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.

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

3. 1. Definitionof Non-traditional Student NCEBprovides the definition of non-traditional students by six characteristics. Source: U.S. Department of Education, NCES. National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) 2000

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. 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 Total Source : NCES. National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 2000 Source : NCES. National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 2000

5. 2. Social Factors

6. What is the problem? 1. Non-traditional students have barriers in pursuing their academic career. Financial poverty Time poverty - Work full time - Multiple roles Institutional Barriers -Learning the rules of academia - Reading and writing assignment, etc.

7. 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.

8. The Purpose of the Study is..

9. 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?

10. Significance of This Study 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. 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.

12. Gender

13. Education

16. 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.

17. 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.