14
Eunjin Hwang Sam Houston State University Integration of Higher Education in a Rural Area : Comparison of Traditional and Non-traditional Students

Integrationof higher education

  • Upload
    ejloveu

  • View
    140

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

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

Citation preview

Page 1: Integrationof higher education

Eunjin Hwang

Sam Houston State University

Integration of Higher Education in a Rural Area : Comparison of Traditional and Non-traditional Students

Page 2: Integrationof higher education

•73% of students in U.S higher education is non-traditional students.

Introduction

Page 3: Integrationof higher education

1. Definition of Non-traditional Student NCEB provides the definition of non-traditional students by

six characteristics.

•Financial Status•Family

Status

•Academic Status

•Enrollment Status

Attend part time/

Work full time

Do not have a high

school diploma

Financially

dependentHave

dependents/

Single parent

Source: U.S. Department of Education, NCES. National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) 2000

Page 4: Integrationof higher education

Source : NCES. National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 2000

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

Highly nontra-ditional

Moderately nontraditional

Minimally nontraditional

Traditional

Public 2-year

Public 4-year

PrivateNot-for-profit4-year

PrivateFor-profit 4-year

Total

Source : NCES. National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 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.

Page 5: Integrationof higher education

2. Social Factors

• Aging population

• Educational requirement for professions, vocation, occupations• Equal

opportunities women and minorities

Page 6: Integrationof higher education

What is the problem?

1. Non-traditional students have barriers in pursuing their academic career.

1) Financial poverty2) Time poverty

- Work full time- Multiple roles

3) Institutional Barriers-Learning the rules of academia

- Reading and writing assignment, etc.

Page 7: Integrationof higher education

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.

Page 8: Integrationof higher education

The Purpose of the Study is..

To understand the barriers of non-traditional student in a rural area.

To provides a new interpretation of non-traditional students of low socio economic status and racial or ethnical minor group.

To provide the social framework for better school policy and practice for supporting students of low socioeconomic status.

Page 9: Integrationof higher education

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?

Page 10: Integrationof higher education

Significance of This Study

1. 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.

2. 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.

Page 11: Integrationof higher education

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.

Page 12: Integrationof higher education

2. Revised Model : Rovai’s model for adult dropouts

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 issues-Lack of motivation

Learner Skills

Dropout/Persiste

nce

l--------------Prior to the course

-------------------------ll-----------------During the course------------------l

Page 13: Integrationof higher education

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.

Page 14: Integrationof higher education

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.