Non-Traditional Students: Retention, Attrition & Campus Support

Introduction

In the 1980s, a major shift occurred in the culture and population of colleges and universities. Instead of the stereotypical 18-year-old recent high school graduate, the non-traditional student became the norm on campus. Most authorities define a non-traditional student as someone who is over 25 years of age, attends college or university on a part-time basis, commutes to school, or any combination of these characteristics. From 1970 to 1985, the growth rate for non-traditional students was 114%, compared to a much smaller increase of 15% in the number of younger, traditional students. Non-traditional students increased over time from one in four undergraduates in 1986 to nearly one in three (31%) in 1992 (Horn and Carroll, 1996). Part-time students increased by 87%, while full-time students increased only 22% over the same period. According to a 1991 report, 80% of all students in higher education are commuters who do not live on campus or in campus housing (Villela & Hu, 1991).

The increase in non-traditional enrollment in higher education over the past two decades is the result of many different cultural shifts, including an aging population, expanded equal opportunity and access to education, and the increasing availability of educational experiences tailored for the non-traditional student. Women form a large portion of non-traditional students; many of them are taking advantage of their first access to higher education. Older learners are capitalizing on longer life spans, returning to school for career fulfillment or for learning and self-actualization. Non-traditional students are either degree seekers, problem solvers, or cultural environment seekers (Noel, 1985). Expanded opportunities for minorities have also increased non-traditional enrollment. The working world has experienced a major cultural shift, and many occupations, vocations, and professions now require higher educational achievement than in the past, even for entry-level jobs. Higher education has adapted many of its models to accommodate this kind of learning.

Approximately 68% of non-traditional students matriculate (Villella & Hu, 1991). The difficulty in quantifying this number precisely stems in part from the challenge of defining exactly who is and who is not a non-traditional student. Is there a typical non-traditional student, and if so, what does he or she look like? The factors that affect whether a non-traditional student remains in school vary widely across the population. This is a population whose defining characteristics — age, marital and parental status, and ethnicity — are constantly in flux (Marlow, 1989). Men and women have different experiences and needs; students with children face widely different issues from those without; single parents have different experiences than partnered couples with children. Different ethnic groups, while often grouped together under the broader label of "minority," have experiences and educational needs that vary considerably.

Since the majority of students at colleges and universities now fit into the non-traditional demographic, higher education faculty and administrators need to understand the needs of this community — specifically, why these students drop out and why they complete their education. This paper discusses the many different factors that non-traditional students weigh when making decisions about their education, how these factors relate to attrition and retention, and the role that faculty and administrators must play in providing the necessary services for non-traditional students.

Review of Literature

Over the past few decades, college and university enrollment of the non-traditional student has increased markedly, and this trend has been projected to continue (Aslanian & Brickell, 1980; Padula, 1994; Thomas, 2001). While many non-traditional students have found great success, some have reported being less satisfied than their traditional counterparts with certain aspects of the university experience, specifically counseling and advising services (e.g., Badenhoop & Johansen, 1980; Kirk & Dorfman, 1983; Malin, Bray, Dougherty, & Skinner, 1980; Sands & Richardson, 1984).

In order to explore the experience of the non-traditional student at the university level, it is important to address the kinds of support they receive on campus. Much of the literature relevant to non-traditional students has failed to focus on these components of university life. Rather, the literature has focused on another component of the non-traditional student's life — the benefits of external family and social support. This kind of support has been underscored in several research studies (e.g., Bauer & Mott, 1990), and at least three unique aspects of this important social support have been identified and explored (House, 1981): (a) practical, tangible aid and help, including loans from family members and friends to help defray educational costs; (b) information and advice that helps an individual cope with the stresses of going to school; and (c) praise and validation that improve the non-traditional student's self-esteem and affirm his or her choice to return to school.

Padula (1994) suggested that several areas need to be explored in creating the best possible experience for non-traditional students: (a) the services non-traditional students want and need from advising and counseling, and (b) how the integration of these services should be designed with the student, his or her family, and the university community in mind. These kinds of supports have been shown to be valuable, and further studies are needed to refine our understanding of non-traditional students' experiences and needs.

According to a 2005 study, a traditional student is one who "entered higher education at the age of 18 straight from school or further education, studied continuously and full time for either three or four years" (Laing, Kuo-Ming, and Robinson). One reason these students see a high success rate is that they typically come from families with prior experience in higher education. Having grown up in such families, traditional students are influenced to pursue a college degree and are better prepared to enter the college environment. Both traditional and non-traditional students are shaped by their families' experiences with higher education, though the effect varies based on family history (Laing et al., 2005).

One of the difficult challenges for non-traditional students is the transition from their regular life back into a school setting. Going straight from high school to a higher education institution eases the transition for traditional students, who have been attending school continuously and intensively for most of their lives. The non-traditional student, by contrast, may have left that environment 10, 20, or more years ago. For these students, colleges and universities can be isolating in ways that are simply not experienced by students moving from one school setting to another (Bowl, 2001). This does not mean the challenge cannot be overcome, or that non-traditional students cannot succeed. In fact, in some ways they are better prepared than their traditional counterparts because they have developed life skills through holding jobs and raising families. In this way, traditional students are often the ones unprepared for college life.

Many students' perceptions of higher education are skewed and based on stereotypical assumptions rooted in their secondary education experiences. Many believe that college will be moderately difficult academically and extremely exciting socially (Laing, 2005). Baker, McNeil, and Siryk (1985) address a concept called the "matriculant myth" — the idea that first-year students' expectations of the university experience far exceed the reality they encounter upon arrival. When a student holds a less pronounced version of this myth, adjustment to college life is easier. The myth has also been found to persist among transfer students as well as first-year students (Buckley, 1971; Donato, 1973). While there are individual variations in the intensity of the myth, those variations do not appear to fall along gender lines; men and women hold the myth equally (Baker, McNeil, and Siryk, 1985). Younger students also tend to assume that college teaching and learning expectations resemble those of high school, which too often results in students entering higher education "without having taken responsibility for their own learning" (Laing, 2005, p. 170).

Attrition is a complicated issue for any student, but for non-traditional students the issues are even more complex, especially for those giving higher education a second chance after dropping out earlier in life. According to Noel (1985), several major themes influence a non-traditional student's decision to leave school: academic boredom and uncertainty about what to study, limited or unrealistic expectations of the university experience, transition and adjustment problems, being academically under-prepared, and a sense of irrelevancy. Pantages and Creedon (1978) reported that the greatest attrition rate occurs among first-year students, and this group is not very likely to return to college at a later date. Even when students do drop out, the longer they persist in a college setting the more likely they are to perceive attaining a degree as beneficial (Tinto, 1975). Retention studies have also emphasized that social and academic integration is a major factor in persistence (Pascarella and Chapman, 1983). Achieving this integration is an ongoing challenge for non-traditional students, who often commute to campus and are not present during the off-hours when many social activities take place.

Murguia, Padilla, and Pavel (1991) discovered that students from minority ethnic groups often accessed social integration through campus groups, clubs, and enclaves aimed at their specific communities. Bean (1980) found gender differences in the reasons students leave school. Men need satisfaction in the student role, institutional commitment, feeling valued by the institution, and a predictable, stable routine. Women need a sense that the student role is manageable, institutional commitment, and quality programs. Institutional commitment — the sense that the college or university understands and accommodates non-traditional students' needs — ranked as the most significant indicator of satisfaction for both groups. The quality of the relationship between student and faculty was also a strong retention factor (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980). A well-adjusted student is more likely to persist in completing a degree. A 1991 study by Mooney, Sherman, and LoPresto found that college adjustment is affected by the student's level of self-esteem, a perception that the distance from home is "just right," and an internal academic locus of control. Higher self-esteem and confidence contributed greatly to whether a student would persist in a chosen academic discipline.

Numerous and varied factors affect a non-traditional student's participation in and persistence through college, and these often differ from those affecting traditional students. Some such factors include previous educational success, the availability of non-credit courses for students who lack academic preparedness, and clear communication from the school about educational programs. Villella and Hu (1991) found that the reality of term-based time constraints and the academic rigor of university-level courses often led to stress and dissatisfaction, especially among non-traditional students who must fit coursework around full- or part-time employment and childcare responsibilities. Any of these factors, separately or in combination, can result in non-traditional students leaving school when traditional students might have persevered.

A 2001 study by Bowl "points to the need for institutional change if non-traditional students are to thrive within a system that purports to be directed toward widening participation." The study found that non-traditional students are often frustrated by the limited accommodation made for their needs on college and university campuses (Bowl, 2001). Non-traditional students are already more likely to enter school feeling lost and powerless; entering higher education can be a "struggle for personal, academic, financial and emotional survival" (Bowl, 2001). Participants in the study often described their school days as too much to fit into their already busy lives, and many felt they might have been better served in a vocational school setting. They also felt that entering college at an older age would force them directly into the job market upon graduation (Bowl, 2001). Non-traditional students are often juggling more than traditional students simply because they are at a different stage of life. Traditional students who graduate at 21 or 22 typically begin worrying about starting families, buying homes, and paying bills after graduation. Non-traditional students are already managing these stressors.

Some researchers have turned their attention to the relationship between college success and adult developmental stages. Gleazer (1980) uses Vivian R. McCoy's seven developmental stages as a framework for examining non-traditional students and their possible paths to success. Each stage requires learning skills to handle life's basic tasks, and these tasks offer "teachable moments" because the motivation to learn new skills and complete basic tasks also contributes to the motivation to learn academically. Champagne and Petitpas (1989) argue that both traditional and non-traditional students are at a transition point — a teachable moment — in their lives that has led them to seek formal education. The specific tasks to be learned may differ from group to group, but the transition process is very similar.

Learning Environments

The profile of the college student has evolved over the past few decades, and so have the learning environments students can access. Universities have recognized that people's lives are perpetually busy, especially the lives of non-traditional students who cannot always take advantage of school breaks and vacations because they have families and work full-time (Buerck, Malmstrom, and Peppers, 2002). To accommodate the ever-increasing time demands on their students, schools have begun offering courses online as well as in person. Non-traditional students can often return to school online when it would be impossible for them to attend an on-campus, classroom-based program. Online courses also remove the need to relocate, enabling students to participate in higher education regardless of where they live.

Interestingly, there has been relatively little research into the actual experience of online learning (Vallee, 2007), particularly for the non-traditional adult student. This gap is currently being filled, as many research studies on the efficacy of online learning are still ongoing. Most of the studies reviewed for this paper also noted the lack of qualitative data regarding the experiences and perceptions of online students, especially the non-traditional adult learner (Maxfield, 2008). This data is especially relevant because the presence of an online learning environment could be a "major factor" in a non-traditional student's decision to return to school (Tsai & Chuang, 2005).

Another issue for non-traditional students is whether they find university teaching to be effective. Traditional pedagogies are simply not designed for the adult learner. Andragogy, or adult learning theory, may be a necessity in the new college environment rather than the option it currently is. As recently as 2001, current learning theories and models had failed to inform or influence instructional practices, especially in distance and online learning — two of the primary modes of access for adult learners (Barclay, 2001). Designing a workable method that enables non-traditional students to apply their knowledge immediately while remaining self-directed in their learning could help create an effective delivery model. Non-traditional students need to move "away from their old habits and into new patterns of learning where they become self-directed, take responsibility for their own learning, and the direction it takes" (Fidishun, n.d., p. 3). Most non-traditional students are already accustomed to being self-directed (Gibbons & Wentworth, 2001). If professors allow them the freedom to learn and explore, success and retention can follow. Non-traditional students do not want to feel as though they have been transported back to elementary school when they return to university. With the help of technology, online learning has been able to balance the need for both self-directed learning and traditional classroom learning — something non-traditional students often still value.

Higher education is now, more than ever, an option for the non-traditional student. As Buerck et al. pointed out, "Research has demonstrated that key components within the learning environment, such as openness, community, interpersonal interaction, and accessibility, can be enhanced through the use of advanced technologies in the classroom … and offers potential benefits (e.g., increased retention and convenience, lower cost, the ability to transcend geographical barriers) compared to traditional environments" (2002).

A study by Buerck et al. (2002) examined the retention of non-traditional students in an online versus lecture-based computer science course. All participants were non-traditional students given the option of taking the course online or in person. The independent variable was learning environment, and the dependent variable was final course grade. The findings showed no significant difference in final grades between the two groups (Buerck et al., 2002). The researchers noted, however, that students who chose the online format may have performed well in part because they selected that environment voluntarily. Although this study is now several decades old, and online learning technologies have since improved vastly — incorporating teleconferencing and integrated online classroom software — it nonetheless points toward the online environment as one where non-traditional students can thrive.

A study by Maxfield (2008) proved useful in identifying the lifestyle challenges non-traditional students may face in their pursuit of higher education. Maxfield specifically studied emergency service workers returning to school for advanced degrees, but his findings do not appear to be limited to that profession. Two specific phenomena emerged: the value of education and life's interruptions. Every participant in the study expressed a belief in the value of education — a belief that may have been deepened by having been away from formal schooling long enough to assess its real-world importance. Students also recognized that education was "important to their careers and to the welfare of their families" (Maxfield, 2008). Their attitudes toward learning had shifted with experience and maturity; they were driven to succeed and more focused about achieving their goals.

As a result of their life experience, education took on a clear importance for these non-traditional adult students, providing both a motivational framework and an opportunity to set an example for other family members. This motivation appears consistent with the broader literature on adult learners returning to school after extended periods in the workforce. Participants were also likely to report that career and family responsibilities took a toll on their academic progress. According to Maxfield, "These issues appear to hold true for older students attending traditional face-to-face course deliveries as well as those who enroll in asynchronous online classes; the extant literature on adult learning has made this case" (2008).

A further downside of online schooling is that students' lives are already busy; when other demands intensify — family obligations, civic responsibilities, religious activities — time for coursework shrinks. It becomes easy to procrastinate on assignments, fall behind, and lose touch with ongoing discussion threads. Adding academic workload to an already full life requires constant juggling of study time against other responsibilities, and this remains one of the central challenges of the online learning experience for non-traditional adult students.

Conclusion

Padula, M. A. (1994). Nontraditional women: A literature review with recommendations for counseling and research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73, 10–16.

Pantages, T. J., & Creedon, C. F. (1978). Studies of college attrition: 1950–1975. Review of Educational Research, 48(1), 49–101.

Pascarella, E., & Chapman, D. (1983). A multi-institutional, path analytic validation of Tinto's model of college withdrawal. American Educational Research Journal, 20(1), 87–102.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary dropout decisions from a theoretical model. Journal of Higher Education, 51, 60–75.

Sands, R. G., & Richardson, V. (1984). Educational and mental health factors associated with the return of mid-life women to school. Educational Gerontology, 10, 155–170.

Thomas, W. (2001). The decision to return to full-time education. Education Economics, 9(1), 37–51.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.

Tsai, C-C., & Chuang, S-C. (2005). Colloquium: The correlation between epistemological beliefs and preferences toward Internet-based learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 97–100.

Villella, E. F., & Hu, M. (1991). A factor analysis of variables affecting the retention decision of nontraditional college students. NASPA Journal, 28(4), 334–341.