Abstract
The value of lifelong learning and alterations in course delivery modes and programme structures of graduate education to include evening and weekend coursework have increased the presence of multiple generations in educational settings (Sánchez & Kaplan, 2014). In a number of fields, such as business and public administration, age diversity in graduate education is common. Historically, for student affairs preparation programmes (SAPPs), however, age diversity was still not consistently seen across programmes. However, as age diversity increases in SAPPs as programmes restructure to appeal to students with a variety of life experiences, opportunities to embrace intergenerational learning become available. This qualitative study explored the experiences of 13 post-traditional master’s degree students in SAPPs across the U.S. to understand their experiences in a multigenerational academic programme and how they navigate generational difference. Three themes emerged: honouring lived experiences in the educational experience, generational differences in understanding diversity and social interactions across generations in a community of learners. Recommendations for SAPP faculty to negotiate generational differences in learning spaces are provided.
Introduction
In higher education, as is the case in many other industries as well, the educational qualifications for administrative professional positions are continuing to increase in the direction of preferring, if not requiring, a master’s degree (Witkowsky et al., 2018). More specifically in the field of student affairs, this trend holds true for even entry level positions in academic advising, residence hall administration and student activities programming. There are more than 200 institutions offering master’s degree programmes in the field of student affairs with a variety of different course delivery models ranging from the traditional structure, which meets the needs of traditionally-aged students (early-mid 20s) working part-time in graduate assistant positions, to online programmes and evening and weekend-based options (NASPA, 2020).
As the learning modes diversify and the overall post-traditional student population increases in higher education (NCES, 2017), so do the students in student affairs preparation programmes (SAPPs). Mirroring the American workplace which currently has five generations in the work force (United States Department of Labor, 2020), literature about SAPPs is beginning to explore the experiences of post-traditional students in their programmes (Sallee, 2015; Witkowsky et al., 2018). Age diversity is present in the American higher education workforce with employees ranging from those born before 1945 through to those born into the new millennium. While age diversity has been characterized by generational nomenclature, due to criticism of overgeneralization of generations, the groupings of workers will be referred to based on the time frame of their birth: born before 1945, born 1945–1960, born 1961–1980, born 1981–1995, and born after 1995 (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Twenge, 2017). With the rapid shifts in technology and influential social movements, age-based experience and knowledge differences are present in aspects of professional and personal life (Field, 2013; Tolbzie, 2008). Recent texts have explored age-based differences in college student populations (Levine & Dean, 2012; Seemiller & Grace, 2016; Twenge, 2017), which highlight the differences in experiences, values and work-related behaviours. However, exploration of age-based student differences in graduate education is limited and void in the literature about SAPPs specifically.
Age-based differences related to attitudes towards work, loyalty to an employer, attitudes regarding respect and authority, training styles and needs, preferred approaches to communication, attitudes towards supervision, career patterns, and work/life balance needs have been noted (Dries et al., 2008; Tolbzie, 2008). Several aspects can influence each age group differently, such as parental involvement, sociopolitical events, policymaking and technology (Espinoza, 2012). These differences are important to consider given the professional education approach of SAPPs, which prepares students for work in student affairs areas of higher education. Age-based conflict can occur when these differences create a divide. The increasing presence of age diversity in SAPPs mean that exploration into age-based differences in SAPP educational environments is necessary to understand these dynamics in the classroom in preparation for the workforce (Sánchez & Kaplan, 2014).
This study seeks to contribute to SAPP faculty members’ understanding of the experiences of post-traditional students in their classrooms as this is a population of growth in programmes across the U.S. For both traditionally-aged and post-traditional SAPP students, learning how to navigate the intergenerational conflict that may arise in the workplace will be an important skill to develop during their graduate preparation programmes (Sánchez & Kaplan, 2014). Employing a general qualitative research design (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) with 13 participants from across the U.S., the following research question guided this inquiry: How do post-traditional students in SAPPs (those born between 1946 and 1980) experience and negotiate age-based differences in the academic setting?
Literature review
Overview of theories of age and generation
This study applied Pitt-Catsouphes et al.’s (2012) conception of age, which is influenced by more than just one’s birth year. Subjective age represents a holistic concept that includes chronological, physical-cognitive, socioemotional, social, normative, generational, relative and life events age along with career stage and tenure (Pitt-Catsouphes et al., 2012). Previous age theorists have incorporated one or a combination of these components in their theories.
Mannheim’s (1952) social forces perspective of generations holds that groups of people born during a similar time in a specific socio-cultural context ‘experience the same formative experiences and develop unifying commonalities as a result’ (Lyons & Kuron, 2013, p. S140). According to prior research, different generations are shaped by their environment (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Edmunds & Turner, 2005; Moss, 2016). These environments, for some, include war, supply and demand changes, and symbolic figures, and all have an impact on a generation’s values, attitudes and beliefs (Moss, 2016). Generations, which are based solely on chronological age, provide an understanding of one aspect of age. Baby Boomers, or those born between 1946 and 1964, experienced the space race, Watergate, the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War. These experiences shaped this generation through teamwork, ambition and optimism. Alternatively, Generation X, those born between 1965 and 1976, was raised around MTV, AIDS and the fall of communism. These events resulted in generational insecurity, changes to family structures, and a loss of the standard family or tradition. Members of Generation Y, those born between 1977 and 1995, have lived through terrorism and constant, rapid access to information through technology. For this group, these events culminated in around the clock access to information and an increased skepticism of the world around them. These events shaping the generations also shaped their psyches (Edmunds & Turner, 2005).
College students today are more narcissistic, require instant gratification, and also experience more depression and anxiety than ever before (ACHA, 2018; Chessman & Taylor, 2019; Lipson et al., 2019). Younger generations are more likely than their counterparts to consider an external locus of control as opposed to an internal one, thus, a lack of responsibility emerges (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). Moss (2016) states that shifts across generations show ‘a shift from intrinsic goals, such as meaning, community, and affiliation to more extrinsic goals, such as materialism and status’ (p. 8). This materialism seems to show a vast difference in generational understanding. These differences can be seen related to the current pandemic being experienced in the world. A survey conducted by Active Minds (2020) reports that one in five college students state their mental health has significantly worsened due to the coronavirus pandemic and that they feel isolated and fearful for their futures.
While not every personal attribute or approach to work aligns with one’s generational label, it is important to note that humans have a tendency to fall into these categorizations based on the world around them. Kriegel (2016) in their book Unfairly Labeled states ‘We must avoid the natural human tendency to categorize, label, and stereotype individuals based on their age or generation’ (p. 24). Kriegel (2016) goes on to state this is an act of discrimination. While these authors do not disagree, it is important to understand that the lived experiences of each generation do differ and result in those who are a part of each generation having shared experiences. It is important for those doing research in this area to be mindful not to discriminate between these groups, i.e. one group being lazier or greedier than the other group, but it is important to understand that living through a war and experiencing different levels of wealth, education or access does in fact have an impact on a large group of society.
Understanding how these lived experiences impact SAPP students and their relationships or experiences in a cohort can provide insight into how students from varying ages can also be included in classrooms and programmes. Appreciating how students’ lived experiences can contribute to classroom discussion and diversity can impact how attentive students are, how they establish common ground among their differences as a learning cohort, and can allow students to form strong connections despite age gaps (Chick & Poole, 2014). It is imperative, then, that those engaging with students in a SAPP maintain a focus on these lived experiences and use that knowledge to provide a holistic focus on diversity, historical knowledge and experiences among varying age groups.
Learning in age-diverse environments in higher education
The value of lifelong learning and alterations in course delivery modes and programme structures of graduate education to include evening and weekend coursework have increased the presence of age diversity in educational settings (Sánchez & Kaplan, 2014). In a number of fields, such as business and public administration, age diversity in graduate education is common. Historically, for SAPPs, however, age diversity was still not consistently seen across programmes with many programmes structured to support students in part-time graduate assistant positions while they pursue their degree full-time, a structure most common for recent college graduates still preparing for the beginning of their professional life. However, as age diversity increases in SAPPs as programmes restructure to appeal to students with a variety of life experiences, including prior higher education work experience, having a family and changing careers, opportunities to embrace intergenerational learning become available.
Intergenerational learning, which Sánchez and Kaplan (2014) defined as ‘learning between the generations stemming from an awareness of differences accrued through individual and group affiliation to diverse generational positions’ (p. 475), in SAPP academic environments can prepare students for workplaces with many generations. The presence of different ages in the learning environment does not immediately lend to intergenerational learning. Rather, educators must focus on ‘how differences in their ages can be framed in ways that contribute to content- and interaction-rich intergenerational teaching-learning processes’ (Sánchez & Kaplan, 2014, p. 476).
Social relationships among students of different ages
Intergenerational interactions are beneficial for both traditional and post-traditional students, as they can learn from each other. Traditionally-aged students can acquire an older and authentic perspective on issues while providing post-traditional students with current views on the same problem (Sloniger, 2010). Therefore, social interactions are essential for building relationships and professional networks, especially in a SAPP environment. Despite their importance, Faust and Courtenay’s (2002) research that studied intergenerational interactions among 10 students in a multi-age classroom, ranging from 18 to 39 years, concluded that post-traditional students have very few interactions with their traditionally-aged peers. They stated that each age group was likely to interact with each other rather than having intergenerational communication (Faust & Courtenay, 2002).
Several factors are at play in social relationships among students from various ages. Students’ personalities could affect their participation in the classroom, and their values could also affect interactions with others from different age groups, especially in higher education (Faust & Courtenay, 2002; Gregoryk & Eighmy, 2009). Time constraints for post-traditional students complicate intergenerational engagement while trying to manage their personal life with their professional and academic workload (Trudeau, 2009). Additionally, technology is another factor that has an impact on the social relationships between different ages as research has found that traditionally-aged students use technology in communicating with others because of how quick, efficient and accessible it is (Seemiller & Grace, 2016). Therefore, post-traditional students might need to learn how to communicate with others through technology to interact with their traditionally-aged peers.
Methodology and methods
This general qualitative study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) of post-traditional graduate students’ experiences with age-based differences in SAPPs sought to answer the following research question: How do post-traditional students in SAPPs (those born between 1946 and 1980) experience and negotiate generational difference in the academic setting? Constructivism provided the epistemological foundation of the study as it is often applied when exploring complex experiences (Broido & Manning, 2002; Creswell & Creswell, 2018) and asserts the social construction of knowledge throughout the research process (Crotty, 1998). The goal of this constructivist research was to understand the lived experience of the participants (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). With limited exploration into the experiences of post-traditional SAPP students (Sallee, 2015; Witkowsky et al., 2018), the goal of the study was to explore the lived experiences of post-traditional students in age-diverse SAPP learning settings.
Participant recruitment and selection
Purposeful, criterion-based sampling was utilized to determine participation in the study (Patton, 2002). In order to gain participants with lived experience with the phenomena of learning in intergenerational SAPP academic environments, participants met the age requirements described in the research question (those born between 1946 and 1980) and were current students or recent graduates (1–3 years post-graduate school) of a SAPP. We conducted a nationwide call for participants to obtain representation across the U.S.
Two forms of communication were used to solicit participants for the study. First, an email was sent to the CSP-Talk listserv seeking recommendations from SAPP faculty who had knowledge of potential participants who met the study criteria. A secondary recruitment method was the use of the Facebook group “Student Affairs Professionals” to identify participants. A description of the study and criteria to participate were sent to the listserv and posted on the Facebook group’s page with a request for participants and recommendations for participants to be sent to the researchers’ institutional email accounts. Initially, 21 participants emailed to express interest in the study with 13 of the 21 interested participants completing the demographics information sheet and scheduling their interviews within the timeframe of the study’s data collection plan.
Participants
Demographic data of SAPP students are unknown on a national scale, so it is not possible to know about the representation of the sample in this study related to the overall population in SAPP programmes. Table 1 provides an overview of the participant demographics. The ages of this study’s participants ranged from 40 to 61 years old with the average age being 50 years old. Eleven of the 13 participants completed their graduate programmes in the past three years and 2 were currently in progress at the time of data collection. In terms of employment status during their graduate programmes, six participants held part-time graduate assistantships, five worked full-time during their programme, and two held a combination of part-time and full-time positions while students. One participant identified as African-American, two as LatinX, and 10 as White.
Participant demographics.
Data collection
Thirteen participants, identified by pseudonyms in Table 1, completed two 30-min, semi-structured interviews conducted through phone or a video computer-mediated format as participants lived across the U.S. A 19-question semi-structured interview protocol used for the first interview encompassed sample questions, such as, “How did your age play in into your relationships with peers, faculty members, and supervisors?” and “What did your faculty members do to bridge any age-based gaps among students?”
Following the first interviews, the research team engaged in an initial inductive thematic analysis process (Hatch, 2002), which was utilized to develop the second interview questions. The second interview questions allowed researchers to explore additional themes with the participants from the first interviews as well as confirm the initial findings with those participants through member checking. Second interviews were conducted approximately two months after the first interview. Sample second interview questions included: ‘How did you facilitate social interactions and connections with peers when you might not have had a lot of time outside of class to develop those relationships?’ and ‘What are the biggest differences in your knowledge of diversity issues in comparison to your traditionally-aged peers?’ Participants received a $25 gift card to honour the time taken to participate in the study, which they received after completion of the second interview.
Data analysis
Once all interviews were transcribed, we utilized a multi-step, inductive data analysis approach (Creswell, 2002). Following an initial reading of all first interview transcripts, we independently employed process coding (Saldana, 2016) to understand the experiences of participants in SAPP learning environments. From the codes identified, we individually developed initial themes and came to a consensus on the most salient themes that represented participants’ experiences. The themes from the analysis of the first interviews provided the foundation of the second interview semi-structured protocol. The second interview data provided further context to the experiences of participants. The individual coding and theme development process we undertook with the first interview data was repeated with the second interview data resulting in the final development of three main themes describing the ways in which post-traditional SAPP students navigate their experience in age-diverse SAPP academic settings.
Trustworthiness
Multiple approaches were employed to ensure various aspects of trustworthiness in this study, specifically dependability and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). With data analysis conducted by a three-member research team, our various perspectives allowed for confirmation among the themes as we individually developed themes and then collaborated with one another to understand the salient perspectives of participants through our individual lenses. The data collection process involving two interviews allowed participants to provide feedback on the initial themes generated from the first interviews during their second interviews. This member checking process provided clarity and depth to the initial themes developed by the researchers.
Findings
The participants shared their experiences with traditionally-aged peers in SAPP classrooms. Three main themes emerged as significant to their academic experience that can assist SAPP faculty and both traditionally-aged and post-traditional SAPP graduate students in navigating age-based difference in their programmes. Honouring lived experiences in the educational experience, age-based differences in understanding diversity and social interactions across age groups in a community of learners were themes exemplified by the participants.
Honouring lived experiences of post-traditional SAPP students
Among the defining characteristics of age groups are the differences in lived experiences based on time and place in history. Lived experiences and the historical events one faces during their generation can impact their values, attitudes, beliefs and inclinations (Moss, 2016). This being said, students with lived experiences during war, low economical resources, or major movements in society will react to and experience their SAPP experience differently than a cohort member who did not have such personal experiences with events of a magnitude which could disrupt their lives. Participants in this study shared examples of times when their age-based experiences were both considered and dismissed in the student affairs academic setting.
Participants’ experiences were often valued by their younger peers as they were seen as resources for personal challenges. Crystal explained this lived experience as impacting her role in the cohort. I think I can connect with students because I’ve been there, done that. Done a few things. That made me feel good because a lot of these younger students didn’t know a lot. They were book smart, but they weren’t world smart.
Understanding where students such as Crystal and Donna are coming from is important when understanding how they wedged themselves in to fit in with their academic peers. Knowing this study was focused on post-traditional populations in age-diverse cohorts in student affairs, one must recall that some of the world events those in this era were of age to experience include the Vietnam War, Watergate, Woodstock, AIDS and the collapse of Communism (Moss, 2016). It is not hard to understand why one who lived through these experiences may roll an eye or two over a student being upset about an assignment or a breakup.
While some students shared these encounters with others in their cohort were positive and made them feel welcome and needed, others did not find the interactions so endearing. Sasha shared that she found most discussion enriching but, oftentimes, she believed some discussions were ‘like an ink blot was being shown to the class and everybody else thought it was the same thing, but me’, this resulted in Sasha keeping quiet and not participating in class as much as she would have liked. Robert agreed that, ‘I’ve lived longer than traditional age students’ and ‘I often feel alienated’. Robert’s experience gave him a way to see things his peers did not see based on his lived experiences.
Participants found themselves serving as living historical guides for their traditionally-aged peers who were studying specific influential historical and societal events as they had personal, lived experiences that their younger peers could not relate to in such a personal way. Many times, the historical events were related to social movements and having grown up in that mindset. Participants were able to share more about why and how events transpired and where there is disconnect between what is written and how they experienced it. Robert provided an example of this experience: If we were reading in our critical theories and practice, we’d read something from like 2002, 2003. Well, these students, some of them were three years old when this piece was written. And they’ll go, ‘can you believe they wrote that? And how ignorant.’ And I just have to remind them, ‘you have to look at when this was written, you have to look at the context of the time we were in at that time and understand that 20 years from now people are going to read stuff. If you’re as studious as these people who wrote this and you write something, 20 or 30 years from now, they’re going to look at what you wrote and say what you are saying about their work.’ So, I have a vantage point of understanding kind of the progression of where we’ve been and giving it a little bit of grace. Okay, that was what was going on then, but you have to understand the context of where we were during that time. We were talking about higher education in terms of women in history and about how long it’s taken to get to a point where we’re in equal footing than men and others obviously. A peer said, ‘Well, Black women are obviously behind White women in terms of their rights’ when we were talking about the 19th Amendment, women’s right to vote. And I said, ‘Well yeah, legally, all women got the right to vote in 1920.’ And she was vehement that was not true. And I said, ‘No, under the constitution, all women have the right to vote.’ And she said, ‘You're wrong, Black women didn’t have the right to vote.’ And I had to really bite my tongue. And I said, ‘I understand that there have been impediments along the way for Black women to actually access their right. But they had it.’ I just had to bite my tongue. I just knew the conversation is not going to resolve itself. I think there’s a level of enthusiasm that does not exactly meet knowledge necessarily. Some of these students are right out of college and so of course in a very different place than I am. So, there is that sense of having to be understanding and patient.
Age-based differences in understanding diversity
Post-traditional participants without extensive exposure to diversity prior to their SAPP education recognized a difference in their depth of knowledge of diversity issues in comparison to their traditionally-aged peers. While all of the participants were open to learning more about diversity and welcomed the opportunity, participants without a lifelong focus on diversity found their traditionally-aged peers to be a resource in their learning. Additionally, participants’ exposure to their traditionally-aged peers’ understanding of diversity provided them with the ability to better relate to students in their student-focused work in higher education.
With data collected for participants who had been enrolled in a SAPP from 2016 to 2020, learning about gender identity was a specific area of knowledge noted by participants as it was becoming a more visible and recognized identity during that time. For those who had limited exposure and understanding of gender identities beyond the gender binary prior to their SAPP, the use of gender pronouns was an area where they noted differences between their experiences and the experiences of their traditionally-aged peers. Brandy shared: And I think the area that has risen to the top and been kind of a hot topic in a lot of my classes is just gender identity and gender creativity and people who use non-conformist pronouns. That is a huge topic. And so, thinking about it generationally, I struggle with it. I know that [this student] uses ‘they,’ and when I’m referring to them, I have to use that pronoun. So when I started this program and they started talking about ‘they,’ ‘them,’ and ‘their,’ that was confusing for me only because when I was in grammar school, the grammar is they, them, their is plural. And it’s not that I mean any disrespect or any harm, but I could not wrap my brain around how to call one person ‘they.’ That was difficult for me to navigate at the start. But like I said, the more I do it and the more I use it, to me it’s just like practice and you get used to it and I’m doing much better with that aspect. I think that younger peers had a more open perspective about a lot of things and a lot of them had more liberal views, I think, in general. However, an element of respect that was surprising, especially with Gen Z and Millennials, they were less combative and more accepting. I think when my generation, I’m 51, when people think of diversity, they’re like, ‘Okay, is there an Asian in the room? Is there an African American in the room? Is there an Indian in the room?’ That’s diversity to them…It’s deeper than that. And this is all of those identities, your gender, sexuality, your religion, your political views, diversity comes from all those aspects of life. And I think it has changed over the time that I’ve been in higher education, even though I’ve just been in a short time. I think it is much more inclusive of a definition than it used to be. I think that might be where the difference is. I think that I was originally just seeing it as race and not really considering a lot of the other socioeconomic factors that can intersect with that. But maybe, the younger generation is seeing it as a more holistic term, seeing gender, sexual orientation, and race, and class, and age, and all these things as an interaction as opposed to just one type of diversity. I think students of traditional age, they just get it because they’re taught it from a very early age that everybody is different, and I wasn’t taught that. I don’t mean harm to anyone, but that’s what I was told. I grew up in [a rural area] and it was a very backward area, so there's a lot of prejudice up that way. To actually come out of that and say, ‘I do accept all people and it doesn’t matter what background you’re from,’ that’s a big accomplishment for me because there are so many people that still don’t do that and I see it every day.
Social interactions across age groups
Many participants mentioned being limited in the time they have to spend with their peers because of other obligations. Unlike traditionally-aged students, post-traditional participants did not have the luxury to socialize because of multiple priorities, such as their jobs and families. Yet, it is essential to build professional networks in SAPPs, which graduate schools pave the way in establishing. However, building such relationships seems, according to this body of research, to be affected by the participants’ personalities and technology, as they played a role in facilitating these social relationships. For example, Shannon and Kate are sociable by nature, and they said that they initiated a connection with their peers by reaching out to them. Shannon said, I heard them talking about an event that they were going to, I just popped right into the conversation and said something like, “Oh, that sounds like fun,” or something like that. If I were not so social, I probably wouldn’t have done any of that, though. One thing that my program did was they created a GroupMe for our program and so we kind of connected through there when we had different questions about: Have you taken this class? Or how's this professor? Or just questions and things going on with us. We kind of communicated through there. So that made it easy with me working. So, I think that was probably the biggest and best thing, I guess that made it easy. Crystal also added that interacting with her peers was done a lot of times through technology Either we would meet together like on a certain night in the library, or we would all like each chooses a chapter and then types it in like a shared Google doc. That was kind of neat how everybody took a little chunk of that. Sometimes when I could, I would meet them for wings or karaoke or something like that. But mostly that was like an off-campus thing, and it was planned, it wasn’t like a spur of the moment thing. I think most of my social interaction went during lunch break because I did not do a lot outside of class. And I think just really trying to include those around you and make those personal connections just to see how they are doing outside of school. Once they would tell me things that were going on, I had a prioritization where if it was a study group, then I definitely wanted to be a part of that. And if it was an opportunity to hang out and not class-related, then I was a little bit less involved in those, but I still wanted to do those. So, maybe once a month or something, I would do that instead of going to a weekly thing. If it was program-in-general related, then I tried to go to those if they were optional. But it seemed like people were going to them, and people were making good bonds with each other and stuff; then, I tried to participate. I took an executive board position; it is basically a graduate student organization that serves the cohorts. We put on different things like a wine tasting and a picnic and different things that student organizations do, but just for the cohort. So, the way that I was able to navigate that was I kind of inserted myself through the student org. And so that gave me time to kind of spend with them outside of class. But outside of that I don’t really make a lot of times since all the time that I have is writing, either doing the academic side of the CSP program or trying to work with my son and be with him and my wife. I am really like out in the waters by myself. I really do not have a lot of social interaction with the rest of the cohort. The majority are living together on campus and have developed a group atmosphere amongst themselves. Which I understand, I’m not criticizing them for that. But I’ve just accepted that I’m going to be different in a different status.
Discussion and recommendations for teaching practice
The participants’ experiences tell us that age differences are a social and mental construct that could cause post-traditional students to feel like outsiders in an academic setting with mostly traditionally-aged peers. These experiences are something that many of those interviewed wished they had had more time or effort from their peers and faculty to express. Therefore, it is important for educators to consider what stories are being told, and how, and to remember that history is important. Knowles’ (1973) work on andragogy focusing on the need to recognize and value post-traditional students’ experiences as part of their learning process is echoed in this study’s participants’ desires to have their experiences honoured in the classroom. Those in the coursework setting may have experienced some of the history discussed first-hand, and those experiences should be acknowledged and shared within the learning space so that everyone can gain new perspectives from those events and to validate post-traditional students’ lived experiences. SAPPs value diverse perspectives in the curriculum and including the benefits that emerge from age diversity can enhance the educational experiences of both traditional and post-traditional students.
Faculty should also consider straddling various aspects of generations to support the majority of their students. Development of course curricula should include instant gratification and quick access aspects for traditionally-aged students, as well as hands-on approaches and visual materials for post-traditional students (Chessman & Taylor, 2019; Moss, 2016). Additionally, faculty should provide facets of education for both intrinsic and extrinsic goal setters to meet the needs of the various generations in their classroom (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). Intrinsic goals being those that offer growth, relationships and well-being, and extrinsic goals being those related to social recognition, status and outward success (Kasser & Ryan, 1996).
Age-based differences can be highlighted by understandings of and exposure to diverse identities. Research in the business world previously found that perspectives about issues related to diversity differed based on generational group belonging (Smith & Turner, 2015). While some of our participants’ life experiences led them to be more advanced in their understanding, the participants’ experiences highlighted here demonstrated their perception that traditionally-aged students entered their SAPP with more knowledge and personal experiences with diversity. However, some participants found their traditionally-aged peers’ context related to the historical perspectives of progress to be limited. Faculty can contribute to addressing this divide by learning about the attitudes and beliefs of students from different generations and specifically seeking to understand the root of their students’ perspectives (Dirkx, 2002). Given the importance placed in SAPPs to contribute to students’ ability to meet the needs of diverse students in higher education, programme goals for post-traditional students should include exposure and practice with applying cross-cultural knowledge, skills and abilities in real-world settings.
According to the participants’ perspectives on how they build social relationships with their traditionally-aged peers, it can be implied that personalities and technology are the dominant factors that shape social interactions between post-traditional and traditionally-aged students. These outcomes relate to previous research on intergenerational interactions as personalities affect how students contribute to classroom discussions and external communication and how traditionally-aged students highly use technology because of its efficiency and accessibility (Faust & Courtenay, 2002; Seemiller & Grace, 2016). Moreover, post-traditional students’ time limitations and responsibilities affect social interactions with their traditionally-aged peers. However, in studies focusing on the older generations, the social interactions with younger peers were among the reasons for returning to learning environments with traditionally-aged peers (Kim & Merriam, 2004). However, the finding from our study focuses more on the role conflict and challenges with social interaction, likely because of the age of the post-traditional students in the study; they continue to have competing care-giver responsibilities that members of older generations may not be experiencing. For post-traditional students who reported the development of social relationships and professional networks as challenging due to multiple priorities as Sallee (2015) noted in their study about post-traditional student affairs graduate students, faculty can incorporate long-term projects in courses to allow peer relationships to grow as students complete academic requirements. Additionally, faculty can be intentional about building in time during class for relationship-building during pairs and small group discussions. As traditional-aged students might have more time for social life, faculty could also facilitate events that are of interest to diverse generations to allow intergenerational communication. The findings of this study provide insight for SAPP faculty teaching intergenerational cohorts of students which they can employ to enhance the experiences of post-traditional SAPP students to improve their education and utilize post-traditional students’ generational knowledge as a pedagogical tool.
Directions for future research
This study provided an initial exploration into perceptions of age-based differences in SAPPs focusing specifically on the perceptions of post-traditional students who remain a unique demographic in SAPPs across the U.S. Additional research could explore the experiences of traditionally-aged students with their post-traditional programme peers as well as seek to understand how faculty in SAPPs negotiate age-based differences in their SAPP classrooms. A didactic discussion between traditional and post-traditional students about the experience in their SAPP coursework together could lend to additional understanding of each group’s perspectives and learning that occurred in relation to age-based differences.
Beyond the SAPP experience, understanding post-traditional SAPP graduates’ experiences through the job search and into entry-level positions in the workforce would equip post-traditional students with expectations for their job search as well as assist faculty in their preparation of post-traditional students for the job search. A study about post-traditional SAPP students’ transition into full-time student affairs roles will assist in understanding if the academic learning environment experiences described in this study continue into post-traditional students’ first positions in student affairs. Lastly, future research could explore the experience of post-traditional SAPP graduates who are more advanced in age, but not as advanced in their organizational positionality, and their experiences with that phenomenon.
Conclusion
SAPPs are the leading training ground for student affairs professionals, and ensuring post-traditional students’ needs are met through classroom engagement is necessary for a generationally inclusive environment. SAPPs can serve as a platform to prepare professionals for the age-related differences they may experience in the workplace when intentionality around the engagement of generational perspectives is well incorporated into SAPPs.
Footnotes
Acknowledgement
We acknowledge Mona Shaker, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, for contributions to the initial approach of this research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
