2 Research to Practice

During my first semester I took Research to Practice with Dr. Kearney. At first, I felt intimidated by some of the course materials that we utilized, but overtime I began to feel a bit more at ease with analyzing research and with writing literature reviews. For my mini literature review I chose to analyze existing research articles concerning nontraditional students and the need for further data concerning their retention rates within higher education.

Nontraditional Data for the Aid of Nontraditional Students

The concept of higher education has shifted greatly within the last century. A college education has become more attainable for women, people of color, and those from lower income backgrounds. In addition to these changes, the average age of college students has also increased within the last few decades (Ellis, 2019, p. 24). More people are finding it necessary to seek a higher degree to secure a job within their desired field, or to move up within their field. With the changing times, many students on college campuses as well as those enrolled online are older adults. For many higher education institutions, the majority of the student population has transformed from the traditional to the nontraditional in the height of technology and online coursework. Unfortunately, most of the resources available to college students are youth-centric, and the nontraditional population is often overlooked. If there was more information concerning this specific population of students, as well as the numbers to detail how many there are on campus, higher education institutions would be able to better understand their needs and how to help them with issues related to higher education and student affairs.

Most universities publish data regarding their retention rates annually for the academic year. Although this data is typically viewable by the public, it does not usually specify the numbers for readmitted students or for older students. The data presented is often specific to undergraduates and first-year students. Although the data may be broken down by gender identity or race, there is still much needed data concerning the percentage rates for readmitted students as well as students who are older in age. This data would allow institutions to have a more concise understanding of the nontraditional student population and the higher education needs that they have. One of the major issues regarding the nontraditional student population is the high attrition rate, which can be related to the increase in online enrollment, the effects of outside obligations on nontraditional students, as well as the lack of inclusion of nontraditional students on college campuses.

Nontraditional Preference of Online Learning

Technology has allowed for many changes within higher education over the last few decades. In modern times, most do not need to find themselves within the traditional classroom to earn a degree. Many institutions offer online courses as well as full degree options through online programs. Online learning is said to increase retention of material, cut learning costs, and decrease the amount of time one needs to obtain a degree or certification (Gardner et al., 2021, p. 2). Online learning provides a more lenient class schedule for those who may find themselves obligated to tend to other things outside of their course studies. According to Jopp and Cohen (2020), a high percentage of nontraditional students are attracted to online study (p. 2). Due to the increase in the average age of college students, in result there has also been an increase in students who are parents, spouses, or people who work full-time hours. Online courses allow nontraditional students to schedule their classwork around their jobs, their families, and their parental obligations. Institutions have utilized these benefits of online education to recruit nontraditional learners since the 1990s (Remenick, 2019, p. 119). Colleges, universities, and even trade schools focus primarily on admission numbers. To thrive, they need people to enroll in their programs. Once enrolled, they need these students to stay enrolled until they have completed their desired degree or certification. By focusing more on the needs and concerns of nontraditional students, institutions may be able to decrease attrition rates overall. Students are drawn to online options because of the flexible scheduling and the off-campus appeal. They can obtain a degree by distance-learning or while managing a full-time workload. Essentially, they can study on their time. The only issue is that many will not complete their desired program. All too often their personal obligations hinder them from continuing their education.

According to Chawla (2019), adult education programs emphasize the concept of self-directed learning, meaning that students have more freedom about how to design their plans of study (p. 78). Hooshyar et al. (2019) also support this claim when they state that open learner models allow learners to be more engaged in their personal educations and that this form of learning is more effective for nontraditional students (p. 2365). Although online learner models may be beneficial for some, they cannot be believed to be beneficial for all. Nontraditional students, like traditional students, often need additional support to succeed. Rabourn et al. (2018) note that “adult learning theory can be viewed as distinct from pedagogical theories that focus on traditional-aged learners; it recognizes the unique circumstances that adult learners face and how they may influence experiences inside and outside of the classroom” (p. 23). A majority of online learners are older students, thus demonstrating the need for a more unique method of addressing online learning. If online programs, much like traditional on-campus programs, are centered around traditional student learning, then they could potentially put nontraditional students at a disadvantage within their frames of instruction.

Gardner et al. conducted a survey to determine how many nontraditional students prefer online education over the traditional in-class option (p. 1). They wish to better understand how many students prefer online learning as well as the factors that influence this preference. Their research participants, 76% female and 24% male, were students from eight different Midwest institutions (p. 5). Some other characteristics noted within their research were whether the students were full-time or part-time, whether they had children, marital status, and work status (p. 7). Their findings showed that a slight majority preferred in-class instruction and that most of those who chose online options were older as well as those who worked full-time (p. 11). Their findings support the claim that nontraditional students who are older in age as well as nontraditional students who have full-time jobs tend to favor the online education options due to their flexibility.

According to Remenick (2019), “nontraditional students in colleges and universities are increasing in number, but have greater barriers to persist and thrive” (p. 115). Their literature review argues that the concept of the nontraditional student has been present for centuries, but their presence has always been accompanied by additional barriers when compared to their traditional counterparts (p. 124). This proves that there is indeed a need for more specific support programs for nontraditional student populations.

Jopp and Cohen argue that allowing students to choose their own plan of study can be beneficial overall to their successes. They hypothesized that the overall student satisfaction rate would increase when students were given more creative control concerning their personal assessments (p. 5). Their results supported their hypothesis as the student satisfaction rate did increase when their research participants were given more say over their assessments, although the overall student results were not improved when concerning grades (p. 9-10).

Hooshyar et al. (2019) conducted research to further understand the benefits of open learner models within higher education, specifically with nontraditional students who study online. They found that there was a gap in the existing research for this topic, and they noted that although open learner models have been utilized by many online programs, there has not been much research to determine if they are more effective for nontraditional students overall, and their findings from their research did not seem to support the idea that open learner models have a positive effect on self-regulated learning programs (p. 2381). Self-paced courses and programs are beneficial to nontraditional and online students, but these learners can still benefit from support and guidance, whether from an instructor or a student success advisor. Nontraditional students have the freedom to design their own plan of study if they choose to do so, but they should still consult with a counselor or faculty advisor for guidance and support.

These articles are similar in a sense that they all support the argument that the nontraditional student population has grown significantly amidst the height of online education. Nontraditional students tend to favor online options due to the need for a more flexible curriculum and for many the self-paced nature is appealing. Although the percentage of enrolled nontraditional students has increased within many learning institutions throughout the United States, the attrition rates seem to be rising while retention rates are dropping. Learning institutions need to focus on the issues that contribute to these retention problems and how to work towards preventing them for nontraditional students.

Outside Factors and their Effects on Nontraditional Student Retention Rates

Nontraditional students are not only classified as such due to age. The term “nontraditional student” includes any student who may not be able to fully commit to the traditional college experience due to obligations to work or family. These obligations often drive students to further their education, but they also often hinder these same students from completing their programs because the importance of these obligations is often much greater than the importance of schoolwork. If a student is made to choose between work and school, work will more than likely be chosen due to the student’s need for income. One of the major issues that working students encounter is the need to support themselves while also attending school. Scholarships and grants help with the cost of classes and lecture materials, but for some of these students, the cost of living is far too demanding, and they may have to work longer hours or even more than one job to support themselves as well as their families.

Hunter-Johnson (2017) notes that the world view of nontraditional students greatly differs from the traditional student due to the two groups being at different stages in life. They also note that nontraditional learners are more likely to choose a vocational program or certification and in result many enroll in trade schools or community colleges rather than traditional state and private universities (p. 176). Vocational and certification programs at smaller institutions appeal to adult learners because they offer quicker completion times and skilled labor training where they can land jobs much faster as there is a higher demand for some of these trades (i.e., welding, nursing, etc.). One possible reason behind the rise in attrition rates throughout universities nationwide could be that nontraditional students are changing their career paths for something quicker to get into the workforce faster. According to Exposito and Bernheimer (2012), nontraditional students tend to favor community colleges because they are often more affordable and offer shorter commutes (p. 179). They argue that most students within higher education find it difficult to keep up with their course loads and integrating their schoolwork with their personal lives (p. 179). Job security, livable wages, and steady job markets are all possible factors that could influence a nontraditional student’s decision to switch from a traditional degree program to a vocational degree plan.

In addition to work-related factors, nontraditional students are often affected also by familial obligations. According to Zart (2019), although women have more educational freedom than they did a century ago, they are still often found dealing with role conflicts in modern higher education. Nontraditional students who have children or families to tend to find that their responsibilities cause them to have more problems during their learning programs when compared to those of their traditional peers (p. 245). Most women who try to balance work and motherhood find it difficult to incorporate schoolwork into their daily lives. Work and motherhood tend to overrule education, so when it comes down to having to eliminate something from their responsibilities, working mothers will more than likely choose to drop out of school. Another issue many nontraditional students endure is the lack of available courses during the evenings. While online education is much more flexible with scheduling, there are often classes that students need to take to complete their degree programs that are only offered on campus, sometimes only during the day. Furthermore, even if all the needed classes are available online or during the evening, working mothers may still have difficulty finding the time in their hectic days to commit to their schoolwork, and often their evenings are dedicated to family time and to their children’s extracurriculars and school event such as dance recitals, band concerts, football games, or scout meetings.  Zart notes that many of the women they interviewed commented on how they felt guilty when they prioritized schoolwork over their children (p. 252). Some of the nontraditional students who are working mothers may find that they need to withdraw from their degree programs when their children’s needs get more demanding. This could greatly contribute to the increasing attrition rates for nontraditional learners as well as to the likelihood of them changing their career path for something less time consuming.

Another major cause of increasing attrition rates is the nontraditional student’s need for steady income. Realistically, it is not possible for most to fully commit to their schoolwork without the obligation of working to support themselves and, in many cases, their families. Kim and Baker (2014) note that there is a great increase in job insecurity and that many higher education institutions offer school re-entry programs to attract more workers (p. 510). Their research focuses on the financial aspects of working-class adults who enter school in order to further develop their skills so that they may move up in their careers. Their findings suggest that:

[because] adult learners tend to require more time to finish their degree and that their income stems mainly from wages because they are typically low-income workers, the existence of wage and occupational status penalties during their schooling suggests an important policy implication…financial fragility arises not only from tuition and other related direct expenses but also from a decrease in income during schooling (p. 529).

In a perfect scenario, a nontraditional student would be able to complete their degree without worrying about money, but sadly that is not the reality for most. Most nontraditional students are entering college or returning to college to further their education so that they can make more money, but far too often these students are unable to complete their programs because they cannot afford to have their working hours cut. The educational means necessary to make more money often result in some nontraditional students having to earn even less than what they were making prior to entering their desired degree program. Many current degree programs almost seem to set nontraditional students up to fail. Ellis (2019) notes that this is because “the current structure of higher education does not cater to nontraditional students” (p. 25). They argue that redesigning the ways in which higher education institutions approach their nontraditional students’ needs could promote persistence, which could potentially increase degree completion rates overall (p. 25). Ellis’ findings in their research suggested that nontraditional students were more likely to “persist in course activities than their traditional peers” but also that they were “less likely to persist in degree programs than their traditional counterparts,” and also that “attrition rates for this demographic of students are higher” (p. 30).

Nontraditional students are often affected by several outside factors that hinder them from completing their education. Family obligations, full-time work schedules, and financial needs are just a few of the reasons why so many adult learners find it necessary to withdraw from their courses. They lead different lives from those of traditional students, and their experiences also set them apart from younger learners. The many differences between traditional and nontraditional student populations creates a feeling of dissonance, and many nontraditional students do not feel included in student engagement programs or welcome on their institutions’ campuses.

Lack of Nontraditional Student Engagement and Feelings of Exclusion

For many, college is a time for self-discovery and making new friends. Involvement in campus clubs and organizations or joining a fraternity or sorority are just a few ways that some students can enjoy the traditional college experience. Unlike traditional students, nontraditional students rarely have the time to participate in student engagement. This contributes to them experiencing a feeling of disconnect and separation from some of their peers. Much like obligations to work and family, this lack of connection to their learning institutions could potentially be a partial cause of increasing attrition rates. Goncalves and Trunk (2014) note that there are often higher attrition rates among nontraditional students than those among traditional students due to their difficulty finding ways to immerse themselves on their college campuses (p. 164). They even note that many of the nontraditional students had negative feelings about some of the administrative offices on campus such as the bursar and the financial aid offices. Students who work during the day may find it difficult to get to campus before some of these offices close, and some of those interviewed mentioned that it was difficult to get them to answer the phone (p. 164). If their only experiences on campus are undesirable, these students may not wish to return. When it comes to nontraditional students, especially those who study solely online, their time on campus is often limited, and the interaction with administration, support staff, and faculty is the only insight they have regarding the campus’s environment. In some cases, there are online students who never even step foot on their institution’s campus. Their only interpersonal connection apart from email or video chat may be an old-fashioned phone call.

The lack of campus engagement opportunities for nontraditional students ties back to the issue of these learners feeling a sense of disconnect from traditional learners. The binary terminology used to classify these two groups of learners separates them even further apart from each other. According to Gulley (2021), “the labeling of students as ‘nontraditional’ can create a self-fulfilling prophecy of academically focused self-doubt, feelings of imposter-syndrome, and inequitable educational outcomes” (p. 5). They argue that the labels of “nontraditional” and “traditional” should be eradicated, and that students should simply be referred to as students (p. 9). Would it be beneficial for all learners if they were all referred to in the same manner? The primary focus should be on how to assist nontraditional learners and their specific needs within higher education and student affairs, and not on how institutions refer to them. There is a need to reform programs that assist nontraditional students but eliminating the term “nontraditional” will not resolve the issue at hand.

There is no denying that nontraditional students have very different college experiences when compared to those of traditional students. Wyatt (2011) notes that:

nontraditional students come with many special attributes not yet realized by their traditional student counterparts. As such, these attributes serve to set the nontraditional student population apart from the traditional age college student population…This population of students possesses a greater sense of maturity, experiences, and values as well as different learning goals and objectives (p. 13).

Most nontraditional students are in a different place in life. Their sole purpose for attending college is to further their education and advance within their desired field. Many traditional students run into the issue of navigating through college while also trying to maintain a social presence among their peers. Most of them wish to gain the traditional college experience that is often depicted in films and television. Many nontraditional students do not have the same opportunities that are often readily available to traditional students when it comes to social engagement. This specific group of students is often overlooked by universities and the programs that are offered in order to assist them.

Quite often, the available guidance and aid offered on college campuses falls short for nontraditional students. Chen (2017) notes that this is primarily because “universities are youth-centric and derive their reputations from this population, resulting in uneven support for adult learners” (p. 407). Institutions of higher education place their focus chiefly on the needs of their traditional students. These are the learners that spend the most time on campus, in the physical classroom buildings, in the dormitories, and in the dining halls. It makes sense that most of the focus would fall on these students because these are the students that the university collects the most data from. If institutions could promote more engagement among nontraditional learners, then perhaps they would be able to collect more data pertaining to them and to their higher education needs.

The Annual Impact Report for the 2019-2020 academic year provided by the Oklahoma State University Division of Student Affairs (2020) gives a brief overview of the engagement programs that were provided throughout the university’s many departments. The report presents the division’s six key Strategic Values: collaboration, community, inclusivity, accountability, integrity, and excellence (p. 3). This document shows how universities can often be youth-centric and focused primarily on traditional student populations. There is very little information regarding the postbaccalaureate programs on campus, and there is even less said about nontraditional students and their engagement from the 2019-2020 academic year.

While Gulley (2021) argues that the term “nontraditional” should not be used when describing nontraditional learners, Chen (2017) stresses the significance of the differences between nontraditional and traditional students. They note that with the growing numbers of nontraditional students throughout the country, there is a strong need for reform within educational institutions and the way they address the needs of nontraditional students (p. 410). When most of the existing assistance programs cater mainly to traditional students, one can easily understand how the nontraditional student population would feel excluded. There is a strong lack of nontraditional student engagement throughout educational institutions nationwide. When nontraditional students do not feel included, they are more likely to withdraw from their programs, thus increasing the attrition rates of their higher education institution. If higher education institutions could incorporate more student engagement programs among the nontraditional population, these students may feel more included and thusly, less alone. When they feel more accepted by their peers and their supporting faculty members, they may be able to find it easier to stay active within their programs and to achieve their goals.

The available data regarding student populations provides further insight about how many students are enrolled in higher education programs across the nation. Most of the readily available data pertains to younger students or traditional students. There is a gap in the data regarding nontraditional learners, and this contributes to the lack of resources that cater to their specific needs within higher education. Within the last few decades, there has been a significant increase in online enrollment. While many nontraditional students prefer these options over traditional in-class learning, there has also been supporting evidence that shows higher attrition rates among working-class and other nontraditional students. Due to outside obligations such as work and family, nontraditional students are often met with the decision of whether it would be beneficial to stay enrolled or to withdraw from their programs. There is a need for more specific retention data concerning the nontraditional student population, as well as a change in the ways that higher education institutions address the needs of these learners. In addition to the obligations they face within their busy lives outside of school, these students also experience feelings of exclusion and a sense that they do not belong among their learning communities. A clearer understanding of this population and their specific needs may allow higher education institutions to redesign support programs and assistance offered to them. New programs that could assist with their busy schedules, and new programs to increase nontraditional student engagement may lead to a decrease in nontraditional student attrition rates as well as an increase in their overall satisfaction within their educational programs.

References

Chawla, G. K. (2019). Delivery of higher education in nontraditional environment: a case study. Journal of Business and Educational Leadership, 9(1), 76-86. https://okstate-stillwater.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01OKSTATESTILL_OKSTAT/2920vv/cdi_proquest_journals_2348366849

Chen, J. C. (2017). Nontraditional adult learners: the neglected diversity in postsecondary education. SAGE Open, 7(1), 1-12. https://okstate-stillwater.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01OKSTATESTILL_OKSTAT/2920vv/cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_2158244017697161

Ellis, H. (2019). A nontraditional conundrum: the dilemma of nontraditional student attrition in higher education. College Student Journal, 53(1), 24-32. https://okstate-stillwater.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01OKSTATESTILL_OKSTAT/2920vv/cdi_gale_infotracacademiconefile_A584328134

Expositio, S. & Bernheimer, S. (2012). Nontraditional students and institutions of higher education: a conceptual framework. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 33(2), 178-189. https://okstate-stillwater.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01OKSTATESTILL_OKSTAT/2920vv/cdi_informaworld_taylorfrancis_310_1080_10901027_2012_675942

Gardner, A. C., Maietta, H. N., Gardner, P. D., & Perkins, N. (2021). Online postsecondary adult learners: an analysis of adult learner characteristics and online course taking preferences. American Journal of Distance Education, 6(6), 1-17. https://okstate-stillwater.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01OKSTATESTILL_OKSTAT/2920vv/cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_08923647_2021_1928434

Goncalves, S. A., & Trunk, D. (2014). Obstacles to success for the nontraditional student in higher education. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 19(4), 164-172. https://okstate-stillwater.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01OKSTATESTILL_OKSTAT/2920vv/cdi_crossref_primary_10_24839_2164_8204_JN19_4_164

Gulley, N. Y. (2021). Challenging assumptions: contemporary students, nontraditional students, adult learners, post-traditional, new traditional. A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 36(1), 1-2, 4-10. https://okstate-stillwater.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01OKSTATESTILL_OKSTAT/2920vv/cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_1937156X_2020_1760747

Hooshyar, D., Kori, K., Pedaste, M., & Bardone, E. (2019). The potential of open learner models to promote active thinking by enhancing self-regulated learning in online higher education learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2365-2386. https://okstate-stillwater.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01OKSTATESTILL_OKSTAT/2920vv/cdi_gale_infotracacademiconefile_A597367059

Hunter-Johnson, Y. (2017). Demystifying educational resilience: barriers of Bahamian nontraditional adult learners in higher education. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 65(3), 175-186. https://okstate-stillwater.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01OKSTATESTILL_OKSTAT/2920vv/cdi_informaworld_taylorfrancis_310_1080_07377363_2017_1275230

Jopp, R., & Cohen, J. (2020). Choose your own assessment—assessment choice for students in online higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(23). 1-18. https://okstate-stillwater.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01OKSTATESTILL_OKSTAT/2920vv/cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_13562517_2020_1742680

Kim, K-N., & Baker, R. M. (2015). The assumed benefits and hidden costs of adult learners’ college enrollment. Research in Higher Education, 56(5), 510-533. https://okstate-stillwater.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01OKSTATESTILL_OKSTAT/2920vv/cdi_gale_infotracacademiconefile_A421100596

Oklahoma State University Division of Student Affairs (2020). Annual Impact Report. https://studentaffairs.okstate.edu/site-files/documents/8446-student-affairs-impact-report.pdf

Rabourn, K. E., BrckaLorenz, A. & Shoup, R. (2018). Reimagining student engagement: how nontraditional adult learners engage in traditional postsecondary environments. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 66(1), 22-33. https://okstate-stillwater.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01OKSTATESTILL_OKSTAT/2920vv/cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_07377363_2018_1415635

Remenick, L. (2019). Services and support for nontraditional students in higher education: a historical literature review. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 25(1), 113-130. https://okstate-stillwater.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01OKSTATESTILL_OKSTAT/2920vv/cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_1477971419842880

Wyatt, L. G. (2011). Nontraditional student engagement: Increasing adult student success and retention. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 66(1), 22-33. https://okstate-stillwater.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01OKSTATESTILL_OKSTAT/2920vv/cdi_eric_primary_EJ915953

Zart, K. (2019). “My kids come first—education second” Exploring the success of women undergraduate adult learners. Journal of Women and Gender in Higher Education, 12(2), 245-260. https://okstate-stillwater.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01OKSTATESTILL_OKSTAT/2920vv/cdi_informaworld_taylorfrancis_310_1080_19407882_2019_1575244

ACPA and NASPA (2015) Competency statement:

The most important competency within my focus for this course was technology. I wanted to learn more about the concept of the “nontraditional” student and how they engage with their institutions, or if they choose not to engage. Even prior to the pandemic, technology has allowed working students or remote students to connect with their peers as well as with faculty members and staff members. I wanted to find out more about how institutions work to accommodate the specific needs of “nontraditional” students within higher education.

American College Personnel Association & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (2015). Professional competency areas for student affairs educators. https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/ACPA_NASPA_Professional_Competencies_FINAL.pdf.