Higher Education 35: 221–239, 1998. 221c 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Motivation for return to study as a predictor of completion ofdegree amongst female mature students with children

CATHERINE SCOTT1, AILSA BURNS2 & GEORGE COONEY31Faculty of Education, University of Western Sydney, Nepean, PO Box 10, Kingswood, NSW2747, Australia; 2School of Behavioural Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW 2109,Australia; 3School of Education, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia

Abstract. The motivation for return to study, as measured by the Continuing Education WomenQuestionnaire (modified), of 117 mature age female graduates with children was comparedwith that of 118 former mature age female students with children who had discontinued adegree program before graduation. Motivation was found to relate to a number of predictors,including previous education, age, marital status, family life cycle stage, satisfaction withprevious employment and family support for return to study. Interrupters as a group werefound to be similar in motivation to graduates. However, certain subgroups of interruptersscored higher on those aspects of motivation which stressed study as a way to ameliorate orescape from unpleasant or difficult life circumstances. These same difficult circumstances inturn made graduation more unlikely and led to discontinuance. The conclusion is drawn thatlife circumstances may be a more parsimonious predictor of attrition in this population thanmotivation.

Introduction

Over the last two decades a world wide increase in the number of matureage students has occurred and women have formed a high proportion of thatincrease. Popular wisdom about mature age students has not always seenthem as worthy and beliefs about them, as the research has shown, have notalways been accurate (Currie and Baldock 1989). The mature age student hasbeen viewed as likely to already have a degree and to therefore be depriving ayounger student of the chance of a first degree. Also expressed is the fear thatlong absence from study and/or admission to university under special entryprovisions may mean an inability to benefit from tertiary education (Currieand Baldock, 1989).

Australian research by West, Hore, Eaton and Kermond (1986) has shownthat, in reality, mature age students come from a wide range of previouseducational backgrounds and experience considerable academic and careersuccess. Mature age students also report an increase in life satisfaction, andrate themselves higher in ability and in allegiance to values such as altruismas a result of their studies. This is even more true of student mothers whose

222

academic performance is above that of mature age students in general andwho report greater increases in ability and life satisfaction, as research onmature age female students with children (Burns, Scott, Cooney and Gleeson1988) has shown. The student mothers’ answer to why they performed betterthan younger students was that they were ‘more motivated.’ Commonsenseexplanations by university staff also depict the mothers as more motivated(Burns et al. 1988).

Whilst achieving high grades is one measure of academic success, persistingto graduation is another. Intuitively, strength of motivation for attending uni-versity should predict strength of commitment to study and thus likelihoodof leaving before completion. A number of studies (Marks 1967; Marcia1966; Hackman and Dysinger 1970) have attempted to demonstrate such arelationship in traditional age student populations. However, such researchhas generally found motivation to be a poor predictor of attrition for thispopulation (Sedlacek 1989; Pantages and Creedon 1978). After summarisinga number of studies Pantages and Creedon remark ‘Several researchers haveconcluded that studies on motivation have failed to isolate variables that arehighly related to attrition because, although there is general agreement amongthem that motivational factors contribute to attrition, it has not yet been deter-mined which (if any) motivational factors are predictive, nor how they are tobe measured.’ (p. 71).

However, other theorists, notably Sedlacek (1989) and King (1989) havefound non-cognitive factors, including motivation, to be important predictorsof academic success amongst non traditional students. King (1989) foundthat mature learners tend to have different motivations for study from schoolleavers which he contended accounted for their, on average, better academ-ic performance. Adult students are characterised by a desire for personaldevelopment and to pursue topics of interest to them. As a result, ratherthan sticking narrowly to the syllabus for the sake of passing examinations,they take a different, deeper approach to the subject matter than do youngerstudents, leading to the achievement of higher grades.

Commonsense explanations for mature age students’ better academic per-formance as due to higher levels of motivation have thus received somesupport. However, where previous studies have addressed motivations forreturn amongst mature age students, including women, it has most often beenby simply asking research participants why they returned to study (Boshier1971; Boshier and Collins 1985). Attempts to develop more refined measuresof motivation or to quantify it have been rarer. The relationship betweenmotivation for study and other variables which may also be predictive of per-sistence to graduation, such as previous educational experience, age, familylife cycle stage or marital status, has also not often been explored.

223

Previous research by the present investigators established that there is a pat-tern of motivation which characterises successful (that is, graduated) matureage female students with children and that motivation is indeed related todemographic and other variables, most notably previous education (Scott,Burns and Cooney 1992).

The instrument used for Scott et al.’s (1992) research was based on Maslin’s(1978) Continuing Education Women Motives Questionnaire (CEWQ), aseventy item scale designed specifically for use with mature age women.Using the CEWQ with a sample of 250 American mature age women studentsMaslin derived eight motivational factors and eight motivational types.

Clayton and Smith (1987) administered Maslin’s scale to a sample of 100mature age women students. Factor analysis of their data yielded 8 factorswhich were, however, somewhat different to Maslin’s. The 8 new factorswere named Self-improvement, Self-actualisation, Vocational, Role, Family,Social, Altruistic and Knowledge. These were used to derive 8 motivationaltypes. The authors did not report how the various scales related to demo-graphic variables.

A modified version of the revised Maslin scale, containing 64 items, wasused for Scott et al.’s study (1992) of 117 mature age women with childrenwho had graduated from one of four Australian universities. Of the CEWQ,Maslin herself noted that ‘It is recommended that similar factor analysis ofspecific reasons, such as those in the CEWQ, be conducted with samples ofCEW [continuing education women] at other institutions to see whether thefactor structure found in this study can be replicated. . . . A homogenous sam-ple seems not likely to produce the same factor structure’ (pp. 405–406). Asthe Australian sample differed from the two American ones by including onlywomen who already had children when they commenced study and who hadalready graduated, an exploratory factor analysis was performed and a fivefactor solution accepted. The five factors were named Altruistic Self Devel-opment, Compensatory, Vocational/Family Advancement, Role Questioningand Autonomous Self-development.

It was found that differences in motivation were most strongly related totwo education variables – previous level of education and secondary schoolattended. Demographic variables – age, marital status and change of maritalstatus were also significantly related to differences in motivation as was familylife cycle stage as measured by age of youngest child. A measure of familysupport for study and two variables which related to previous career, jobsatisfaction and job career potential, also predicted significant differences inreasons for return to study.

The present study explored the question of whether mature age femalestudents’ conspicuous academic success can be at least partially explained by

224

the nature of their motivation. To achieve this the results on the motivationscales of the graduate sample were compared to those from a sample ofmature age mothers who had interrupted a program of study. Effects ofvariables already found to predict differences in motivation were controlledby entering each of these into the appropriate analyses as grouping variablestogether with the sample (interrupter/graduate) variable.

Method

Data were gathered in two waves. The first set of data was collected from asample mature age female graduates and was used to test the validity of theContinuing Education Women Questionnaire in an Australian context. In asecond phase, data were collected from a sample of mature age women whohad interrupted a course of university study and the motivation scores on theCEWQ of the two samples were compared.

The graduate sample

Potential participants were drawn from a sample of 287 female mature agegraduates with children, who had previously responded to a request to becomeinvolved in a study of the outcomes of mature age study posted out to 1500mature age female graduates of 4 eastern Australian universities. After theoriginal data collected from the graduate sample were analysed a modifiedversion of the CEWQ, containing 64 items, was sent to 150 graduates whohad indicated their willingness to participate in further phases of research,117 of whom completed and returned the CEWQ.

Development of the motivation scales

Items in the CEWQ remained substantially the same as those in the Americanversion except for some slight changes in terminology to make wording moreappropriate for Australian conditions (for example substituting ‘university’for ‘college’). The same 5 point scale of agreement was used (1 = notimportant, 5 = very important). Data from the CEWQ were subjected to anexploratory factor analysis. A first solution including all factors with eigenvalues greater than one yielded eight factors, as in the US studies. However thelast three factors had eigen values not much larger than one. Rotation of theeight components gave a solution with five well-defined and three ill-definedfactors. The five factor solution was accordingly adopted.

Whilst the relatively small number of cases employed in the factor analysisis cause for caution in the interpretation of the results, the factors were similar

225

to those found in the American studies. However, they also differed somewhat,most notably in that two factors found to be separate in the American samples(vocational advancement and family advancement) were collapsed into one.The most likely explanation for this result is that the all members of theAustralian sample were mothers, whilst the American samples were moreheterogeneous.

The first factor consisted of items that stressed learning and self improve-ment with a humanitarian flavour and was named Altruistic Self Development.Items loading most heavily on this factor were ‘It is a way of gaining a betterunderstanding of what life and the world are all about’ (factor loading= .78)and ‘I will be better prepared to use my abilities for the benefit of my fellowhumans’ (.74). The second, in contrast, consisted of items which suggesteddissatisfaction with current life circumstances. It was named Compensatory.Items loading most heavily were ‘It is a way to take my mind off my personaltroubles and concerns’ (.76) and ‘Having a schedule and assignments to meetfills up my spare time so that I don’t get bored’ (.70).

The third factor contained vocational items but unlike the American Voca-tional factor it also included many items from the Family Advancement factorand was named accordingly Vocational/Family Advancement. Items loadingmost heavily were ‘It will increase my chances of being hired or promoted’(.81), ‘It will qualify me to earn more money in a higher level job’ and ‘Iwill be able to make a significant contribution to our family income’ (bothloading .78). Apparently for this sample of Australian mothers vocationaladvancement is seen as inseparable from improving the family’s financialsituation.

The fourth factor consisted of items which stressed role questioning –‘Study opens new possibilities which can help me decide whether to stayin my present marriage’ (.70) and also the need to prove oneself, to selfor to others – ‘I will be more highly esteemed by people I admire’ (.69).It was accordingly named Role Questioning. The fifth factor was anotherself-development factor, stressing learning as a way to evaluate oneself anddiscover new potentials and was named Autonomous Self-development. Itemsloading most heavily were ‘It is a good place to evaluate myself – to discoverthe limits of my capabilities’ (.54) and ‘It is a good way of learning aboutsubjects which interest me’ (.53).

Scales were calculated from items which loaded .4 or higher on each factor;these were found to have fair to very good reliability (alpha co-efficients inthe range .70 to .93).

For the graduates career/family advancement (factor 3) emerged as animportant motive, as did a desire to assert autonomy and individual identity(factor 5) and self actualisation combined with a commitment to citizenship

226

(factor 1). Less popular was a tendency to see study as compensatory and anescape from current life difficulties (factor 2). Also relatively unpopular wasquestioning current roles combined with a desire to gain respect or recognition(factor 4).

The interrupters sample

To contact women who had discontinued a course of study a list of poten-tial participants was obtained by contacting student administration at threeuniversities who had participated in the graduate study – A, B and C. Theinstitutions supplied the names and addresses of all female students who wereaged 30 or more in 1988 and who had enrolled between 1983 and 1988 butdiscontinued without completing their course.

Potential participants were sent a letter outlining the purpose of the studyand inviting them to fill in the enclosed questionnaire and return it replypaid to the researcher. University records do not indicate parental status soit was necessary to contact all mature age women. It was also anticipatedthat as potential respondents might be unwilling to reveal the details of adiscontinued program of it would be necessary to over-sample to assure areasonable sample size, hence 950 questionnaires were sent out.

The interrupters questionnaire

The questionnaire was a modified version of that sent to the graduates andincluded the CEWQ, demographic items and questions on educational history– type of secondary school attended, mode of entry to mature age study, detailsof the discontinued course and current or planned future study. Also includedwere questions on sources of support and stress during study and satisfactionwith previous and current employment, as were items about changes in maritalstatus and whether these had been related to the decision to commence study.

Family support for study was investigated in slightly different ways in theinterrupter and graduate samples. Interrupters were asked whether familyhostility had been a factor in their leaving study. Graduates were asked whathad caused them the most difficulty as students and their answers were codedas either ‘family hostility’ or ‘other’ (usually practical or time constraintdifficulties).

Participants’ mode of entry was classified, as had been the graduates’, usingWest’s five way typology – previous graduates, undertaking another degree(recyclers), those with sub-degree professional qualifications (up-graders),early school leavers on special entrance programs, matriculants who had notproceeded immediately to university (deferrers) and those who had discon-tinued a previous course of study (interrupters).

227

Table 1. Age, percentage who were single, mean number ofchildren and family life cycle stage, by institution

Discontinuers Graduates

Mean age (range) 43 (34–60) 42 (32–66)Mean no. of children (range) 2.4 (1–9) 2.5 (1–5)

Means of entry to course %Early school leaver 15 21Up-grader 48 35Recycler 27 21Discontinuer 7 14Deferrer 6 9

Fourteen percent of the questionnaires were returned unopened and 130were returned at least partially completed. Of these, 12 were unusable, eitherbecause they were returned too late, the respondent was childless, too littlehad been completed or responses were illegible. Final sample size was 118.

The participants: the two samples comparedAge distribution was similar to the graduate sample with participants’ agesranging from 34 to 60 (graduates 32 to 66), with a mean of 43 (42) (Table 1).Participants had from one to nine children (graduates 1 to 5) with a meanof 2.4 (graduates 2.5) and were evenly distributed throughout the familylife cycle, as measured by age of youngest child. However there was somedifference between participants from the three institutions – women from Bhad no preschoolers and few adult children, with most having school agedchildren (92%). A relatively high percentage (41%) of C students had adultyoungest children.

Fifteen percent of the sample had entered their discontinued course as earlyschool leavers (graduates 21%), 48% were attempting to up-grade a previousqualification (graduates 35%), 27% wished to switch disciplines (graduates21%), 7% had discontinued from a previous tertiary course (graduates 14%)and 6% had qualified to enter tertiary study as school leavers but had deferreddoing so (graduates 9%). Thus total sample percentages show that therewere fewer interrupters with low entry qualifications and more who wereup-grading or broadening previous qualifications compared with the graduatemothers from the same institutions (Burns and Scott 1993).

Discontinued courses were classified as arts/humanities/education, eco-nomics/ business/law or science/technology. Sixty six percent of participantshad discontinued an arts/humanities/education course, 15% had left a businesscourse and 19% had discontinued a science/technology course. The graduate

228

sample was, in contrast, typical of mature age female students in its patternof subject choice, as reported by Burns and Scott (1993) who noted thatonly 7% of mature age female graduates had been studying in non-traditionalareas. Thus withdrawal rates from these subjects (science/technology, eco-nomics/ business/law) amongst the interrupters was relatively high. Therewere no significant differences in areas of enrolment between institutionswith the exception that somewhat fewer students from B had left a science ortechnology course than had students from the other two universities.

Examination of figures for percentage of course completed shows thatproportions of students leaving before enrolment, early in first year, later infirst year or during second year were similar. Relatively few students left aftercompleting two thirds or more of their course (6%). Distribution for eachinstitution was not significantly different, however relatively more C students(22%) withdrew without commencing study and no B students left very latein their course.

Preliminary analysis of the questionnaire data included the use of clusteranalysis which resulted in the construction of a four-way typology of inter-rupters, the results of which are reported in Scott, Burns and Cooney (1996).Twelve participants, three from each category of interrupter, were selected tobe part of a case study component of the research during which they wereinterviewed in depth about issues which had emerged from the analysis.

Results

Motivation compared

To compare motivation of the two samples (graduates and interrupters) aseries of MANOVAs were performed using the five CEWQ scale scores asthe dependent variables. Variables that emerged in the graduate analysis asa significant predictor of CEWQ scores were entered as first independentvariables in the analyses. These variables were previous level of education,secondary school attended, age, marital status, change of marital status, familylife cycle stage, family support for study, job satisfaction, job career potential.Sample membership (graduates/interrupters) was entered as the second maineffect variable. Entering the independent variables in this order allows theeffects of those already found to predict motivation to be controlled so thatthe contribution of the discontinuer/graduate variable can be examined andthe significance of each as a predictor of motivation be assessed. This methodhas advantages as an exploratory technique over a multiple regression as itallows for examination of simple interaction effects and for exploration oflinear relations amongst the dependent variables (motivation scale scores).

229

Table 2. Motivation scale means by previous education

ESL Upgader Recycler Discontin Deferrer

Grad Int Grad Int Grad Int Grad Int Grad Int

1. Altruistic self devt 2.93 2.68 2.44 2.47 2.29 2.79 2.66 2.42 2.88 3.09

2. Compensatory�� 2.47 2.11 1.78 2.03 2.04 2.42 2.21 2.23 2.78 2.63

3. Vocational/fam advan 2.68 2.59 2.67 2.48 2.40 2.55 3.03 3.16 2.95 2.74

4. Role questioning� 1.67 1.83 1.37 1.62 1.52 1.74 1.71 1.66 2.12 1.98

5. Auton/ous Self Devt�� 2.89 3.13 2.36 2.68 2.66 3.14 2.87 2.80 3.64 3.32

�p < .01 ��p = .000ESL = early school leaver, Upgrader = upgrading previous qualification, Recycler =previous qualification, changing discipline, Discontin = previous imcomplete tertiaryenrolment, Deferrer= matriculated but did not immediately take up university place.

Previous level of educationThe first of these analyses demonstrated that previous level of educationwas a significant predictor of motivation (Table 2). Differences in motivationbetween groups of women with different levels of education were significant.However sample (graduates vs interrupters) was not.

The MANOVA procedure calculates univariate as well as multivariateeffects and these are used to interpret significant interactions or main effects.The significant effect obtained for educational background (F20;674 = 2.55,p = .000) was accounted for by significant differences in Compensatory(F4;207 = 2.05, p = .000), Role questioning (F4;207 = 3.63, p = .007) andAutonomous Self Development motivations (F4;207 = 6.82, p = .000). Oneach of these scales the tendency was for those with lower levels of previouseducation to score higher than Up-graders and Recyclers.

Type of secondary school attendedWhen influence of type of secondary school attended (Table 3) was investigat-ed the sample (graduates/interrupters) main effect was found to be significant(F5;201 = 2.38, p= .039). However no univariate effects reached significance.

The school type main effect was also significant (F10;402 = 1.85, p = .05)(Table 2). Significance was reached on the Altruistic self actualisation(F10;402 = 13.08, p = .048), Compensatory (F10;402 = 3.80, p = .024) andVocational/family advancement (F10;402 = 5.54, p = .005) scales. In eachcase women who had attended private schools were lower on these measuresthan those who had attended state or catholic schools, whose scores werevery similar In cases where the multivariate effect is significant but no uni-variate effects reach significance, as in the case of the sample effect in thisanalysis, the discriminant function is examined to interpret the result. Thediscriminant function is a linear sum of dependent variables calculated by

230

Table 3. Mean motivation scores of graduates and interrupters, by typeof secondary school attended

State Catholic PrivateGrad Int Grad Int Grad Int

Altruistic self devt� 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.2Compensatory� 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.2 1.8 1.9Vocational/fam. adv.�� 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.2Role questioning 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.4Autonomous self devt 2.7 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.5 2.5

�p < .05 ��p < .01

Table 4. Discriminant function analysis for motivation by sample and type ofsecondary school attended

Standard. Disc. Corr’s betweenfn coefficients dep. & canon var’s

1. Altruistic self development .69 �.042. Compensatory .47 �.123. Vocational/family advancement .70 .304. Role questioning �.94 �.445. Autonomous self devt �1.0 �.46

the MANOVA procedure to maximally discriminate between groups. Exam-ination of the sample (graduate/interrupter) discriminant function statistics(Table 4) showed that the significant result obtained derived from differenceson the Role questioning and Autonomous Self Development scales on which,with the exception of the women who had attended private schools, inter-rupters scored higher than graduates. Vocational/family advancement alsodiscriminated somewhat between the groups with graduates scoring aboveinterrupters except, again, for the women from private schools who weremore similar to each other than to other sample members.

AgeWhilst the sample main effect (graduates/interrupters) was not significantin this analysis (Table 5), age was a significant predictor of motivation(F20;680 = 2.27, p = .001). This result was accounted for by differenceson the Vocational/family advancement factor on which older women scoredlower (F4;209 = 5.73, p = .000).

231

Table 5. Comparisons between mean motivation scores of graduates and interrupters, byage

Age30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 >50Grad Int Grad Int Grad Int Grad Int Grad Int

Altruistic self devt 2.6 2.2 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.7Compensatory 2.0 1.8 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.1Vocational/fam. adv.� 2.7 2.3 3.0 3.1 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.2 1.9 2.1�

Role questioning 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6Autonomous self devt 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.0 2.5 3.1 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.7

�p < .00

Table 6. Motivation scale means by marital status

Married SingleGrad Int Grad Int

Altruistic self development� 2.70 2.61 2.28 2.67Compensatory 2.16 2.23 2.08 2.16Vocational/family advancement 2.66 2.37 2.79 3.04Role questioning 1.60 1.79 1.56 1.79Autonomous Self Development 2.70 2.89 2.78 2.95

�p < .05

Marital statusA significant interaction was found between marital status and sample mem-bership (F5;211 = 2.73, p = .021) (Table 6). Inspection of the F values for theindividual scales and discriminant function analysis (Table 7) revealed thatAltruistic Self Actualisation motivation (F1;215 = 4.23, p= .04) accounts forthe interaction.

Table 7. Discriminant function analysis for motivation by sample and maritalstatus

Standard. Disc. Corr’s betweenfn coefficients dep. & canon var’s

1. Altruistic self development 1.41 .552. Compensatory �.35 .043. Vocational/family advancement .51 .464. Prove oneself �.19 .125. Autonomous self development �.95 �.02

232

Table 8. Means for five motive scales for interrupters and graduates, by change of maritalstatus

Altru S D Compensat Voc/fam.adv Role quest Auto S DevGrad Int Grad Int Grad Int Grad Int Grad Int

Breakup caused study?Yes 2.4 2.9 2.3 2.3 3.2 3.5� 1.8 1.8 3.1 2.9No 2.6 2.6 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.8 1.5 1.8 2.8 3.0Study caused beakup?Yes 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.5 3.0 2.9 1.9 1.8 3.2 3.0No 2.3 2.7 2.0 2.3 2.7 2.8 1.4 1.8 2.7 3.0

�p = .02

Married graduates are higher on this motivation than their single counter-parts whilst single interrupters are higher than the married, and considerablyhigher than the single graduates. Vocational/family advancement motivationapproached significance (F1;215 = 3.0, p = .084) and when the two samplesare considered together does differentiate between single and married motherswith the singles scoring significantly higher (F1;215 = 6.75, p = .01).

Change of marital statusNo significant differences in motivation were found for the sample (gradu-ate/interrupter) main effect (F5;54 = 1.18, p = .333). However, marital sepa-ration as a precursor of return to study had a significant effect on motivation(F5;54 = 2.98, p= .019) (Table 8). This result was accounted for by a signifi-cant difference (F1;58 = 10.99, p = .002) on Vocational/family advancementmotivation – women who agreed that their separation had provoked them toreturn to study scored higher on this motivation. However, those participantswho agreed that their studies had contributed to their marriage breakdownswere not significantly different in motivation from those who did not.

Family life cycle stageAgain the sample main effect was not significant. A significant effect (F5;572=

2.25, p = .004) was found for family life cycle stage as defined by ageof youngest child (Table 9). When effects of family life cycle stage wasexplored, patterns of similarity and difference in motivation between thesamples paralleled those seen in the analysis by age of mother.

The significant difference was again found on the Vocational/family advance-ment scale (F3;211 = 3.82, p= .019) where mothers of older children reportedless of this type of motivation There was also a slight trend for AutonomousSelf Development motivation to increase with age of youngest child.

233

Table 9. Comparisons between mean motivation scores of graduates and interrupters,by family life cycle stage

Age of youngest child<6 6–12 13–18 >18Grad Int Grad Int Grad Int Grad Int

Altruistic self devt 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.8Compensatory 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.3Vocational/fam. adv.� 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.3 2.1Role questioning 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7Autonomous self devt 2.3 2.9 2.5 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.7

�p < .05

Table 10. Means for five motive scales by sample andoccurence of family hostility

Family hostitlity Yes NoGrad Int Grad Int

Altruistic self devt 2.96 2.93 2.50 2.45Compensatory 3.07 2.48 2.04 2.06Vocational/fam. adv. 2.38 2.49 2.68 2.88Role questioning 1.62 1.95 1.51 1.61Autonomous self devt 2.68 3.25 2.65 2.79

Family supportAnalysis of motivation scale scores (Table 10) using sample by the familyhostility item yielded a significant interaction (F5;156 = 2.68, p = .024).

As noted previously presence of family hostility was identified slightlydifferently in the two samples. Graduates were asked what had hindered themas students and their answers coded as ‘family hostility/lack of support’ or‘other’, whilst interrupters were asked specifically if family hostility and/orlack of support had contributed to their decision to leave study. Whilst aminority only of both samples reported hostility, the proportion was higheramongst interrupters than amongst graduates – 30% of interrupters and 5%of graduates.

None of the univariate results for the interaction was significant but sig-nificant results were obtained for both the main effects – family hostility(F5;156 = 2.45, p= .036) and sample (F5;156 = 2.49, p= .033). Discriminantfunction analysis (Table 11) suggested that the interaction was accountedfor by differences on the Compensatory scale, with Role Questioning andAutonomous Self Development contributing.

234

Table 11. Discriminant function analysis for motivation by sample and familysupport

Standard. Disc. Corr’s betweenfn coefficients dep. & canon var’s

1. Altruistic Self Development .19 �.012. Compensatory 1.35 .423. Vocational/family advancement �.27 �.354. Role Questioning �.73 �.205. Autonomous self dev’t �.77 �.26

Table 12. Means for five motive scales for interrupters and graduates, by job satisfactionmeasures

Altru S D Compensat Voc/fam.adv Role Ques Auton S DGrad Int Grad Int Grad Int Grad Int Grad Int

Job had career potential?Yes 2.5 2.7 1.9 2.2� 2.7 2.6 1.5 1.6 2.6 2.8No 2.7 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.7 3.0 1.6 1.9 2.9 3.1Job was satisfying?Yes 2.4 2.4 1.9 2.0� 2.6 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.7No 2.6 2.7 2.2 2.3 2.7 2.7 1.5

1.8 2.8 3.0

�p = .01

Whilst graduates from unsupportive families were significantly higher onlyon the Compensatory scale, interrupters in a similar family situation were not.Interrupters with hostile families, in comparison, were the highest group onboth Role questioning and Autonomous Self Development.

Work satisfaction and career potential of previous jobWork satisfaction. Again, the sample effect was not significant nor was thework satisfaction main effect (F5;118 = 1.43, p= .217). However a significantunivariate result was obtained on Compensatory (F1;112 = 6.3, p = .013).Participants whose previous jobs were not satisfying reported higher Com-pensatory motivation than those who were in satisfying employment prior tostudy.

Career potential. The interaction between the measure of career potentialof previous employment (Table 12) and sample approached significance(F5;137 = 2.22, p = .056). This was accounted for by a significant resulton the Compensatory scale (F1;141 = 4.38, p = .038). Discriminant func-

235

Table 13. Discriminant function analysis for motivation by sample by careerpotential of pre-study job

Standard. Disc. Corr’s betweenfn coefficients dep. & canon var’s

1. Altruistic Self Development .21 .212. Compensatory 1.19 .623. Vocational/family advancement �.36 �.424. Role Questioning �.76 �.105. Autonomous Self Development �.21 .04

tion analysis (Table 13) confirmed that this scale accounted for differencesbetween the groups with lack of career potential having a more motivatingeffect on the graduates than the interrupters.

Individual scale items

Trends in differences between the two samples emerged on three scales Com-pensatory, Role questioning and Autonomous Self Development. To explorepatterns of significant differences on individual scale items, t-tests were runon all of the items which compose the three scales. A number of significantresults were obtained.

CompensatoryGraduates and interrupters differed significantly on two items of the Com-pensatory scale – ‘It is a way to take my mind off my personal troubles andconcerns’ (t232 = 2.14, p = .034) and ‘It is a way of compensating for lackof satisfaction in other aspects of my life’ (t231 = 2.00, p = .046). On boththe first item (means = 1.74, 1.45) and the second (means = 2.21,1.89) theinterrupters scored higher than graduates.

Role questioningInspection of all items of the scale revealed that interrupters scored higherthan graduates on most. One item distinguished significantly (t228 = 2.19,p= .029) between the two groups – ‘Going to university seems to be the thingto do for women like me’. Whilst neither graduates (1.07) nor interrupters(1.2) endorsed this motive very strongly the latter group rated it higher.

Two other items showed trends towards significance – ‘Study will help megain a new perspective on my marital relationship’ (t232 = 1.94, p = .053)and ‘Study will help me become someone who counts for something in theworld’s estimation’ (t232 = 1.93, p = .055). On the first item – ‘maritalrelationship’, interrupters averaged 1.57 to graduates’ 1.33. whilst on the

236

second item – ‘count for something’ – interrupters scored a mean of 2.18 andgraduates 1.87.

However, graduates who reported family hostility to study obtained high-er means on the whole Compensatory scale than interrupters with hostilefamilies. Inspection of the individual item scores of participants with familyhostility revealed that graduates scored much higher (3.50) than interrupters(2.52) on ‘At university I am free to be more nearly my real self, regardlessof my home life or background.’

Autonomous self developmentAgain the trend was for interrupters to score higher on most items. Twoitems distinguished significantly between the two groups. The first was ‘It isa way of learning about subjects which interest me’ (t230 = 4.20, p = .000).Interrupters scored a mean of 3.98 whilst graduates scored 3.28.

The second item was ‘Study will help me discover a new life style, a wholenew way to live’ (t230= 2.11, p = .036) with interrupters scoring a mean of2.1 to graduates’ 1.8.

Discussion

Results of this study suggest that, as whole populations, mature age womenwith children who graduate from tertiary study and those who discontinuebefore completion, do not differ in motivation. However, when variationsin personal circumstances are controlled for, some differences between thetwo groups do appear. These differences in motivation are interesting andsubtle. Reasons for return to study grow out of personal history and currentcircumstances and vary in coherent ways with a number of educational and lifecycle variables and the evidence suggests that these personal circumstancesmay also contribute to the decision to leave study (Scott, Burns and Cooney1994, 1996).

The results are, however, in some ways counter-intuitive – women who haveinterrupted their studies are often higher on certain aspects of motivation thanthose who graduate, these aspects being those measured by the Compensatory,Role Questioning and Autonomous Self Development scales. The reasonfor this apparent anomaly is quite easy to discern. Whole scales and itemswithin those scales which discriminate between graduates and interrupters arethose which suggest difficult personal circumstances, such as low self-regard,disappointment with marriage or general life circumstances, and unsupportiveor positively hostile families. Reasons given for return to university endorsestudy as a way to compensate for or escape from these difficulties.

237

Thus women in difficult personal circumstances have a high level of moti-vation to study as a means to discover new roles for themselves or to remediatetheir life circumstances. Ironically these very problems may make it difficultto complete a course of study. For instance, returning to study as means ofdealing with an unsatisfactory marriage may meet with resistance and hostili-ty from one’s partner to the degree that completing study becomes impossible.Attempts to cope with the conflict by leaving the marriage instead lead to anew set of problems and challenges and lack of support for study from othersources at a critical time can compound this situation. One single mother,interviewed for the case history phase, eloquently if sadly illustrated sucha set of circumstances. This participant’s already unsatisfactory marriagehad broken up as a result of her return to study and she had consequentlyinterrupted her studies as the university in which she was enrolled was mostunsympathetic to her difficulties. She observed: ‘my hopes were high, mysituation appalling and the institution a poor distance education centre. I feelthat I’ve failed and there is a black mark against me forever. It increased theworthlessness I already felt’. Despite the above general trends, one groupof graduates scored higher than the interrupters on the Compensatory scale.These were graduates who had also experienced family hostility to their stud-ies. Individual item means demonstrated that this small minority of graduatesscored higher on a single item ‘At university I am free to be more nearlymy real self’. This suggested that these graduates had developed an identitybeyond that of wife and mother and held the belief that university allows theexpression that identity. Interrupters, in contrast, endorsed motives such as theRole Questioning scale item, ‘Going to university seems to be the thing to dofor women like me’, which suggested more ambivalence about the personalvalue of study and perhaps less certainty about identity beyond the traditionalrole.

Another possible secret of the graduates who succeeded despite familyhostility may have been their finding support amongst fellow students anduniversity personnel. Analyses conducted on the graduate sample only usinga source-of-support measure showed that those who scored very high oncompensatory motivation were very likely to have nominated fellow studentsand/or university staff as their main source of support (Scott, Burns andCooney 1992).

Examination of the individual cases involved adds some weight to thisinterpretation – one graduate who had suffered severe hostility from her hus-band eulogised the support to be found in the university coffee shop betweenlectures. This aid to scholarly success appears to not have been available tothose who had hostile families and did not graduate. One interrupter, who hadaffirmed family hostility as a reason for discontinuing, remarked that she felt

238

alienated from other (mostly traditional age) students because as the motherof a small baby she could not join in social activities with them and they didnot understand her difficulties.

Further evidence for the potentially ‘dangerous’ combination of high moti-vation and difficult personal circumstances can be found in the interactionbetween graduation status (graduate or discontinuer) and marital status. Mar-ried women who graduated were high on Altruistic Self development motive,but so were single mothers who did not. In contrast, single mothers who grad-uated were low on altruism. It seems that idealistic motives are no hindranceto or are even helpful for scholarly success as long as one’s personal resourcesare also adequate. To be motivated by altruism when one is struggling is notconducive to success, rather the ability to ask for and accept support fromothers is what is needed, suggesting again the importance of finding supportfor one’s student role. One single mother graduate provided evidence for thisconclusion when she observed ‘I believe that my focus has changed fromglobal to personal – self-preservation and care of my child are my goals inlife. Altruism has certainly taken a back seat’.

The complex results of this study suggest that predicting likelihood ofsuccessful completion of study from data on motivation is difficult, even fora moderately homogenous student population such as mature age womenwith children. Given that the few differences in motivation found betweengraduates and interrupters appear to be associated with differences in lifecircumstances, such as marital status and degree of support for study, per-sonal circumstances may make a more parsimonious predictor of likelihoodof graduation than motivation. The message these results carry for universityadministrators is clear. A flexible and sympathetic approach to course organi-sation that takes into account the life demands carried by mature age studentsis essential to improve chances of graduation amongst this population, asis the development and publicising of support services for the most at-riskgroups.

References

Boshier, R.W. (1971). ‘Motivational orientations of adult education participants: A factoranalytic exploration of Houle’s typology’, Adult Education 21, 3–26.

Boshier. R.W and Collins, J.B. (1985). ‘The Houle typology after twenty-two years: A largescale empirical test’, Adult Education Quarterly 35, 113–130.

Burns, A., Scott, C, Cooney, G. and Gleeson, G. (1988). Educating Mary: Married and singlemothers returning to study. School of Behavioural Sciences, Macquarie University.

Burns, A. and Scott, C. (1993). ‘Career trajectories of single and married mothers who completetertiary study as mature age students’, Education and Society 11, 39–50.

Clayton, D.E. and Smith, M.M. (1987). ‘Motivational typology of reentry women’, AdultEducation Quarterly 37, 90–104.

239

Currie, J. and Baldock, C. (1989). ‘Access to tertiary studies: The case of mature age students’,The Australian Universities Review 32, 5–13.

Hackman, J.R. and Dysinger, W.S. (1970). ‘Commitment to college as a factor in studentattrition’, Sociology of Education 43, 311–324.

King, M.M. (1989). Mature-age students in higher education. C.O.R.E. Carfax Publishing 13(3).

Marcia, J.E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 3, 551–558.

Marks, E. (1965). ‘Student perceptions of college persistence and their intellective, personalityand performance correlates’, Journal of Educational Psychology 58, 210–221.

Maslin, A. (1978). Older under-graduate women at an urban university: A typology of motives,ego development, sextypedness and attitudes towards women’s role. Doctoral Dissertation:Temple University.

Pantages, T.J. and Creedon, C.F. (1978). ‘Studies of college attrition: 1950–1975’, Review ofEducational Research 48, 49–101.

Scott, C., Burns, A. and Cooney, G. (1992). ‘Motives for return to study: Mature age women’,International Journal of Career Development 4 32–39.

Scott, C., Burns, A. and Cooney, G. (1994). ‘Single and married mothers as students: Obstaclesto successful completion of study’. Proceedings of The First National Conference on Equityand Access in Higher Education, Newcastle University 5–7 October.

Scott, C., Burns, A. and Cooney, G. (1996). ‘Reasons for discontinuing study: The case ofmature age students with children’, Higher Education 31, 133–253.

Sedlacek, W. (1989). ‘Non cognitive Predictors’, The Journal of College Admissions 125,2–10.

West, L., Hore, T., Eaton, G. and Kermond, B. (1986). The impact of higher education onmature age students. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, Canberra.