Search for: All records

The term “nontraditional students” (NTS) is widely used in higher education research, but its definition varies across studies. Objectives This systematic literature review aims to examine how researchers define NTS in U.S.-based studies and identify potential definitional issues. Methods We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines, searching EBSCO databases (Education Research Complete, Education Full Text, and ERIC) for peer-reviewed articles published between 2018 and 2022. We analyzed 65 papers that met our inclusion criteria to assess the definitions used for NTS. In this systematic literature review we focus on the definitional issues related to how researchers use the term nontraditional students in US-based studies. We review 65 papers from search results containing 432 papers to understand how researchers define nontraditional students. Of the 65 papers reviewed fully, 33 papers included a specific definition of nontraditional students, 15 included an unspecified definition of nontraditional students, and 17 papers did not include a clear definition at all. Our work suggests that researchers use a clearer definition, such as from the NCES, to define nontraditional students and focus their attention on the seven categories given by NCES. 

In order to diversify and increase the engineering workforce, there is a documented need to better support nontraditional students (NTS) pursuing engineering degrees. Yet, most models of student support are currently based on the traditional model of engineering education that takes place in a place-based, residential, research driven institutions. In this paper, we analyze semi-structured interviews to understand the needs of NTS in engineering and outline ways in which they can be better supported towards their degree. We use theoretical work on Moore's Theory of Transactional Distance which focuses on dialogue, structure, and learner autonomy. We found that NTS in our sample were dedicated to completing their degrees for practical, and specific reasons and were looking for a work-life-education balance. Participants almost never used any resources other than their instructors and cared most about flexibility of scheduling their classes around their other commitments. This contrasts with current work within the literature that argues for increasing engagement and offering a range of services to engineering students. Our research discusses findings from interviews of five nontraditional students in engineering. The semi-structured interviews were transcribed then open-coding and thematic analysis were performed by the research team. Results showcase major themes from the interviews such as Financial Security, Home Commitments, Motivation, Personal Well-Being, Academic Support, Social Support, and Other Concerns. We discuss these findings in the context of determining ways to support nontraditional students on campuses where these students are most prevalent and often overlooked within the research community.