• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Integration of Higher Education

Integration of Higher Education



This study compares traditional students to non-traditional students in a rural area in terms of their academic experience.

This study compares traditional students to non-traditional students in a rural area in terms of their academic experience.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Integration of Higher Education Integration of Higher Education Presentation Transcript

    • Sam Houston State University
      Integration of Higher Education in Rural Area :
      Comparison of Traditional and Non-traditional Students
      Eunjin Hwang
    • Introduction
      • 73% of students in U.S higher education is
      non-traditional students.
    • 1. Definitionof Non-traditional Student
      NCEBprovides the definition of non-traditional students by six characteristics.
      Source: U.S. Department of Education, NCES.
      National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) 2000
    • According to data analysis of NCEB, the most common characteristic of non-traditional students is financially independent, attend part time, and delayed enrollment. Also, within public 2 –year institution, highly non-traditional students are highly distributed.
      Figure 1. Percentage of students with nontraditional characteristics 1992-1993 and 1999-2000
      Figure 2. Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to their student status, by type of institution: 1999–2000
      Source : NCES. National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 2000
      Source : NCES. National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 2000
    • 2. Social Factors
    • What is the problem?
      1. Non-traditional students have barriers in pursuing their academic career.
      Financial poverty
      Time poverty
      - Work full time
      - Multiple roles
      Institutional Barriers
      -Learning the rules of academia
      - Reading and writing assignment, etc.
    • 2. Non traditional students from low socioeconomic (LSES) backgrounds are more likely to have intensified barriers.
      3. University students from a LSES background often belong to multiple equity group, the most common of which is living in a rural or isolated area.
    • The Purpose of the Study is..
    • Research Question
      1. How institutional rhetoric of higher education is differently experienced by traditional students and non-traditional students in the first academic year ?
      2. What barriers are experienced by non-traditional students in a rural area?
    • Significance of This Study
      This study examines barriers of non traditional students by comparing the difference of academic experience in higher education between non-traditional students and traditional students.
      Previous studies examined barriers based on qualitative method approach. This study focus on non-traditional students, particularly in a rural area based on quantitative method approach.
    • Theoretical Framework
      1. Tinto’s Model of Student Retention
      Figure 4. Tinto, V. Dropout from Higher Education (1975)
      • Criticism: The validity generalizing its constructs to explain attrition among non-traditional students since the model was developed mostly in relation to traditional students and residential academic context.
    • 2. Revised Model : Rovai’s model for adult dropouts
      l--------------Prior to the course -------------------------l
      l-----------------During the course------------------l
      Learner Characteristic
      • Age
      • Gender
      • Education
      • Employment status
      External factors
      -Scheduling conflicts
      -Family issues
      -Financial problems
      -Managerial support
      -Personal issues(e.g.health)
      Internal factors
      • Social integration
      • Academic integration
      ( instructor follow-up, activity
      level, instructional design,
      assignment level, etc. )
      • Technology/technical/usability
      • Lack of motivation
      Learner Skills
    • Conclusion
      1. Non traditional students, particularly of low socioeconomic status in a rural area experience intensified study barriers.
      2. To reduce the rate of attrition and support non-traditional students, institutional support such as financial aids and counseling services, etc. should be provided.
    • Bibliography
      Bamber, J.,& Tett, L (2000). Transforming the learning experiences of non-traditional students: a perspective from higher education. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(1), 57-75.
      Deil-Amen, R (2011). Socio-academic integrative moments: rethinking academic and social
      integration among two-year college students in career-related programs. Journal of Higher Education, 82(1), 54-91.
      Gilardi, S.,& Guqlielmetti,C (2011). University life of non-traditional students: engagement styles and impact on attrition. Journal of Higher Education, 82(1), 33-53.
      Hermida, J (2010). Inclusive teaching: an approach for encouraging non-traditional student success. International Journal of Research& Review, 5(1), 19-30.
      Marandet, E.,& Wainwright, E (2009). Discourses of integration and exclusion: equal opportunities for university students with dependent children? Space & Polity, 13(2), 109 -125.
      Marion, B (2001). Experiencing the barriers: non-traditional students entering higher education. Policy & Practice, 16(2), 141-60.
      Park,J.,& Choi, H (2009) Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Educational Technology& Society, 12(4), 207-217.
      Tones, M., Fraser, J., Elder, R.,& White, K (2009). Supporting mature-aged students from a low
         Socio-economic background. Higher Education, 58(4), 505-529.