"Am I Too Old to Pursue a Degree?" Ageism at Midlife in a Community College Setting.

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY
Journal of Genetic Psychology Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-12 DOI:10.1080/00221325.2023.2297302
Marla J Erwin, Katie E Cherry
{"title":"\"Am I Too Old to Pursue a Degree?\" Ageism at Midlife in a Community College Setting.","authors":"Marla J Erwin, Katie E Cherry","doi":"10.1080/00221325.2023.2297302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Adults who are beginning or returning to finish a degree program at midlife face different challenges than do their younger counterparts whose college experience begins at 18 years of age. We suspect that internalized ageism, defined as self-directed ageist attitudes and behaviors, may hinder nontraditional age students along with the experience of individual and institutional ageism. To evaluate this notion, we assessed the prevalence of self-reported positive and negative ageist behaviors in 205 students (<i>M</i> = 21.95, <i>SD</i> = 7.28, age range: 16-52 years) and 29 faculty (<i>M</i> = 49.55, <i>SD</i> = 11.07, age range: 33-71 years) in a community college in southeast Louisiana in the spring of 2019. All completed the Relating to Older People Evaluation (ROPE; Cherry & Palmore, 2008) and an open-ended question on how they viewed middle-aged students. Quantitative analyses indicated that students' ROPE scores exceeded those of the faculty and more positive than negative ageist behaviors were reported. Qualitative analyses revealed mostly positive expectations of middle-aged students among narrative responses to the open-ended question. As a follow-up, 10 nontraditional age students were individually interviewed in person to obtain an in-depth assessment of their community college experience. Strong evidence of internalized, individual, and institutional ageism were evident in their responses. Their narratives also revealed atypical life experiences and rich details of faculty-level and institutional-level policies that supported or hindered their academic progress. Implications of these data for addressing ageism on multiple levels in higher education are considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":54827,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Genetic Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Genetic Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2023.2297302","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Adults who are beginning or returning to finish a degree program at midlife face different challenges than do their younger counterparts whose college experience begins at 18 years of age. We suspect that internalized ageism, defined as self-directed ageist attitudes and behaviors, may hinder nontraditional age students along with the experience of individual and institutional ageism. To evaluate this notion, we assessed the prevalence of self-reported positive and negative ageist behaviors in 205 students (M = 21.95, SD = 7.28, age range: 16-52 years) and 29 faculty (M = 49.55, SD = 11.07, age range: 33-71 years) in a community college in southeast Louisiana in the spring of 2019. All completed the Relating to Older People Evaluation (ROPE; Cherry & Palmore, 2008) and an open-ended question on how they viewed middle-aged students. Quantitative analyses indicated that students' ROPE scores exceeded those of the faculty and more positive than negative ageist behaviors were reported. Qualitative analyses revealed mostly positive expectations of middle-aged students among narrative responses to the open-ended question. As a follow-up, 10 nontraditional age students were individually interviewed in person to obtain an in-depth assessment of their community college experience. Strong evidence of internalized, individual, and institutional ageism were evident in their responses. Their narratives also revealed atypical life experiences and rich details of faculty-level and institutional-level policies that supported or hindered their academic progress. Implications of these data for addressing ageism on multiple levels in higher education are considered.

"我是不是太老了,不能继续攻读学位?社区学院环境中的中年年龄歧视。
与 18 岁开始上大学的年轻学生相比,中年开始或重返校园完成学业的成年人面临着不同的挑战。我们认为,内化的年龄歧视(定义为自我导向的年龄歧视态度和行为)可能会阻碍非传统年龄段的学生,同时也会影响他们对个人和机构的年龄歧视的体验。为了评估这一观点,我们在2019年春季评估了路易斯安那州东南部一所社区学院的205名学生(中=21.95,标差=7.28,年龄范围:16-52岁)和29名教师(中=49.55,标差=11.07,年龄范围:33-71岁)自我报告的积极和消极年龄歧视行为的普遍程度。所有人都填写了 "与老年人关系评估"(ROPE;Cherry & Palmore,2008 年)和一个关于如何看待中年学生的开放式问题。定量分析结果表明,学生的 ROPE 分数超过了教职员工的 ROPE 分数,学生报告的积极的年龄歧视行为多于消极的年龄歧视行为。定性分析显示,在对开放式问题的叙述性回答中,对中年学生的期望大多是积极的。作为后续行动,我们对 10 名非传统年龄段的学生进行了单独访谈,以深入了解他们在社区大学的经历。从他们的回答中可以明显看出内化的、个人的和机构的年龄歧视。他们的叙述还揭示了非典型的生活经历,以及支持或阻碍他们学业进步的教师层面和机构层面政策的丰富细节。这些数据对解决高等教育中多层次的年龄歧视问题具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Genetic Psychology is devoted to research and theory in the field of developmental psychology. It encompasses a life-span approach, so in addition to manuscripts devoted to infancy, childhood, and adolescence, articles on adulthood and aging are also published. We accept submissions in the area of educational psychology as long as they are developmental in nature. Submissions in cross cultural psychology are accepted, but they must add to our understanding of human development in a comparative global context. Applied, descriptive, and qualitative articles are occasionally accepted, as are replications and refinements submitted as brief reports. The review process for all submissions to The Journal of Genetic Psychology consists of double blind review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信