Furthermore, the unemployment rate for those with a high school diploma (6.2%) is higher than for those with a bachelor's degree (3.5%). Despite the benefits of a college degree, pursuing one presents challenges and barriers.</p> <p>Further analysis of those whose highest educational attainment is a bachelor's degree yields interesting results based on gender and race/ethnicity. According to the U.S. Census Bureau ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref6">61</reflink>]), this group represents 24.1% of all American women and 22.9% of all American men, and within this group, women (53.4%) outnumber men (46.6%). The group also represents 33.7% of all Asian Americans; 26% of all White alone (defined as those who indicated only White race), not Hispanic Americans; 17.2% all Black Americans; and 14.5% of all Hispanic Americans of any race. Within the group, White alone, not Hispanic Americans (70.5%) represents the largest percentage of those whose highest educational attainment is a bachelor's degree, followed by Hispanic Americans of any race (9.9%), Blacks (9.2%), and Asian Americans (9.1%). These statistics based on race and ethnicity highlight disparities among Americans.</p> <hd id="AN0178530603-2">Nontraditional Students and Credit for Prior Learning</hd> <p>Nontraditional students represent a significant number and percentage of American undergraduate students. Based on age 25 years and older, nontraditional students represent 25.4% of undergraduate students enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref7">45</reflink>]). This estimate is understated, however, because the literature offers multiple definitions of <emph>nontraditional student</emph>, including those who earned an alternative high school diploma, delayed college enrollment, attend school part-time or work full-time, are financially independent, have dependents, or are single caregivers (Langrehr et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref8">31</reflink>]; NCES, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref9">42</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref10">43</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref11">44</reflink>]). Adding students aged 24 and younger who work part-time, for example, increases the percentage of nontraditional students to 41.33% (NCES, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref12">45</reflink>]). These nontraditional students have distinct characteristics, challenges, and needs compared to their traditional counterparts.</p> <p>Nontraditional students bring numerous life and work experiences to the classroom (Knowles, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref13">29</reflink>]) and juggle competing priorities and roles in the family, workplace, and community to be in the classroom (Ross-Gordon, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref14">50</reflink>]). They often face fear and anxiety about learning to use new technology, refreshing study skills, having younger counterparts in class, and navigating bureaucratic systems (Erisman & Steele, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref15">19</reflink>]). Furthermore, if first generation, students often feel misunderstood in two different worlds—home and school—and not belonging in either one (Perna, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref16">49</reflink>]; Suwinyattichaiporn & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref17">56</reflink>]). As a result, nontraditional students typically seek online and flexible programs relevant to their careers and other roles and including credit for prior learning (Panacci, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref18">47</reflink>]; Ross-Gordon, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref19">50</reflink>]) to support their goal of earning a college degree.</p> <p>For nontraditional students, credit for prior learning (CPL), historically referred to as prior learning assessment (PLA), can "make the difference between earning or not earning a college degree" (Boden et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref20">8</reflink>], p. 2). CPL awards academic credit for college-level learning gained outside the classroom by using assessment testing or competency portfolios (Klein-Collins & Wertheim, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref21">28</reflink>]). According to the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref22">15</reflink>]), learning <emph>outside the classroom</emph> encompasses the workplace and military, travel and hobbies, and civic activities and volunteer service. Evaluating and credentialing such learning offers numerous benefits to nontraditional students and those from underserved populations. Irrespective of age, gender, and race/ethnicity, as well as academic ability, financial aid, and grade point average, CPL students have higher graduation rates than non-CPL students (CAEL, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref23">15</reflink>]). In addition, CPL students pay less tuition, have greater student persistence, and earn their degrees faster (CAEL, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref24">16</reflink>], Cherrstrom et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref25">12</reflink>]; Hayward & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref26">23</reflink>]; Klein, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref27">26</reflink>]; McKay et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref28">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>In summary, earning a college degree offers many benefits, but pursuing one presents challenges and barriers, and statistics highlight disparities among American college graduates based on race and ethnicity. Today, nontraditional students represent a significant number and percentage of college students and have distinct characteristics, challenges, and needs compared to their traditional counterparts. CPL provides multiple benefits for nontraditional students. Therefore, nontraditional students merit further examination, including the similarities and differences between those using and not using CPL, to support their pursuit of a college degree.</p> <hd id="AN0178530603-3">Research Purpose and Questions</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to examine nontraditional students using linguistic inquiry and word count of reflective writing assignments. Three research questions guided the study: What similarities and differences exist between CPL and non-CPL students in</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Analytical thinking, clout, authenticity, and emotional tone?</item> <p></p> <item> Overall drives and underlying affiliation, achievement, and power?</item> <p></p> <item> Reward, risk, curiosity, and allure as motives?</item> </ulist> <p>This article continues with a review of relevant literature, followed by the methods used, results, and discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0178530603-4">Literature Review</hd> <p>As context for the study, this section discusses literature relevant to reflective writing assignments, linguistics and linguistic inquiry, and word count analysis, as well as drives and motives.</p> <hd id="AN0178530603-5">Reflective Writing Assignments</hd> <p>John Dewey ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref29">18</reflink>]), American philosopher and educator, noted that we learn from <emph>reflecting</emph> on experience rather than simply having an experience. In higher education, reflection serves to generate, deepen, and document learning (Ash & Clayton, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref30">5</reflink>]). The Center for Pedagogical Innovation ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref31">10</reflink>]) further defined <emph>reflection</emph> as "an evidence-based, integrative, analytical, capacity-building process that serves to generate, deepen, critique, and document learning" (Reflection in Your Course section, para. 1). The process supports students in sensemaking—in relation to self, others, and experiences—and reimagining experiences to benefit themselves and society (Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref32">51</reflink>]). Writing assignments prompt and scaffold student reflection. Yancey ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref33">62</reflink>]) described a dialectical reflection process of "<emph>looking forward</emph> to goals we might attain, as well as a <emph>casting backward</emph> to see where we have been. When we reflect, we thus <emph>project</emph> and <emph>review</emph>" (p. 6). Through reflective writing assignments, students discuss new learning, make connections between course content and their practice, and practice application of constructed knowledge.</p> <p>The reflective writing assignments in this study used Kolb's ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref34">30</reflink>]) experiential learning model to guide and promote reflection. Experiential learning promotes critical thinking about experiences, challenges assumptions, and validates constructed knowledge (Fenwick, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref35">20</reflink>]). According to Kolb, "Learning is a continuous process grounded in experience. Knowledge is continuously derived and tested out in the experiences of the learner" (p. 27). As such, he developed a four-stage experiential learning model: (a) incorporating a new or reinterpreted concrete experience, (b) reflective observation of such an experience, (c) abstract conceptualization of a new or modified idea, and (d) application of such abstraction in the real world to see what happens through active experimentation. In this study, course content included new theory (e.g., adult development, adult transition, personal epistemology) and learning activities (e.g., discussions, creative assignments, writing assignments) to foster nontraditional students' reflection on their prior experiences, newly learned theories, and new experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0178530603-6">Linguistics and Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count Analysis</hd> <p>The words we use reflect our thinking, feelings, perspectives, and attentions (Tausczik & Pennebaker, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref36">57</reflink>]). As the scientific study of language, <emph>linguistics</emph> is interdisciplinary, cutting across the humanities as well as biological, cognitive, physical, and social sciences (Harvard University, Department of Linguistics, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref37">22</reflink>]; Stanford University Linguistics, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref38">55</reflink>]). Linguists examine language as a cultural, psychological, and social phenomenon (Stanford University Linguistics, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref39">55</reflink>]). "Studying how people use language—what words and phrases they unconsciously choose and combine—can help us better understand ourselves and why we behave the way we do" (Shashkevich, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref40">52</reflink>], para. 1). As the psychology of language, <emph>psycholinguistics</emph> studies the relationships between language and behavior or cognition (Harvard University, Department of Linguistics, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref41">22</reflink>]). Linguistic inquiry offers the opportunity to know and understand nontraditional students through their writing.</p> <p>Widely used in the social sciences (Chung & Pennebaker, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref42">13</reflink>]), LIWC-22 software analyzes over 100 dimensions of text to understand a person's emotions, feelings, concerns, thoughts, and personality (Chung & Pennebaker, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref43">13</reflink>]; LIWC, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref44">32</reflink>]). The software comprises over 100 dictionaries, and each dictionary corresponds to a specific category and relevant collection of words (LIWC, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref45">32</reflink>]). For example, the dictionary for <emph>affiliation</emph> includes over 350 entries reflecting a person's need for connection with others. The processing program compares each word of a text file or group of files with the words in each dictionary (Tausczik & Pennebaker, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref46">57</reflink>]). These two major features enable LIWC to efficiently analyze considerable amounts of textual data.</p> <p>Publication in peer-reviewed journals supports the process of adding new knowledge to the existing body of knowledge (Cherrstrom et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref47">12</reflink>]; Cope & Kalantzis, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref48">14</reflink>]; Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref49">58</reflink>]). LIWC's ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref50">32</reflink>]) current website links to over 20,000 published articles using the software for data analysis. To further examine the use of LIWC, we used university library access to search peer-reviewed publications in two research databases. Academic Search Complete broadly encompasses a large collection of scholarly journals and other publications from multiple disciplines, whereas the Educational Resources Information Center database solely focuses on education journals and documents (Texas State University, University Libraries, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref51">59</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref52">60</reflink>]). Limiting results to peer-reviewed publications, we broadly searched for <emph>LIWC <emph>or</emph> linguistic inquiry and word count</emph> in <emph>All Text</emph> and more narrowly in <emph>Abstract</emph> for focused analysis. The Academic Search Complete search yielded substantial results—12,436 in All Text and 403 in Abstract, but Educational Resources Information Center yielded fewer results—45 in All Text and in Abstract. LIWC presents an opportunity to examine the writing of nontraditional students.</p> <hd id="AN0178530603-7">Analytical Thinking, Clout, Authenticity, and Emotional Tone</hd> <p>LIWC-22 uses four summary measures—analytical thinking, clout, authenticity, and emotional tone—to offer insight into a person's linguistic, psychological, and social processes (LIWC, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref53">32</reflink>]; Pennebaker et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref54">48</reflink>]). Based on associated dictionary words and relevant research, each measure is algorithmically determined, using a scale from 0 to 99. The first summary measure, <emph>analytical thinking</emph>, is highly valued in higher education and often correlates with reasoning skills and higher grades (LIWC, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref55">32</reflink>]). Analytical thinking is also highly valued by employers who seek college graduates with such skills (Flateby & Rose, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref56">21</reflink>]). Lower analytical thinking scores denote more informal, personal, and narrative thinking, whereas higher scores denote more formal, logical, and hierarchical thinking (LIWC, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref57">32</reflink>]; Pennebaker et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref58">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>The next two summary measures, clout and authenticity, require clarification as used in LIWC. <emph>Clout</emph> refers to lower or higher confidence, leadership, and social status (O'Dea et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref59">46</reflink>]). As an example, clout can reflect the perspective of a student posting in a discussion forum, whether from an uncertain or less confident position or from a position of high expertise (Moore et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref60">40</reflink>]). <emph>Authenticity</emph> refers to the degree to which someone self-monitors their self-presentation or emotions (LIWC, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref61">32</reflink>]). As examples, a prepared speech might have low authenticity, whereas a spontaneous text exchange between friends might have high authenticity (LIWC, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref62">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>The last summary measure, <emph>emotional tone</emph>, combines negative and positive variables into one measure (LIWC, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref63">32</reflink>]). Lower and higher numbers respectively denote a more negative or positive emotional tone. Nontraditional students experience a variety of emotions while contemplating and attending college. Fear of failure presents a significant psychological barrier, and anxiety presents a major challenge in pursuing a college degree (Erisman & Steele, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref64">19</reflink>]; MacDonald, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref65">35</reflink>]). Nontraditional students can feel selfish about doing something for themselves and guilty about missing family events (Erisman & Steele, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref66">19</reflink>]). Negative and positive emotions inevitably influence decisions to, or not to, enroll, attend, and persist to graduation. These four summary measures may provide insight into the analytical thinking, clout, authenticity, and emotional tone of nontraditional students.</p> <hd id="AN0178530603-8">Drives and Motives</hd> <p>The terms <emph>drives</emph> and <emph>motives</emph> are often interchangeably used. To differentiate in this study, the American Psychological Association defines drive as "a generalized state or readiness precipitating or motivating an activity or course of action" (APA, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref67">1</reflink>], para. 1) and motive as "a reason offered as an explanation for or cause of an individual's behavior" (APA, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref68">2</reflink>], para. 2). Common drives or motives for nontraditional students to pursue a college degree include pursuing advancement or change in job or career, seeking higher wages, and developing or enhancing skills for the workplace (Horn, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref69">24</reflink>]). However, nontraditional students live multidimensional and complex lives, so the decision to return to school includes functional, social, and emotional reasons (Horn, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref70">24</reflink>]). Drives and motives offer insights into traditional students, their reasons, and ultimate decision.</p> <p>McClelland ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref71">37</reflink>]) identified three implicit needs, drives, or motives learned in early childhood: (a) affiliation, (b) achievement, and (c) power. LIWC-22 uses the overarching language dimension of drives to capture the underlying dimensions of affiliation, achievement, and power. According to McClelland, <emph>affiliation</emph> embodies the drive to make friends, and those highly driven by affiliation seek to meet the needs of others. In LIWC-22, affiliation encompasses relationships, belonging to a group, and reference to others (Boyd et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref72">9</reflink>]). According to McClelland, <emph>achievement</emph> embodies the drive for excellence, and those highly driven by achievement tend to compete with themselves by doing better than they have before and compete with others by doing better than them. In LIWC-22, achievement encompasses striving for, succeeding in, and failing in achievement (Boyd et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref73">9</reflink>]). According to McClelland, <emph>power</emph> embodies the drive to impact others, and those highly driven by power tend to respect institutional authority and have concern for self-respect and discipline. In LIWC-22, power encompasses status, dominance, and social hierarchies (Boyd et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref74">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>In LIWC-22, a <emph>motive</emph> refers to an underlying state that guides, pulls, or drives human behavior, and the language dimensions for motives comprise reward, risk, curiosity, and allure (Boyd et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref75">9</reflink>]). <emph>Reward</emph> refers to "rewards, incentives, positive goals, and approach"; <emph>risk</emph> refers to "dangers, concerns, [and] things to avoid" (Boyd et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref76">9</reflink>], p. 22); and <emph>curiosity</emph> refers to an interest in new knowledge and openness to new experiences (Boyd et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref77">9</reflink>]). <emph>Allure</emph> encompasses language used in persuasive communications and compelling advertising (Boyd et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref78">9</reflink>]). Understanding the drives and motives of nontraditional students offers implications for students and higher education faculty and staff. In addition to this collective literature, a research design guided the study.</p> <hd id="AN0178530603-9">Methods</hd> <p>This section discusses the context of the study and reflective writing assignment, participants, data collection, and data analysis for the study.</p> <hd id="AN0178530603-10">Context of Study and Reflective Writing Assignment</hd> <p>The study was situated at a large, public, Hispanic-serving institution in the South, and the university's institutional review board approved a study (No. 7256) of nontraditional students in a degree completion program using existing data and an opt-out email. The program offered an accelerated, online pathway to a bachelor's degree in interdisciplinary studies and included CPL as an option to earn credit for college-level learning in the workplace.</p> <p>Nontraditional students joined the program as juniors and participated in two required courses offered in consecutive 8-week compressed terms. In the two introductory courses, they completed a comprehensive reflective writing assignment—the professional growth plan (PGP)—comprising six chapters: (a) autobiography of life events; (b) learning style and disciplinary perspectives; (c) autobiography as a worker; (d) autobiography as a learner; (e) abilities, interests, knowledge, and skills; and (f) growth plan and future goals. The writing assignment also included an introduction and conclusion, references, and appendixes. In each three-page chapter, students reflected on course content (e.g., theories, models, resources) and their experiences.</p> <p>Students also had the option to seek CPL by participating in a separate course, typically completed concurrently with the first required introductory course. During this elective course, students created a competency portfolio, ultimately evaluated by other faculty members for possible credit hours. The comprehensive portfolio comprised an application for CPL, a position description for one past or current job, a job task analysis, 8 to 25 competency statements (one statement for each of the latter tasks), and work verification or noncollegiate training documentation (Sherron et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref79">53</reflink>]). The course design prompted students to develop or strengthen skills in reflection, analysis, and metacognition. For example, while writing the portfolio, they applied Kolb's ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref80">30</reflink>]) experiential learning theory by recalling and reflecting on prior learning experiences and then forming abstract concepts and experimenting with new understandings. Self-reflection on work is usually new to nontraditional students and facilitates the process of articulating and demonstrating prior learning and creating new learning (Marienau, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref81">36</reflink>]; Moss & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref82">41</reflink>]). Recognizing and reflecting on learning prepares students as analytical and complex thinkers and reflective practitioners (Boden et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref83">8</reflink>]). The course design scaffolded such recognition and reflection.</p> <hd id="AN0178530603-11">Participants</hd> <p>Using criterion sampling, participants comprised nontraditional students who completed a PGP, had accessible demographic data, and did not opt out of the study. We initially identified 445 potential participants utilizing the learning management system course sites over 3 years using demographic data from university systems. We removed 36 traditionally-aged students (24 years and younger), 44 students who did not submit a PGP, and 1 student with incomplete demographic data. The final 364 participants comprised 57.4% women and 42.6% men and 51.1% were White, 33.8% Hispanic, 11.8% African American, 1.4% Asian, and less than 1% each multiracial, unknown, international, and American Indian/Alaskan. Lastly, 49% completed the elective CPL course and created a competency portfolio (CPL students) and 51% did not (non-CPL students).</p> <hd id="AN0178530603-12">Data Collection</hd> <p>Data collection comprised the PGP for each participant and corresponding demographic information. For the first data set, we downloaded each participant's PGP from the learning management system and individually saved the information by using a naming convention including the participant number. For the second data set, we downloaded from university systems and scrubbed corresponding demographic information.</p> <hd id="AN0178530603-13">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Data analysis comprised linguistic analysis of the PGPs, followed by statistical analysis based on CPL participation. For linguistic analysis, we uploaded the 364 PGP files into the LIWC-22 software and downloaded the results into an Excel spreadsheet. We then paired the results with corresponding data regarding participation (or not) in CPL in an Excel spreadsheet for further statistical analysis. We conducted independent samples <emph>t</emph>-tests to compare each summary measure and the drives and motives language dimension scores for CPL and non-CPL students.</p> <hd id="AN0178530603-14">Results</hd> <p>The first research question asked, "What similarities and differences exist between CPL and non-CPL students in analytical thinking, clout, authenticity, and emotional tone?" To answer this question, we conducted independent samples <emph>t</emph>-tests to compare the analytical thinking, clout, authenticity, and emotional tone summary measures in reflective writing assignments for nontraditional CPL and non-CPL students. Because each summary measure was algorithmically determined, using a scale from 0 to 99, higher and lower scores provide important insights (LIWC, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref84">32</reflink>]; Pennebaker et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref85">48</reflink>]). For analytical thinking, clout, and authenticity, higher scores fall above the median and lower scores fall below the median; for emotional tone, scores above the median denote more positive thinking and those below the median denote more negative thinking. Results indicated no significant difference between CPL and non-CPL students in three of the four summary measures (see Table 1). CPL and non-CPL students scored low in clout (<emph>M</emph> = 23.10, <emph>SD</emph> = 19.38; <emph>M</emph> = 19.96, <emph>SD</emph> = 17.57) and high in authenticity (<emph>M</emph> = 77.42, <emph>SD</emph> = 21.54; <emph>M</emph> = 80.36, <emph>SD</emph> = 18.79) and had a more positive emotional tone (<emph>M</emph> = 60.55, <emph>SD</emph> = 10.58; <emph>M</emph> = 59.53, <emph>SD</emph> = 10.79). However, on the fourth summary measure, results indicated a significant difference between CPL and non-CPL students in analytical thinking with a small effect size. For CPL students, analytical thinking (<emph>M</emph> = 66.58, <emph>SD</emph> = 11.08) was higher than for their non-CPL counterparts (<emph>M</emph> = 63.74, <emph>SD</emph> = 13.34), <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib362" id="ref86">362</reflink>) = 2.20, <emph>p</emph> =.03, <emph>d</emph> = 0.23.</p> <p>Table 1. Summary measures of analytical thinking, clout, authenticity, and emotional tone.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Summary Measure</td><td>Nontraditional Students</td><td>Mean Difference</td><td>95% Confidence Interval</td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>Cohen's <italic>d</italic></td></tr><tr><td>CPL Students</td><td>Non-CPL Students</td></tr><tr><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Analytical thinking</td><td char=".">178</td><td char=".">66.58</td><td char=".">11.08</td><td char=".">186</td><td char=".">63.74</td><td char=".">13.34</td><td char=".">2.84</td><td char=".">0.31, 5.37</td><td char=".">362</td><td char=".">2.20</td><td char=".">.03*</td><td char=".">0.23</td></tr><tr><td>Clout</td><td char=".">178</td><td char=".">23.10</td><td char=".">19.38</td><td char=".">186</td><td char=".">19.96</td><td char=".">17.57</td><td char=".">3.14</td><td char=".">−0.69, 6.97</td><td char=".">362</td><td char=".">1.59</td><td char=".">.11</td><td char=".">0.17</td></tr><tr><td>Authenticity</td><td char=".">178</td><td char=".">77.42</td><td char=".">21.54</td><td char=".">186</td><td char=".">80.36</td><td char=".">18.79</td><td char=".">−2.94</td><td char=".">−7.10, 1.22</td><td char=".">362</td><td char=".">−1.39</td><td char=".">.17</td><td char=".">0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional tone</td><td char=".">178</td><td char=".">60.55</td><td char=".">10.58</td><td char=".">186</td><td char=".">59.53</td><td char=".">10.79</td><td char=".">1.02</td><td char=".">−1.18, 3.22</td><td char=".">362</td><td char=".">0.91</td><td char=".">.36</td><td char=".">0.01</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 *<emph>p</emph> <.05.</p> <p>The second research question asked, "What similarities and differences exist between CPL and non-CPL students in overall drives and underlying affiliation, achievement, and power?" To answer this question, we conducted independent samples <emph>t</emph>-tests to compare the overall language dimension of drives and underlying dimensions for affiliation, achievement, and power in reflective writings assignments for nontraditional CPL and non-CPL students. Each language dimension score denotes the percentage of overall words affiliated with the dimension. Results indicated similarities and differences in drives (see Table 2). For overall drives, results indicated that CPL students had a statistically significant and higher overall drive score (<emph>M =</emph> 6.52, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.96) than their non-CPL counterparts (<emph>M =</emph> 6.30, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.99), <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib362" id="ref87">362</reflink>) = 2.15, <emph>p</emph> =.03, <emph>d</emph> = 0.23. To better understand these results, we then looked to the three underlying dimensions. For highest and lowest drives, with no significant difference, CPL and non-CPL students scored highest in achievement (<emph>M =</emph> 3.59, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.67; <emph>M =</emph> 3.48, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.72) and lowest in power (<emph>M =</emph> 1.43, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.45; <emph>M =</emph> 1.46, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.58). In the middle, however, results revealed that CPL students had a statistically significant and higher affiliation score (<emph>M =</emph> 1.62, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.55) than their non-CPL counterparts (<emph>M =</emph> 1.48, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.43), <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib362" id="ref88">362</reflink>) = 2.71, <emph>p</emph> =.001, <emph>d</emph> = 0.20.</p> <p>Table 2. Language dimensions of drives, affiliation, achievement, and power.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Language Dimension</td><td>Nontraditional Students</td><td>Mean Difference</td><td>95% Confidence Interval</td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>Cohen's <italic>d</italic></td></tr><tr><td>CPL Students</td><td>Non-CPL Students</td></tr><tr><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Drives</td><td char=".">178</td><td char=".">6.52</td><td char=".">0.96</td><td char=".">186</td><td char=".">6.30</td><td char=".">0.99</td><td char=".">0.22</td><td char=".">0.02, 0.42</td><td char=".">362</td><td char=".">2.15</td><td char=".">.03*</td><td char=".">0.23</td></tr><tr><td>Affiliation</td><td char=".">178</td><td char=".">1.62</td><td char=".">0.55</td><td char=".">186</td><td char=".">1.48</td><td char=".">0.43</td><td char=".">0.14</td><td char=".">0.04, 0.24</td><td char=".">362</td><td char=".">2.71</td><td char=".">.00**</td><td char=".">0.28</td></tr><tr><td>Achievement</td><td char=".">178</td><td char=".">3.59</td><td char=".">0.67</td><td char=".">186</td><td char=".">3.48</td><td char=".">0.72</td><td char=".">0.11</td><td char=".">−0.03, 0.25</td><td char=".">362</td><td char=".">1.50</td><td char=".">.13</td><td char=".">0.16</td></tr><tr><td>Power</td><td char=".">178</td><td char=".">1.43</td><td char=".">0.45</td><td char=".">186</td><td char=".">1.46</td><td char=".">0.58</td><td char=".">−0.03</td><td char=".">−0.14, 0.7</td><td char=".">362</td><td char=".">−0.55</td><td char=".">.58</td><td char=".">0.06</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 *<emph>p</emph> <.05. **<emph>p</emph> <.01.</p> <p>The third research question asked, "What similarities and differences exist between CPL and non-CPL students in reward, risk, curiosity, and allure as motives?" To answer this question, we conducted independent samples <emph>t</emph>-tests to compare reward, risk, curiosity, and influence in reflective writing assignments for nontraditional CPL and non-CPL students. Results indicated similarities and differences in motives (see Table 3). For the highest motive, with no significant difference, CPL and non-CPL students scored highest in allure (<emph>M =</emph> 5.83, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.02; <emph>M =</emph> 6.0, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.13). For the second highest motive, however, results revealed that CPL students had statistically significant and higher reward scores (<emph>M</emph> = 0.80, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.27) than non-CPL students (<emph>M</emph> = 0.73, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.31), <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib362" id="ref89">362</reflink>) = 2.29, <emph>p</emph> =.02, <emph>d</emph> = 0.24. For the third and lowest motives, results indicated no significant difference between CPL and non-CPL nontraditional students in curiosity (<emph>M</emph> = 0.59, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.19; <emph>M</emph> = 0.15, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.09) or risk (<emph>M</emph> = 0.16, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.08; <emph>M</emph> = 0.15, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.09). The next section discusses these results and offers implications.</p> <p>Table 3. Language dimensions for motives—Reward, risk, curiosity, and allure.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Language Dimension</td><td>Nontraditional Students</td><td>Mean Difference</td><td>95% Confidence Interval</td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td><italic>t</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>Cohen's <italic>d</italic></td></tr><tr><td>CPL Students</td><td>Non-CPL Students</td></tr><tr><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Reward</td><td char=".">178</td><td char=".">0.80</td><td char=".">0.27</td><td char=".">186</td><td char=".">0.73</td><td char=".">0.31</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.01, 0.13</td><td char=".">362</td><td char=".">2.29</td><td char=".">.02*</td><td char=".">0.24</td></tr><tr><td>Risk</td><td char=".">178</td><td char=".">0.16</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">186</td><td char=".">0.15</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">−0.01, 0.03</td><td char=".">362</td><td char=".">1.12</td><td char=".">.26</td><td char=".">0.12</td></tr><tr><td>Curiosity</td><td char=".">178</td><td char=".">0.59</td><td char=".">0.19</td><td char=".">186</td><td char=".">0.58</td><td char=".">0.21</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">−0.03, 0.05</td><td char=".">362</td><td char=".">0.47</td><td char=".">.63</td><td char=".">0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Allure</td><td char=".">178</td><td char=".">5.83</td><td char=".">1.02</td><td char=".">186</td><td char=".">6.0</td><td char=".">1.13</td><td char=".">0.15</td><td char=".">−0.04, 0.05</td><td char=".">362</td><td char=".">−1.50</td><td char=".">.13</td><td char=".">0.16</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 *<emph>p</emph> <.05.</p> <hd id="AN0178530603-15">Discussion</hd> <p>The results of this study provide insight into nontraditional students and those who participate in CPL based on an analysis of reflective writing assignments. This section discusses key findings related to analytical thinking, clout, drives and motives.</p> <hd id="AN0178530603-16">Higher Analytical Thinking in CPL Students</hd> <p>This study found that nontraditional students who participate in CPL have higher analytical thinking compared to their non-CPL counterparts. Analytic thinking "captures the degree to which people use words that suggest formal, logical, and hierarchical thinking patterns" (LIWC, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref90">32</reflink>], Analytical Thinking (Analytic) section, para. 1). Students pursuing CPL may have higher analytical skills, or they may develop such skills during the elective CPL course and portfolio creations process. Either way, in the contexts of higher education and the workplace, analytical thinking is highly valued.</p> <p>In higher education, instructors frequently use Bloom's taxonomy to develop learning objectives for courses. These objectives articulate intended learning or what <emph>students will be able to do</emph> after fully participating in the course (Bloom & Krathwohl, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref91">7</reflink>]). The revised taxonomy comprises six verbs, ranging from lower-order—remembering, understanding, and applying—to higher-order—analyzing, evaluating, and creating—thinking skills (Anderson & Krathwohl, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref92">3</reflink>]). CPL students in this study participated in an elective course to create a competency portfolio for other faculty members to assess for possible credit hours. After studying Bloom's taxonomy and analyzing a prior or current job, CPL students demonstrated college-level learning in their portfolio by articulating the cognitive process, using the lower- and higher-order thinking skills associated with the six verbs (Anderson & Krathwohl, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref93">3</reflink>]). Recognizing and reflecting on everyday learning develops students as complex thinkers and reflective practitioners (Boden et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref94">8</reflink>]). Developing analytical thinking skills in college benefits students during school and beyond.</p> <p>In the workplace, employers seek college graduates with analytical thinking skills. In a survey conducted by the American Association of Colleges and Universities, employers identified critical thinking, inquiry and analysis, and problem solving as the top three skills needed in college graduates (Flateby & Rose, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref95">21</reflink>]). Analytical thinking supports all three of these highly valued skills for job and career success. Indeed ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref96">25</reflink>]), a global job site for employees and employees, identifies multiple activities using and strengthening analytical skills—communication, creation and development, workplace assessment and evaluation, data and information analysis, research, and learning new skills. Applying analytical thinking skills in the workplace benefits workers and their employers.</p> <p>These findings have implications for instructional design and CPL to promote analytical thinking. Learning objectives for courses or lessons can include the development and application of higher-order analytical thinking skills, which in turn can guide the creation of learning activities and assignments. Adding reflective writing can serve as a dynamic tool to develop and apply analytical thinking skills. Depending on objectives, students can learn to identify, gather, evaluate, and interpret relevant data; problem-solve in teams; test assumptions, biases, ideas, models, or theories; debate pros and cons using relevant information from differing perspectives; and critically evaluate the use of data and arguments (Armstrong et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref97">4</reflink>]). Specific to CPL, the process prompts students to analyze a prior or current job for prior learning gained outside the classroom and provides theory about and practice in applying analytical thinking. Future research might examine the use of such practices to strengthen analytical thinking in courses.</p> <hd id="AN0178530603-17">Low Clout in Nontraditional Students</hd> <p>This study also found that nontraditional students have low clout, referring to "the relative social status, confidence, or leadership that people display through their writing or talking" (LIWC, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref98">32</reflink>], Clout section, para. 1). Nontraditional students might feel lower in social status compared to traditionally aged classmates who are younger (Erisman & Steele, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref99">19</reflink>]) and who may appear to better belong in the world of higher education (Suwinyattichaiporn & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref100">56</reflink>]). CPL can empower nontraditional students who do not see themselves as <emph>college material</emph>, stemming from negative messaging or past experiences (Klein-Collins & Hudson, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref101">27</reflink>]). Nontraditional students frequently lack confidence in using new technology, developing new or more robust skills, and navigating their new and complex world of higher education (Erisman & Steele, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref102">19</reflink>]). They might feel lower in leadership skills or capacity owing to feeling misunderstood by others, anxious about balancing school with life and work (Perna, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref103">49</reflink>]), or burdened by school responsibilities, tuition, and fees (Suwinyattichaiporn & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref104">56</reflink>]). These collective feelings likely influence low clout and, in turn, may be affected by lower clout.</p> <p>These findings have implications for advisors and instructors, who can treat nontraditional students with respect and encourage confidence through interactions and assignments. Bandura's ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref105">6</reflink>]) self-efficacy theory offers insights into the confidence of students to exert control over their behavior, motivation, and social environment and development of self-efficacy through mastery experiences, social modeling, social persuasion, and healthy states of physiology (e.g., stress reduction). Implications for recruiting such students include multiple engagement methods (e.g., chat, email, in-person, and telephone), encouraging personal interactions with admissions staff, and employing less academic language and more simplified academic processes (Smith, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref106">54</reflink>]). Offering rolling admissions and easily accessible information about programs, faculty, tuition/fees, and the overall admissions process helps nontraditional students enroll when the motive or desire to return to college strikes (Smith, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref107">54</reflink>]). Future research might longitudinally examine students' perceptions of social status, confidence, and leadership throughout their college experience from early inquiry to ultimate graduation, testing CPL participation as an intervention and identifying resources for students.</p> <hd id="AN0178530603-18">Drives and Motives in Nontraditional and CPL Students</hd> <p>Higher education institutions and popular literature often discuss functional reasons for going to school—enhancing or adding skills, advancing existing or finding new jobs or careers, and earning more money. However, for nontraditional students, social and emotional reasons also prompt the decision to return (Horn, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref108">24</reflink>]). College in adulthood is a time of transition and even transformation (Merriam & Baumgartner, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref109">39</reflink>]). This study found common and differentiated drives and motives for CPL and non-CPL students.</p> <p>Drives motivate us to act and take a course of action (APA, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref110">1</reflink>]). McClelland ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref111">37</reflink>]) identified three implicit drives learned in early childhood: (a) affiliation, (b) achievement, and (c) power. This current study identified achievement as the highest driver of nontraditional students, seeking excellence and competing with themselves and others for high performance. The study also found that CPL students scored significantly higher in affiliation; that is, making friends and meeting the demands or needs of others. In contrast, power was the lowest driver for nontraditional students, who were less driven to impact others (McClelland, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref112">37</reflink>]) and less focused on status, dominance, and social hierarchies (Boyd et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref113">9</reflink>]). This lack of focus on status may intersect with nontraditional students' lack of clout, discussed above, and offer further insight into drives and motives.</p> <p>Motives explain or cause our behavior (APA, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref114">2</reflink>]). This study identified allure as the highest motive for nontraditional students. Allure originates from advertising, using language to persuade or attract, and attention-grabbing words to stimulate needs and desires (Boyd et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref115">9</reflink>]). Although nontraditional students have low clout while enrolled, the allure of finally attaining a college degree, and hence a new, upwardly mobile status, might be the biggest motivation to enroll. The study also found that CPL students scored significantly higher in reward as a motive. In other words, goals, incentives, and rewards (Boyd et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref116">9</reflink>]) motivate CPL students. Participating in CPL saves time and money while pursuing the ultimate goal—that is, a college degree—leading to rewards in the workplace (CAEL, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref117">16</reflink>], Cherrstrom et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref118">12</reflink>]; Hayward & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref119">23</reflink>]). Positioning CPL as a faster and less costly pathway to achieve goals and reap rewards might offer a motivating twist to boost participation.</p> <p>These results have implications for college recruiting and instructors. When institutions recruit nontraditional students, increased focus on achievement and allure might boost interest, inquiries, and applications. When CPL is promoted to prospective students, increased focus on affiliation and reward might boost interest in the process and offer a competitive advantage. Once students are enrolled, instructional course design can promote achievement or excellence through content, learning activities, and assignments. The CPL process provides a faster pathway to the ultimate reward of a college degree (CAEL, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref120">16</reflink>], Cherrstrom et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref121">12</reflink>]; Hayward & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref122">23</reflink>]) and can include opportunities for students to affiliate with others. Understanding what drives nontraditional students and those seeking CPL to enroll and persist in college graduation offers many benefits to applicants, students, and higher education institutions. Future qualitative research might interview nontraditional students to examine the how and why of allure as a motive. Future research might also examine the affiliation experiences of nontraditional students and quantitatively study interventions to increase such affiliation.</p> <p>Collectively, these ideas for future research and others could address the limitations of this study. This study was situated at one university; including participants from other higher education institutions might confirm these findings or uncover new insights. In addition, the study used one method, LIWC, but other quantitative methods might confirm or uncover new findings. Qualitative methods would be useful in examining the how and why behind this study's findings. Despite such limitations, this study adds to the literature of nontraditional students and those participating in CPL. The study also generally adds to the use of linguistic inquiry as a method and specifically adds the use of linguistic inquiry to the CPL literature and may expand the use of textual analysis in the field of education.</p> <p>In summary, nontraditional students aspire to a college degree but face challenges while pursuing one. Using linguistic inquiry and word count of reflective writing assignments, this study found that nontraditional students have low clout, a high drive for achievement, and a high motive of allure. The study also found that students participating in CPL had statistically higher analytical thinking, drive for affiliation, and reward as motives. These results offer implications for prospective and nontraditional students, for academic advisors and instructors, and for higher education institutions and CPL programs.</p> <hd id="AN0178530603-19">Disclosure Statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0178530603-20"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref67" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychological Association (APA). (2022a). drive. https://dictionary.apa.org/drive</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref68" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychological Association (APA). (2022b). motive. https://dictionary.apa.org/motive</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref92" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref97" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Armstrong, P., Moyer, S., & Stanton, K. (2022). Learning to analyze and critically evaluate ideas, arguments, and points of view. IDEA. https://<ulink href="http://www.ideaedu.org/idea-notes-on-learning/learning-to-analyze-and-critically-evaluate-ideas-arguments-and-points-of-view/">www.ideaedu.org/idea-notes-on-learning/learning-to-analyze-and-critically-evaluate-ideas-arguments-and-points-of-view/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref30" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: The power of critical reflection in applied learning. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 01 (Fall), 25 – 48. https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/4579/ash-2009-generating.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://doi.org/10.57186/jalhe_2009_v1a2p25-48</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref105" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (2008). An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Positive psychology: Exploring the best in people (Vol. 1, pp. 167 – 196). Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref91" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives; the classification of educational goals by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. Longmans, Green.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref20" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Boden, C. J., Cherrstrom, C. A., & Sherron, T. (2019). Redesign of prior learning assessment in an award-winning degree completion program. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 10 (3), 1 – 19. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5991-5908 https://doi.org/10.4018/IJAVET.2019070101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref72" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Boyd, R. L., Ashokkumar, A., Seraj, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2022). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC-22. University of Texas at Austin. https://www.liwc.app/static/documents/LIWC-22%20Manual%20-%20Development%20and%20Psychometrics.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Centre for Pedagogical Innovation. (2022). Role of reflection. Brock University. https://brocku.ca/pedagogical-innovation/resources/experiential-education/role-of-reflection/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cherrstrom, C. A., & Boden, C. J. (2018). Beacon of hope: Award-winning program redesign for post-traditional students. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 9 (2), 30 – 47. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJAVET.2018040103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cherrstrom, C. A., Robbins, S. E., & Bixby, J. (2017). 10 years of Adult Learning : Content analysis of a journal. Adult Learning, 28 (1), 3 – 11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159516664320</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chung, C. K., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2012). Linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC): Pronounced "Luke," ... and other useful facts. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Advanced in identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 206 – 229). IGI Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cope, W., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Signs of epistemic disruption: Transformations in the knowledge system of the academic journal. First Monday, 14 (4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v14i4.2309</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL). (2010). Fueling the race to postsecondary success. https://<ulink href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiWqaqGjen7AhXuEEQIHR1EApYQFnoECBEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffiles.eric.ed.gov%2Ffulltext%2FED524753.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2cqZBVBPzIzejWIwgm2W8Z">www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiWqaqGjen7AhXuEEQIHR1EApYQFnoECBEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffiles.eric.ed.gov%2Ffulltext%2FED524753.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2cqZBVBPzIzejWIwgm2W8Z</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL). (2011). Underserved students who earn credit through prior learning assessment (PLA) have higher degree completion rates and shorter time-to-degree. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED524578.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL). (2017). Chart the path to adult student success with PLA. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED597766.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Heath & Co Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erisman, W., & Steele, P. (2012). From contact to completion: Supporting returning adult students in obtaining a college credential. HigherEd Insight. https://higheredinsight.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/redesign_lumina-brief-oct2012.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fenwick, S. (2015). Equity-minded learning environments: PLA as a portal to fostering inclusive excellence. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 63 (1), 51 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2015.997378</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flateby, T. L., & Rose, T. A. (2021). From college to career success: How educators and employers talk about skills. American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). https://<ulink href="http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/articles/from-college-to-career-success-how-educators-and-employers-talk-about-skills">www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/articles/from-college-to-career-success-how-educators-and-employers-talk-about-skills</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harvard University, Department of Linguistics. (2022). Why linguistics? https://linguistics.fas.harvard.edu/pages/why-linguistics</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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 Journal of Research and Practice, 39 (1), 44 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2013.789992</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horn, M. B. (2021, February 18). Why do adults return to college? It's more complex than higher ed leaders' data suggest. Forbes. https://<ulink href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2021/02/18/why-do-adults-return-to-college-its-more-complex-than-higher-ed-leaders-data-suggest/?sh=6fcb21084aab">www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2021/02/18/why-do-adults-return-to-college-its-more-complex-than-higher-ed-leaders-data-suggest/?sh=6fcb21084aab</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Indeed. (2020). Analytical skills in the workplace: Skills and examples. https://<ulink href="http://www.indeed.com/hire/c/info/analytical-skills-in-the-workplace">www.indeed.com/hire/c/info/analytical-skills-in-the-workplace</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein, J. (2017). Early results in Capella's prior learning assessment experimental site initiative. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 65 (1), 54 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2017.1272401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein-Collins, R., & Hudson, S. (2017). What happens when learning counts? CAEL.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein-Collins, R., & Wertheim, J. B. (2013). Growing importance of prior learning assessment in the degree-completion toolkit. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2013 (140), 51 – 60. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20073</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Gulf Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Prentice-Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Langrehr, K., Phillips, J., Melville, A., & Eum, K. (2015). Determinants of nontraditional student status: A methodological review of the research. Journal of College Student Development, 56 (8), 876 – 881. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2015.0090</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LIWC. (n.d). Introducing LIWC-22. Pennebaker Conglomerates, Inc. https://www.liwc.app/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loveless, B. (2019). Benefits of earning a college degree. Education Corner. https://<ulink href="http://www.educationcorner.com/benefit-of-earning-a-college-degree.html">www.educationcorner.com/benefit-of-earning-a-college-degree.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2016). Education pays 2016: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. The College Board. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED572548</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacDonald, K. (2018). A review of the literature: The needs of nontraditional students in postsecondary education. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly, 5 (4), 159 – 164. https://doi.org/10.1002/sem3.20115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marienau, C. (2014). Why the adult brain likes PLA. Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL). <ulink href="http://www.cael.org/">http://www.cael.org/</ulink> pdfs/2014_forum_and_news-marienau</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. American Psychologist, 40 (7), 812 – 825. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.7.812</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKay, H., Cohn, B., & Kuang, L. (2016). 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</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merriam, S. B., & Baumgartner, L. (2020). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, R. L., Yen, C.-J., & Powers, F. E. (2021). Exploring the relationship between clout and cognitive processing in MOOC discussion forums. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52 (1), 482 – 497. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13033</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moss, L., & Brown, A. (2014). Transformative learning: Immigrant learners who participated in recognition of acquired competencies (RAC). International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 5 (1), 57 – 66. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijavet.2014010106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1996). Nontraditional undergraduates. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97578.asp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2014). The condition of education 2014. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014083.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2015). Demographic and enrollment characteristics of nontraditional undergraduates. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2015025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2021). Table 303.45. Total fall enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by level of enrollment, sex, attendance status, and age of student: 2015, 2017, and 2019. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_303.45.asp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Dea, B., Larsen, M. E., Batterham, P. J., Calear, A. L., & Christensen, H. (2017). A linguistic analysis of suicide-related Twitter posts. Crisis, 38 (5), 319 – 329. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000443</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Panacci, A. G. (2015). Adult students in higher education: Classroom experiences and needs. The College Quarterly, 18 (3). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1087330.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., Boyd, R. L., & Francis, M. E. (2015). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC2015 [operator's manual]. Pennebaker Conglomerates. https://www.liwc.app/static/documents/LIWC2015%20Manual%20-%20Operation.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perna, L. W. (2016). Conclusions. In L. W. Perna & E. Jones (Eds.), The state of college access and completion (pp. 208–224). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2011). Research on adult learners: Supporting the needs of a student population that is no longer non-traditional. Peer Review: Emerging Trends and Key Debates in Undergraduate Education, 13 (1), 26 – 29. https://<ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/1081785541?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true">www.proquest.com/docview/1081785541?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, M. (2013). The pedagogical balancing act: Teaching reflection in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18 (2), 144 – 155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.694104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shashkevich, A. (2019, August 22). The power of language: How words shape people, culture. Stanford News. https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/22/the-power-of-language-how-words-shape-people-culture/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sherron, T., Cherrstrom, C. A., Boden, C., & Wilson, L. (2021). Block credit prior learning assessment—Theory to practice. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 19 (1), 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2020.1832812</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, J. (2021). 7 strategies for recruiting adult learners and non-traditional students. OHO Interactive. https://<ulink href="http://www.oho.com/blog/marketing-and-recruiting-adult-learners-and-non-traditional-students">www.oho.com/blog/marketing-and-recruiting-adult-learners-and-non-traditional-students</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanford University Linguistics. (n.d). Our department. https://linguistics.stanford.edu/about/our-department</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suwinyattichaiporn, T., & Johnson, Z. D. (2022). The impact of family and friends social support on Latino/a first-generation college students' perceived stress, depression, and social isolation. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 21 (3), 297 – 314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192720964922</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29 (1), 24 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, E. W. (2001). Adult Education Quarterly from 2006 to 2015: A content analysis of all submissions. Adult Education Quarterly, 51 (4), 322 – 340. https://doi.org/10.1177/07417130122087322</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Texas State University, University Libraries. (n.d.a). Research databases, Academic Search Complete. https://catalog.library.txstate.edu/search/j?Databases+a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Texas State University, University Libraries. (n.d.b). Research databases, ERIC. https://catalog.library.txstate.edu/search/j?Databases+e</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018, September 12). Unemployment rate 2.1 percent for college grads, 3.9 percent for high school grads in August 2018. https://<ulink href="http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2018/unemployment-rate-2-1-percent-for-college-grads-3-9-percent-for-high-school-grads-in-august-2018.htm?view%5ffull">www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2018/unemployment-rate-2-1-percent-for-college-grads-3-9-percent-for-high-school-grads-in-august-2018.htm?view%5ffull</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yancey, K. B. (1998). Reflection in the writing classroom. Utah State University Press.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Catherine A. Cherrstrom; Carrie J. Boden and Todd Sherron</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Catherine A. Cherrstrom , PhD, is associate professor at Texas State University in the Department of Organization, Workforce, and Leadership Studies. Her research interests include adult learning, nontraditional students, and credit for prior learning; STEM knowledge and teaching development; and adult development and transition in the workplace and in higher education.</p> <p>Carrie J. Boden , PhD, is professor and former chair of the Department of Organization, Workforce, and Leadership Studies at Texas State University. Her research primarily focuses on adult learning, theory, and practice, specifically credit for prior learning and transformative learning.</p> <p>Todd Sherron , PhD, is assistant professor of practice and prior learning assessment coordinator at Texas State University in the Department of Organization, Workforce, and Leadership Studies. His research interests include credit for prior learning, veteran learners, and program evaluation.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib362" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref109"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1432093
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Nontraditional Students and Credit for Prior Learning-Analytical Thinking, Clout, Drives, and Motives
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Catherine+A%2E+Cherrstrom%22">Catherine A. Cherrstrom</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4903-053X">0000-0002-4903-053X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Carrie+J%2E+Boden%22">Carrie J. Boden</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5991-5908">0000-0001-5991-5908</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Todd+Sherron%22">Todd Sherron</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3871-2727">0000-0003-3871-2727</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Continuing+Higher+Education%22"><i>Journal of Continuing Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 72(2):237-252.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Adult+Education%22">Adult Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Nontraditional+Students%22">Nontraditional Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Credits%22">Credits</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prior+Learning%22">Prior Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Logical+Thinking%22">Logical Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Motivation%22">Learning Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adult+Students%22">Adult Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adult+Learning%22">Adult Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Assignments%22">Writing Assignments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Usage%22">Language Usage</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hispanic+American+Students%22">Hispanic American Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minority+Serving+Institutions%22">Minority Serving Institutions</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/07377363.2023.2222247
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0737-7363<br />1948-4801
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study examined nontraditional students using linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC) of their reflective writing assignments. Participants included 364 adult students enrolled in a degree completion program. Data comprised a multiweek reflective writing assignment and demographic data, linguistically and statistically analyzed. The study found that nontraditional students have low clout, a high drive for achievement, and a high motive of allure. In addition, students participating in credit for prior learning (CPL), also referred to as prior learning assessment (PLA), have statistically higher analytical thinking, drive for affiliation, and reward as motive. These results offer implications for prospective and nontraditional students, for academic advisors and instructors, and for higher education institutions and CPL programs.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1432093
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1432093
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/07377363.2023.2222247
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 237
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Nontraditional Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Credits
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Prior Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Logical Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adult Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adult Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Assignments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Usage
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hispanic American Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Minority Serving Institutions
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Nontraditional Students and Credit for Prior Learning-Analytical Thinking, Clout, Drives, and Motives
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Catherine A. Cherrstrom
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Carrie J. Boden
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Todd Sherron
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0737-7363
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1948-4801
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 72
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Continuing Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1