Research Paper Graduate 4,449 words

Non-Traditional Students: Retention, Attrition & Campus Support

~23 min read 6 sections Education · Higher Education

Abstract

This paper examines the growing presence of non-traditional students in higher education — defined broadly as adults over 25, part-time attendees, and commuters — and the unique challenges they face in completing their degrees. Drawing on decades of research, the paper surveys the cultural shifts driving increased enrollment, the complex factors influencing attrition and retention, the evolution of online and andragogical learning environments, and the range of institutional support services needed to serve this diverse population. Subgroups including women, ethnic minorities, commuters, and older learners are considered separately, as their needs differ significantly. The paper concludes that when institutions align services, teaching methods, and administrative practices with the realities of non-traditional student life, persistence and success become achievable outcomes.

Key Takeaways

Introduction: Demographic rise of non-traditional college students
Review of Literature: Research on attrition, adjustment, and campus integration
Learning Environments: Online learning and andragogy for adult learners
Support Services: Institutional services needed to retain non-traditional students
Subgroups Within the Non-Traditional Population: Distinct needs of commuters, minorities, women, older students
Conclusion: Persistence outcomes tied to institutional support and success

✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾

What makes this paper effective

The paper synthesizes a broad, multi-decade body of research into a coherent narrative, moving logically from demographic trends to causal factors to institutional responses.
It consistently distinguishes between subgroups within the non-traditional population — women, ethnic minorities, commuters, and older students — rather than treating them as a monolithic category, which strengthens analytical precision.
The integration of quantitative data (enrollment growth rates, matriculation percentages) alongside qualitative study findings gives the argument both empirical grounding and human context.

Key academic technique demonstrated

The paper demonstrates effective literature synthesis: rather than summarizing sources one by one, it groups findings thematically — attrition factors, learning environment efficacy, subgroup needs — allowing each cited study to contribute to a cumulative argument. This is particularly evident in the attrition section, where Bean (1980), Pascarella and Chapman (1983), and Noel (1985) are woven together to build a multi-factor model of student dropout.

Structure breakdown

The paper opens with statistical context establishing the demographic shift, then transitions into a formal literature review covering theoretical frameworks, attrition research, and online learning studies. A dedicated section on learning environments addresses andragogy and online course efficacy. The support services section is organized by subgroup (commuters, ethnic groups, older students, women, financial aid), providing a practical policy-oriented focus. A brief conclusion ties the argument back to Noel's foundational claim about student success and persistence.

📘 Read the full research paper guide → Generate citations → Build an outline → Draft a literature review → 📚 More Higher Education examples →

Essay 4,449 words

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.

5 Sections Hidden · 2,400 words

Review of Literature1,050 words

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…

Learning Environments680 words

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…

Support Services230 words

There are many different kinds of support services that the non-traditional student needs, and these do not always overlap with services designed for traditional students. Universities and colleges, in order to help non-traditional students succeed, need…

Subgroups Within the Non-Traditional Population350 words

According to Noel (1985), commuting students are at particular risk for attrition. A true commuter is one who lives at least 50 miles…

Conclusion90 words

Noel's (1985) statement — "When we get student success, satisfaction and learning together, persistence is the outcome" — is just as true for non-traditional students as it is for traditional students. Success in college for non-traditional students is tied to programs and…

View Full Document

References

Aslanian, C. B., & Brickell, H. M. (1980). Americans in transition: Life changes as reasons for adult learning. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Badenhoop, M. S., & Johansen, M. K. (1980). Do reentry women have special needs? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 591–595.

Baker, R. W., McNeil, O. V., & Siryk, B. (1985). Expectation and reality in freshman adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(1), 94–103.

Barclay, K. (2001). Humanizing learning at a distance. Retrieved March 20, 2011, from http://www.stratvisions.com/dissertation/disertation.html

Bauer, D., & Mott, D. (1990). Life themes and motivations of re-entry students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 68, 555–560.

Bauman, S., Wang, N., Wester Deleon, C., Kafentzis, J., Zavala-Lopez, M., & Lindsey, M. (2004). Nontraditional students' service needs and social support resources: A pilot study. Journal of College Counseling, 7.

Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12(2), 155–187.

Bowl, M. (2001). Experiencing the barriers: Non-traditional students entering higher education. Research Papers in Education, 16(2), 141–160.

Buckley, H. D. (1971). A comparison of freshman and transfer expectations. Journal of College Student Personnel, 12, 186–188.

Buerck, J. P., Malmstrom, T., & Peppers, E. (2002). Learning environments and learning styles: Non-traditional student enrollment and success in an Internet-based versus a lecture-based computer science course. Learning Environments Research, 5, 137–154.

Champagne, D. E., & Petitpas, A. (1989). Planning developmental interventions for adult students. NASPA Journal, 26(4), 265–271.

Dillman, D. A. (1983). Mail and other self-administered questionnaires. In P. H. Rossi, J. D. Wright, & A. B. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of survey research (pp. 359–377). New York: Academic Press.

Donato, D. J. (1973). Junior college transfers and university environment. Journal of College Student Personnel, 14, 254–259.

Fidishun, D. (n.d.). Andragogy and technology: Integrating adult learning theory as we teach with technology. Retrieved March 20, 2011, from

Gibbons, H. S., & Wentworth, G. P. (2001). Andragogical and pedagogical training differences for online instructors. Retrieved March 22, 2011, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall43/gibbons_wentworth43.html

Gleazer, E. J. (1980). The community college: Values, vision and vitality. Washington: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges.

Henry, M. D. (1985). Black reentry females: Their concerns and needs. Journal of the National Association for Women Deans, Administrators and Counselors, 48(4), 5–10.

Horn, L. J., & Carroll, C. D. (1996). Nontraditional undergraduates: Trends in enrollment from 1986 to 1992 and persistence and attainment among 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. 402 857).

House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Kirk, C. F., & Dorfman, L. T. (1983). Satisfaction and role strain among middle-age and older reentry women students. Educational Gerontology, 9, 15–29.

Laing, C., Kuo-Ming Chao, A., & Robinson, P.-C. Sun. Nontraditional student expectations and progression: A game theory approach. Vol. 3, pp. F4B7–12. 32nd Annual Frontiers in Education (FIE'02), 2002.

Malin, J. T., Bray, J. H., Dougherty, T. W., & Skinner, W. K. (1980). Factors affecting the performance and satisfaction of adult men and women attending college. Research in Higher Education, 13, 115–129.

Marlow, C. (1989). Identifying the problems and needs of nontraditional students at your institution. NASPA Journal, 26(4), 272–277.

Maxfield, R. J. (2008). Online education for nontraditional adult students: Perceptions and attitudes of emergency services workers in asynchronous learning environments. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 114.

Menson, B. (1982). Building on experiences in adult development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Murguia, E., Padilla, R. V., & Pavel, M. (1991, September). Ethnicity and the concept of social integration in Tinto's model of institutional departure. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 433–439.

Noel, L., Levitz, R., & Saluri, D. (1985). Increasing student retention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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.

Key Concepts in This Paper

Non-Traditional Students Student Retention Attrition Factors Online Learning Andragogy Institutional Commitment Adult Development Commuter Students Social Integration Re-entry Women