Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Integration of higher education


Published on

This study explores barriers of non-traditional students in a rural area by comparing non-traditional students to traditional students in terms of their academic experience.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Integration of higher education

  1. 1. Sam Houston State University <br />Integration of Higher Education in Rural Area <br />: Comparison of Traditional and Non-traditional Students<br />Eunjin Hwang<br />
  2. 2. Introduction<br /><ul><li>73% of students in U.S higher education is </li></ul> non-traditional students.<br />
  3. 3. 1. Definitionof Non-traditional Student<br />NCEBprovides the definition of non-traditional students by six characteristics. <br />Source: U.S. Department of Education, NCES. <br />National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) 2000 <br />
  4. 4. 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. <br />Figure 1. Percentage of students with nontraditional characteristics 1992-1993 and 1999-2000<br />Figure 2. Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to their student status, by type of institution: 1999–2000<br />Total<br />Source : NCES. National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 2000 <br />Source : NCES. National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 2000 <br />
  5. 5. 2. Social Factors<br />
  6. 6. What is the problem?<br />1. Non-traditional students have barriers in pursuing their academic career.<br />Financial poverty<br />Time poverty<br /> - Work full time<br /> - Multiple roles <br />Institutional Barriers<br /> -Learning the rules of academia<br /> - Reading and writing assignment, etc.<br />
  7. 7. 2. Non traditional students from low socioeconomic (LSES) backgrounds are more likely to have intensified barriers. <br />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. <br />
  8. 8. The Purpose of the Study is..<br />
  9. 9. Research Question<br />1. How institutional rhetoric of higher education is differently experienced by traditional students and non-traditional students in the first academic year ? <br /> 2. What barriers are experienced by non-traditional students in a rural area?<br />
  10. 10. Significance of This Study<br />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.<br />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. <br />
  11. 11. Theoretical Framework<br /> 1. Tinto’s Model of Student Retention<br />Figure 4. Tinto, V. Dropout from Higher Education (1975) <br /><ul><li>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.</li></li></ul><li>2. Revised Model : Rovai’s model for adult dropouts <br />l--------------Prior to the course -------------------------l<br />l-----------------During the course------------------l<br />Learner Characteristic<br /><ul><li>Age
  12. 12. Gender
  13. 13. Education
  14. 14. Employment status</li></ul>External factors<br />-Scheduling conflicts<br />-Family issues<br />-Financial problems<br />-Managerial support<br />-Personal issues(<br />Dropout/<br />Persistence<br />Internal factors<br /><ul><li>Social integration
  15. 15. Academic integration</li></ul> ( instructor follow-up, activity <br /> level, instructional design, <br /> assignment level, etc. )<br /><ul><li>Technology/technical/usability </li></ul> issues<br /><ul><li>Lack of motivation</li></ul>Learner Skills<br />
  16. 16. Conclusion<br />1. Non traditional students, particularly of low socioeconomic status in a rural area experience intensified study barriers.<br /> 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.<br />
  17. 17. Bibliography<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />Hermida, J (2010). Inclusive teaching: an approach for encouraging non-traditional student success. International Journal of Research& Review, 5(1), 19-30.<br />Marandet, E.,& Wainwright, E (2009). Discourses of integration and exclusion: equal opportunities for university students with dependent children? Space & Polity, 13(2), 109 -125.<br />Marion, B (2001). Experiencing the barriers: non-traditional students entering higher education.Policy& Practice, 16(2), 141-60.<br />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.<br />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.<br />