Understanding student perceptions and motivations in non-traditional online degree completion programs: An exploratory case study

Abstract

Student enrolment in higher education is increasing, as are enrolments in non-traditional pathways, such as degree completion programs, particularly those that are offered online. These changes have shifted the nature of student learning needs and perceptions. Therefore, stakeholders in higher education need a greater understanding of the drivers and obstacles to degree completion from the student point of view, especially in online degree completion programs. Beyond overall and subgroup insights into online degree seeking motivations and other factors, our findings revealed that (1) there is a mismatch between student goals and perceived employer needs, (2) many students expected modest financial gains upon completion, and (3) the primary barrier of continuing higher education was balancing education and life responsibilities. The findings are useful for administrators, faculty, and other stakeholders involved in the recruitment of online degree completion program students and the design of online courses and curricula for this audience.

Keywords

Degree completion online learning higher education student motivations perceptions value

As universities strive to expand enrolment and students with ‘some college, no degree’ return to higher education (Gaulke, 2022), alternative pathways such as degree completion programs, particularly those offered online, are rising in popularity. The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center reports that in 2022, 39 million American students have ‘some college, no credential (SCNC)’, up almost 9% since 2019 (National Student Clearinghouse, 2023). Only two of fifty states in the United States did not have any growth in SCNC, with Texas, being in the top four states for the largest population of SCNC students. Additionally, enrolment in American higher education has been declining since 2010. Fewer students are graduating high school, offering a smaller pool of potential candidates for colleges and universities to recruit from, often leading to more focus on alternative student prospects (Clark et al., 2023). At the same time, distance education courses offer flexible educational opportunities in both time and location, with one-third of undergraduates participating in some form of distance learning and 13% exclusively taking online courses, expanding student enrolment from out-of-state and international locations (Cataldi et al., 2018; McFarland et al., 2019). Currently, non-traditional students are the fastest growing population of undergraduate students (Babb et al., 2022). Non-traditional students are defined by the U.S. Department of Education as students that are ‘older than typical age, part-time attendance, being independent of parents, working full time while enrolled, having dependants, being a single parent, and being a recipient of a GED or high school completion certificate’ (National Center for Educational Statistics).

Degree completion programs, in general, are well-suited for non-traditional students as they are explicitly designed for students returning to a four-year undergraduate degree that they did not previously finish. Degree completion programs streamline bachelor degree graduation through transfer credits from another institution, credit by examination, credits for training based on the American Council on Education (ACE) for prior military or workforce training, and credits from instruction, which may consist of flexible pathways such as face-to-face and online options (Ebersole, 2010). This combination of credit transfer opportunities may require the need for considerable college advisor involvement to determine how prior experience and credits might be used as college credits, thus creating a plan for degree completion. Programs such as the Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences (BAAS) build on Associate of Applied Science (AAS) degrees and workforce credits to ‘grow professional management skills of the learner and meet the demand for leadership of highly technical professionals in the workplace’ (19 Tex. Admin. Code, §9.672, 2018). As administrators seek to scale online pathways for these types of programs, a deep understanding of the factors motivating these students can inform policy, target recruitment and retention efforts, and develop best practices for this subset of online students.

Thus, the goal of our work is to contribute to the understanding of those factors and how they relate to online degree completion programs. Importantly, we must first examine the audience. Oftentimes, the students that degree completion programs serve are termed ‘non-traditional students’, but what exactly does this mean? According to Finnegan et al. (2019), non-traditional students are ‘students under-represented in higher education due to structural and institutional barriers’ (p. 157). Often, non-traditional students begin (or continue) pursuing higher education long after high school graduation and after they have engaged in the workforce or military (Pelletier, 2010). Still, others expand that definition to include first-generation students and/or those who are in the ethnic minority (Gilardi & Guglielmetti, 2011). Traditional students, by contrast, are typically under 24 years of age and often do not have the level of family and work responsibilities that could interfere in degree seeking when compared to non-traditional students (McCall et al., 2020; Rozvadská & Novotný, 2019; Siivonen & Filander, 2020; U.S. Department of Education, 2021). Complexities for non-traditional students entering or re-entering an education setting are compounded by financial and life roles such as full-time employment and/or having dependants (Dolch & Zawacki-Richter, 2018).

Despite these challenges, the number of non-traditional students in higher education has risen, with many of these students balancing academic pursuits with other responsibilities (Mills, 2020). For the purposes of our investigation, we define non-traditional students as students who are older than the traditional age (i.e. 25 or older), but we also expand that definition to include students who are enrolled in degree completion programs, regardless of age, because degree completion programs are non-traditional by their nature. This study focuses on one example, at the University of North Texas (UNT; a large Tier One research university located in Denton, Texas, USA), the Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences (BAAS) program, which is a fully accredited, flexible, multidisciplinary degree completion program designed to help students graduate while also tailoring their studies to their specific goals and needs. Further, the BAAS program offers students a fully online pathway. We focus on this degree program (specifically, its online pathway) given its unique and increasingly popular nature (over 500 newly enrolled online students from Fall 2020 to Fall 2021) and its heavy incorporation of online and hybrid (>50% online) course delivery. Thus, in this study, when we refer to non-traditional students, we refer to those enrolled in this and similar online degree completion programs. The students surveyed in this study were pursuing the fully online BAAS degree option.

One of the barriers for most students seeking higher education is the financial cost, with the costs of obtaining a degree outpacing inflation (Rose, 2017). Degree completion program students, specifically, must pay more for higher education now than if they had graduated at an earlier point in time. For returning students, the cost of education is further compounded with the financial constraints of having dependants. According to Ma et al. (2020), the average tuition and fees for in-state 4-year public institutions is 2.78 times higher than 30 years ago. Over a ten-year period (2010-11 vs. 2020-21), tuition and fees have increased 16% beyond increases in the Consumer Price Index (Ma et al., 2020). Simultaneously, the income inequality gap has widened, with a 35% higher average income growth for the highest fifth of families as compared to the lowest fifth of families. The disparities are even larger for black and Hispanic families by 60% and 63% of the median of white families (Ma et al., 2020). To close this gap, higher education is critical, so students must weigh the expected income gain of obtaining a degree with the immediate short-term costs of pursuing a degree.

There may be long term impacts of expanding higher education access, not only for students obtaining degrees, but future generations as well. In a review of the book Passing the Torch by Attewell and Lavin, results showed that expanded access to higher education led to increased degree completion (Louie, 2010). Additionally, degree completion has historically been underreported as it is typically measured approximately five years after matriculation, where underserved students may take much longer to finish a degree (Louie, 2010). Degree completion can lead to both positive economic and non-economic impacts on families and future generations, including altering parenting practices that translate to positive academic impacts on children (Louie, 2010).

Adult degree completion programs typically require 60 hours during prior enrolments and are geared toward the working adult (Bergman, 2016). Results of the Bergman study concluded that offering online courses and credit hours from previous industry, military, and community colleges, improved access and achieved cost-effectiveness (Bergman, 2016). Adult degree completion programs have a potential demand of approximately 800,000 students nationally, with the potential to save $36 billion for students (Johnson & Bell, 2014). Specifically, the BAAS degree was found to have comparable salaries with other, less technical and more academic bachelor degrees (Arney et al., 2006). However, students in degree completion programs cite the need for improved online course quality as compared to students in traditional degree programs with respect to well designed, easy to navigate, online content (Hixon et al., 2016). Still, simply admitting students does not guarantee graduation. Non-traditional students require different services that offer flexibility and a sense of inclusion, often lacking in institutional policy (Remenick, 2019). In particular, mentoring programs, non-traditional student orientations, and increased access to faculty and advisors outside of traditional office hours may reduce barriers for students in degree completion programs (Remenick, 2019).

Leaders of many degree programs have enacted structural changes to increase access for those with limited resources to attend institutions full-time or part-time. One such example is online course delivery, which allows for unmet demand for higher education by those already in careers or populations who would not otherwise be able to pursue a degree in-person (Dumford & Miller, 2018; Goodman et al., 2019; Rajabalee et al., 2020). According to Berry and Hughes (2020), technological advances allow students to infuse work, life, and higher education into each other to balance competing demands for time and physical presence. Further, fully online degree programs are now being scaled to address financial barriers by lowering average tuition costs and increasing flexibility of course deadlines by utilizing Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) that can migrate progress into degree credit when a student is ready (Liu et al., 2019).

Like other similar programs, the BAAS program at UNT is burgeoning and will soon need to scale upward beyond its current level. Thus, this exploratory descriptive case study aims to investigate the perceptions and motivations of learners in the online BAAS degree pathway to better serve the student population. The context of the university, program, and partnerships is outlined in the case study context below. Relevant literature to the case objectives is then outlined, followed by methods utilized, results obtained, and a discussion of our findings. Our investigation offers important insights into an increasing subset of online students and aids in understanding the circumstances that might hinder enrolment and completion of degree completion programs among these online students. As such, our work informs not only the specific program and university, but also other online programs and universities that currently have or seek to create similar online degree completion programs.

Literature review

Logistic and financial structures, including course modality and financial assistance, as barriers to degree seeking have been documented in the literature. Ahmed et al. (2021) notes the attractiveness of online courses for minorities, employed full-time, or students that have significant other obligations as an affordable and convenient option. Cotton et al. (2017) found that older students were more likely to drop out, but that grants and financial assistance can reduce this, particularly in the first year of their academic pursuits. While much of the literature agrees that increased salary is a primary motivator for academic pursuits for students returning to higher education, the magnitude is not well-defined (Steinhauer & Lovell, 2021). In fact, overconfidence in salary expectations is often observed, particularly with students who already have dependants (Schnusenberg, 2020). Our study attempts to determine the magnitude of salary expectations and perceived financial gains for students in this online degree completion program.

Widening access and diversifying the student base to minimize disparities have been central goals in higher education for some time (Ball et al., 2020). The methods of online teaching, including blended learning (i.e. ‘flipped’ classroom approaches) or hybrid models of in-person and online learning, have also been a focus of much of the literature (Cheng & Chau, 2016; Serrano et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2017). Several studies have further analyzed the types of content and assessments that deliver the most success in an online classroom (Altinay, 2017; Cohen & Sasson, 2016; McCarthy, 2017; Turner & Briggs, 2018). Still, other studies have focused on the mechanism of content delivery, such as online learning, and on changing media usage to reduce logistical barriers for non-traditional students (Cummins et al., 2019; Dolch & Zawacki-Richter, 2018; Nage-Sibande & Morolong, 2018).

In that vein, MOOCs have gained an increased focus in the literature as a free, online learning delivery mechanism to broadly deliver educational opportunities. Some MOOCs offer progress migration to degree courses for seamless passage into higher education credits. Littenberg-Tobias and Reich (2020) found that MOOCs provide a ‘global onramp’ for underrepresented groups, increasing access to higher education. Trends in MOOC learning and the prediction of student success are popular topics for academic investigation (Gardner & Brooks, 2018; Murray, 2019). For example, Luik et al. (2020) examined the motivation behind different types of learners when enrolling in MOOCs. Our study attempts to determine the barriers (logistical, financial, and course modality) for students in this online degree completion program.

When it comes to motivations for students to return to education for degree completion, Dwyer et al. (2013) found that career enhancement was the primary driver. Carreira and Lopes (2021) found that students returning to higher education were most concerned with employment interruption and were most likely to succeed when grouped in classes with their peers. For our study population, we explore these motivations, but from the perspective of why students are returning now as opposed to earlier in their lives.

Numerous studies have focused on increased participation and enrolment of non-traditional students to gauge student accomplishments (Gopalan et al., 2019), while other studies have concentrated on learning outcomes or graduation rates as measures of student success (Stephen et al., 2020; Volk et al., 2020; Wong & Chiu, 2019). Additionally, several studies have examined graduate employability skills against market demand (Cotronei-Baird, 2020; Osmani et al., 2019; Succi & Canovi, 2020). In this study, we investigate the perceptions of our study population as to which skills they believe they gained versus the skills they perceive to be most important to employers.

To evaluate an effective degree program structure, understanding the nontraditional learner is imperative. Family and organizational support were found to be the most important determinants for adult learners taking online courses (Park & Choi, 2009). Personalized learning for the adult learner and having a facilitative instructor were found to be tangible learning structures better suited for these students (Chen, 2017). Chen’s findings support the non-traditional degree program structure presented in this case study, where the BAAS program offers flexible concentrations, focus areas, and online and hybrid course pathways. Kim (2023) found that the program structure to enhance social and academic involvement, as well as enhancing financial support could better support nontraditional students (Kim, 2023). Programmatic changes such as student support services and increased course offerings could facilitate a more supportive learning environment for these students, which links back to the importance of the degree program structure being a key focus in this study (Kim, 2023).

Although research on non-traditional students has been ongoing, the perspectives and motivations of the students themselves are rarely included (Clayton et al., 2018; Finnegan et al., 2019; Kearney et al., 2018). It is the collectivist perspective, or the analysis of all decision aspects, such as roadblocks, incentives, and benefits, that drive student choices to return to higher education, that is largely lacking in the student higher education experience. Our study seeks to examine these same logistical and financial variables from the context of a student in the unique UNT BAAS online degree completion program.

The objectives guiding our study were crafted to address these gaps to gauge the perceptions of students in online degree completion programs. To effectively market online courses and degree programs, a closer look at barriers, expectations, and motivations of the target audience is warranted.

Specifically, the objectives of this exploratory descriptive case study were to:

1. Explore student salary expectations and perceived financial gains from obtaining a bachelor’s degree in an online degree completion program;

2. Examine logistic and financial structures, including course modality and financial assistance, that may be barriers to returning to degree seeking;

3. Investigate the reasons why students are seeking a degree now (vs. earlier);

4. Consider student perceptions of what they will gain from a bachelor’s degree versus what students perceive employers want; and

5. Determine the primary reasons for seeking an online degree and how these reasons may differ by subpopulation.

Methods

Case study context

The exploratory case study method was selected and implemented using a combination of philosophies from distinguished methodologists: Yin, Stake, and Merriam. This study investigates a case in the social sciences as a ‘bounded phenomenon such as a program, institution, a person, a process, or a social unit’, which closely aligned with the case study method by Merriam, which presents a combination of processes from Yin and Stake (Yazan, 2015). This empirical study utilizes many aspects of Yin’s case study framework as it uses a purposive sampling technique based on student experiences with the phenomenon, offers rich description of the phenomenon under study, and data analysis using quantitative data within a bounded context (Yin, 2009). Elements of Stake’s framework are used by focussing on a particular situation (single holistic design), has descriptive content, and consists of examining the data to address the research objectives (Yazan, 2015).

The university

UNT is a public research university located in Denton, Texas, USA, just north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. UNT was founded as a teaching institute in 1890 and offers classes at the Denton, Texas campus, online, and now has a new campus in Frisco, Texas, which opened in 2022 (UNT Factsheet, 2023). Enrolment at UNT has continuously increased, with a total enrolment today of nearly 47,000 students (74% undergraduate students) with a 23:1 faculty/student ratio (UNT Factsheet, 2023). Almost 80% of undergraduate students are full-time students, with 39% being first-generation students (UNT, 2023). Students aged 25 and older comprise about 26% of the undergraduate population. UNT students are predominantly in-state (80%), with a median class size of 27 students (UNT Factsheet, 2023). UNT is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) and offers over 200 undergraduate and graduate programs across multiple campuses. UNT is designated a Tier One research university by the Carnegie Classification as well as a Hispanic-Serving Institution by the United States Department of Education (UNT, 2020; 2022b).

The bachelor of applied arts and sciences (BAAS) program

The BAAS program is a transfer-friendly multidisciplinary bachelor’s degree. The BAAS curriculum offers a flexible path towards a degree, leading to a high density of students who are working adults and/or who are seeking to use military, technical, or applied credit. Most BAAS students would be considered non-traditional degree seekers. In consultation with an academic advisor, students choose concentrations that they identify as most suited to their career goals. This leads to a wide array of student specialities within BAAS, including (but not limited to) Organizational Supervision, Leadership Development, Consumer Behavior, Hospitality Services, Information Technology, and Public Safety. As of January 2022, BAAS had over 1,200 majors, with approximately 74% of these students aged 25 and older. Important to note here is the significantly higher percentage of older BAAS students when compared to UNT students as a whole.

At the time of this study, this program offered two pathways: a Canvas-based pathway, which included a mixture of in-person, hybrid, and online classes, and a fully online pathway offered on the Coursera platform (Coursera, 2022). During 2020–2021, approximately 43% of BAAS students were enrolled in the fully online pathway, with nearly 85% of these students aged 25 and older. The online pathway is the focus of this case study as Coursera is an increasingly popular online platform with scalability potential across universities and programs. Tuition rates for the online program in this study were $330 per credit hour at the time of this study. Average undergraduate tuition and mandatory fees (based on 12 hours for undergraduates) were $5,544.93 for residents and $10,452.93 for non-residents at UNT during the time period of this study (UNT Factsheet, 2021). UNT has also been nationally recognized as U.S. News and World Report named UNT as a ‘top college for students graduating with the least debt’ (UNT, 2024).

Coursera partnership

Due to a partnership with Coursera, a U.S.-based massive open online course (MOOC) provider, BAAS students can complete their degree fully online. To be eligible, students must transfer 30 or more credit hours towards the 120-h degree. There are eight concentrations within the fully online option, including Consumer Behavior, Administration, Data Analytics, Organizational Supervision, Information Technology (Google IT Certification on Coursera), Social Wellness and Community, Hospitality, and Media Innovation. While the fully online BAAS degree offers a range of concentration options, there are fewer offered in comparison to the hybrid (combination of online and in-person) BAAS pathway. Coursera students represent almost half of BAAS enrolment. Coursera classes are offered in an 8-week asynchronous online format in the Summer, Fall, and Spring semesters.

Unifying courses

Three multidisciplinary unifying courses are a required part of the BAAS curriculum: Pathways to Civic Engagement (BAAS 3000), Fundamentals of Inquiry and Discovery (BAAS 3020), and Managing a 21st Century Career (BAAS 4100), the last being the capstone course for BAAS (UNT, 2022a). These courses center on transferable skills such as teamwork, critical thinking, communication, personal and social responsibility, and empirical and quantitative skills. Our case study gathered data from students in BAAS 4100 because the goal of this course is to guide students in integrating their coursework, life experiences, and career interests into a plan for engaging as professionals after graduation (University of North Texas, 2021). For some students, these plans may include a career transition or promotion. Other students aspire for graduate school, Peace Corps, or a variety of other post-graduate opportunities. Students surveyed for this case study were all graduating seniors taking an asynchronous online section of BAAS 4100 within the fully online pathway.

Uniqueness of the online BAAS program

BAAS students choose 2–3 disciplines to focus on within their degree plan creating a flexible, multidisciplinary experience focused on the needs of the student. Offering the degree on Coursera allows UNT to benefit from marketing and recruiting opportunities via the industry partner and open the online degree program to any student, whether U.S.-based or international. In comparison to other U.S. BAAS programs, UNT requires fewer unifying courses. Some competing degree programs have up to ten required courses, which reduces flexibility for students as well as decreases the opportunity to specialize in a certain area. Fully online UNT students pay a flat rate per credit hour for both in-state and out-of-state students. However, an emerging trend in BAAS programs entails a flat fee structure regardless of the number of courses taken.

Several characteristics make UNT’s online BAAS program unique: (1) offered fully online on Coursera; (2) partnership with Google to offer the Google IT Certification; (3) multidisciplinary unifying courses focused on transferable skills; (4) MOOCs connected to each unifying course; (5) flexibility of the curriculum. This emerging technology platform, the partnerships, the target student audience, and the multidisciplinary nature of the degree program in the online environment all warrant special investigation to inform stakeholders before scaling, particularly as current fully online enrolment is nearly equal to hybrid enrolment for this program.

Sample and data collection

We employed a survey on variables related to our research objectives – salary expectations/financial gains, barriers to degree seeking, primary motivations for seeking a degree, perceptions of student gain versus employer-desired knowledge/skills, and demographics for the identification of subpopulations. The survey was conducted over two semesters after gaining approval from the UNT Institutional Review Board. A purposive sample was gathered from 91 students in fully online asynchronous sections of BAAS 4100 and captured all graduating seniors from the online Coursera pathway during the 2020-2021 academic year. We removed three incomplete responses, yielding a final usable sample of 88.

BAAS faculty and BAAS students in their junior year in the ‘Fundamentals of Inquiry and Discovery’ class assisted with survey development and pilot testing before the survey was given to the capstone BAAS students in an effort to explore financial expectations, logistical and financial barriers to degree completion, motivation for graduating, and reasons for seeking their degree online. Due to the uniqueness of the degree program, pre-established scales were not appropriate, thus focus groups and pilot studies utilizing both BAAS faculty and students were conducted for this exploratory case study.

Survey questions included demographic data such as age, military status, employment status, childcare obligations, ethnicity, gender, GPA and income. One of the observations during the focus groups was the high number of women returning to higher education after raising children. This unique population merited additional survey questions regarding how long they were out of the workforce and their concerns with and motivations for entering an educational setting.

Survey questions relating to financial expectations upon graduation, number of attempts at higher education, years out of formal schooling, level in career, financial needs, and course modality needs were also assessed. A seven-point Likert-type scale assessing motivation for degree seeking was also utilized. Finally, students were asked to rank their perception of skills they would achieve with their degree versus the perception of the skills that they believe employers desire.

Table 1 shows the demographic composition of the sample. Most notably, almost three-fourths of the students were age 25 or older and over half of respondents had a personal income of less than $40,000. Roughly one in five students were current or former military.

Table 1.

Demographic frequencies and percentages of respondents.

Category			Freq.	%
Gender		(n = 88)
	Man		43	48.9
	Woman		45	51.1
Ethnicity		(n = 88)
	White		41	46.6
	Non-White		47	53.4
Age		(n = 88)
	18–24		25	28.4
	25–34		25	28.4
	35–44		20	22.7
	45 or older		18	20.5
Personal income (Not household)		(n = 88)
	Less than $40,000		48	54.5
	$40,000 or more		40	45.5
GPA		(n = 88)
	0.0–3.0		34	38.6
	3.1–4.0		54	61.4
Current/Former military		(n = 88)
	Yes		15	17.0
	No		73	83.0

Measurement of variables

The instrument used to collect the data contained 27 questions pertaining to student perceptions on seeking an online bachelor’s degree in line with our five research objectives above (see Appendix). The survey took approximately 10 minutes to complete. Variables were gathered to determine trends, gaps in perceptions, and barriers for subpopulations. Likert-type scales were used to gauge reasons for degree seeking, while ranking scales were used to determine perceptions of what skills students gained versus skills believed to be important to potential employers.

Analysis

The data were analyzed in SPSS version 25 (IBM Corp., 2017) using ANOVA for scaled items to statistically test differences in means (rather than relying on facial interpretation of descriptive statistics alone). A significance level of .05 was used in the data analysis (Table 2).

Table 2.

Percentage and frequencies of students out of the workforce.

Category			Freq.	%
Employment status		(n = 88)
	Employed		66	75.0
	Not employed		22	25.0
Length of time out of workforce		(n = 22)
	<1 year		7	31.8
	1–2 years		11	50.0
	3 or more years		4	18.2
Left workforce to raise children		(n = 88)
	Yes		12	13.6
	No		76	86.4
Length of time out of workforce to raise children		(n = 12)
	1–2 years		7	58.3
	3 or more years		5	41.6
Biggest fear of return to higher education after leaving workforce		(n = 12)
	Managing school and other responsibilities		7	58.3
	Costs of education		4	33.3
	Other		1	8.3

Results

Objective 1: Salary expectations and perceived financial gains

Table 3 illustrates the percentages and frequencies of degree attempts, career level, and salary expectation upon online degree completion. Whereas almost 20% did not expect an increase in salary, over one-third (34.1%) expected a 1%–10% increase, while 11.4% expected a 11%–20% increase, 11.4% expected a 21%–30% increase, and 12.5% expected 51% or more. This finding contrasts with traditional student expectations of 50% salary increases (Jerrim, 2015; Schnusenberg, 2020), which are inflated relative to most non-traditional students’ expectations. Although some studies have investigated salary expectations of non-traditional students in traditional degree programs, they discuss salary increase expectations, but do not cite ranges of salary expectations (Chaney et al., 2020). There is also a gap in the literature regarding primarily online degree program salary expectations; however, the actual salary differences are not typically different from accredited and recognized universities but could potentially hinder labor market prospects (Lennon, 2021). Thus, this study adds to the literature by showing that online degree completion program students may not necessarily expect the same high increases that other students may expect. Expectations may be affected by students already being in positions that pay higher average salaries or tempered expectations regarding earnings potential among these students.

Table 3.

Percentage and frequencies of degree attempts, career level, and salary expectations.

Category			Freq.	%
Number of serious attempts at bachelor’s degree		(n = 88)
	1		58	65.9
	2		15	17.0
	3		11	12.5
	4		3	3.4
	6 or more		1	1.1
Years out of formal schooling		(n = 88)
	<1 year		31	35.2
	1–2 years		9	10.2
	3–5 years		15	17.0
	6–10 years		9	10.2
	More than 10 years		24	27.3
Current career level		(n = 88)
	Entry level		46	52.3
	Mid- upper level		42	47.7
Expectation of salary increase upon graduation		(n = 88)
	0%		17	19.3
	1%–5%		10	11.4
	6%–10%		20	22.7
	11%–20%		10	11.4
	21%–30%		10	11.4
	31%–40%		6	6.8
	41%–50%		4	4.5
	51% or higher		11	12.5

Objective 2: Anticipated logistic and financial barriers to degree seeking

Table 4 illustrates the percentages and frequencies of financial and online modality needs. Almost 60% cited managing school and other responsibilities as their biggest fear, outweighing financial concerns by almost double. When it comes to finances, over two-thirds (68.2%) did not require financial assistance from an employer or the military to seek a degree, but nearly one-third (31.8%) did require tuition/fees assistance to seek their degree. In linking this finding to the literature, Carreira and Lopes (2021) found that employment interruption was the most concerning to non-traditional students in returning to higher education. Our findings of the barrier of managing school and other responsibilities as the primary concern of obtaining their bachelor’s degree (more than financial barriers) do not necessarily contradict the findings of Carreira and Lopes (2021), but, rather, elaborate on the root of the concern: balancing school, work, and family. Ahmed et al. (2021) noted the attractiveness of online courses as an affordable and convenient option for students who are minorities, employed full-time, or contending with significant obligations. Given that these characteristics align well with BAAS students, the findings highlight the need for flexibility in course offerings so that students in these kinds of programs are better able to balance their responsibilities.

Table 4.

Percentages and frequencies of barriers to seeking degree.

Category			Freq.	%
% Online classes needed to seek degree		(n = 88)
	50% or less		42	47.7
	More than 50%		46	52.3
% tuition/fees needed to seek degree		(n = 88)
	50% or less		60	68.2
	More than 50%		28	31.8

Our findings also indicate that over half of the sample required at least 50% of their classes to be delivered online to continue seeking their degree, while only one-third needed at least half of their tuition/fees paid by others (military, employer, etc.). This finding extends the work of Remenick, (2019), who found that online learning can minimize differences in financial need among non-traditional students, but that does not mitigate the issues that non-traditional students may still be more likely to drop out than their traditional counterparts. Our results indicate that modality flexibility is needed alongside financial assistance, which could help to explain Remenick, (2019) findings. Further, according to Chen (2017), financial assistance ranges are consistent with studies for non-traditional versus traditional students needing financial assistance based on income rather than age or degree program type. This further indicates that the flexibility of online learning (which minimizes disruption of employment) is highly valued by students – potentially more so, in fact, than financial assistance – and should thus be a key feature of such online degree completion programs.

Objective 3: Primary motivations for degree seeking now (vs. earlier) in life

Table 5 lists the percentages and frequencies for primary motivations for seeking a degree now (vs. earlier in life). Just over 34% of the sample stated that they had other personal/family responsibilities that prohibited the pursuit of a degree in the past, making this the most common reason. This finding connects to Objective 2 in that the biggest fear is managing school and other responsibilities, which is connected to balancing work, life and personal responsibilities. Some of the specific findings in this vein indicate that some students may have been out of school for several years (54.6% of the students were out of school for three years or more, and 27.1% had been out for more than ten years), and some students have left the workforce at some point in time for various reasons that indicate a need for flexibility. For example, among students who have left the workforce at some point in time, over 80% left for less than 2 years, and approximately 14% left to raise children. Additionally, over one-third (34.1%) have seriously attempted to re-enter higher education multiple times, indicating that their overall responsibilities may not have aligned with the ability to complete degree programs that are not flexible to their needs. These findings illustrate why online options, such as those afforded by the BAAS program, may be attractive degree avenues for students with careers and/or dependants – that is, online options offer greater flexibility for degree completion, which can allow for more optimal balancing of work, school, and life responsibilities. Related, Reid et al. (2021) indicate that mental health stresses often arise from working full-time while taking classes. Based on our findings, course platform flexibility may reduce some of the stresses that degree completion program students commonly face. Administrators, faculty, and staff should consider potentially divergent needs when developing strategies around curriculum and student support services.

Table 5.

Percentage and frequencies of primary reason for seeking a degree.

			Freq.	%
I am degree-seeking at this point in time, primarily because:		(n = 88)
	I was financially unable to attend earlier.		8	9.1
	I did not need a degree until now.		5	5.7
	I had other personal/family responsibilities that prohibited it earlier.		30	34.1
	I did not feel college-ready earlier in my life.		9	10.2
	Other.		36	40.9

Objective 4: Perceptions of what students gain versus what employers seek

According to Table 6, the top three skills students believed they gained from their degree were leadership; ability to plan, organize, and prioritize work; and oral communication skills. Meanwhile, students believed that employers were looking for teamwork skills; leadership; and ability to plan, organize, and prioritize work. The single biggest discrepancy was that students ranked teamwork skills first in terms of what they perceived employers wanted, whereas students ranked this component as seventh in what they believe they gained. Peng and Lin (2019) corroborates the student perception of the importance of teamwork to employers, which is not necessarily unique to non-traditional students. However, what is interesting and unique to this study is the students’ perception that they are not gaining these valuable teamwork skills, which is especially surprising given that team projects and other team-based learning approaches are prominently featured in the online BAAS program. Thus, higher education institutions may need to explore how to better illustrate the teamwork exposure and potential within their online degree programs. Alternatively, current approaches to team-based learning may not be enough, so programs may need to evaluate and adjust their approaches to building teamwork skills.

Table 6.

Ranking for perceived skills gained from degree and perceived employers’ needs.

Skill (n = 88)	Perceived skills gained				Perceived employer needs				Ranking difference
Skill (n = 88)	Mean	SD	% In top 3	Rank	Mean	SD	% In top 3	Rank	(Gain - employer want)
Leadership	5.34	2.74	30.7	1	5.68	2.68	23.9	2	−1
Ability to plan, organize, and prioritize work	3.75	2.87	63.6	2	4.22	2.74	48.9	3	−1
Oral communication skills	4.97	2.40	33.0	3	4.81	2.18	31.8	4	−1
Problem solving and analysis skills	5.34	2.46	27.3	4	5.88	2.08	15.9	5	−1
Written communication skills	5.30	2.41	22.7	5	4.18	2.18	36.4	8	−3
Managing ambiguity	5.59	3.26	30.7	6	5.30	3.10	34.1	7	−1
Teamwork skills	6.66	2.64	13.6	7	7.18	2.22	10.2	1	6
Technical knowledge related to the job	5.10	2.58	34.1	8	4.65	2.84	45.5	6	2
Computer and software proficiency	8.13	2.29	6.8	9	8.81	1.99	4.5	9	0
Selling and persuading others	4.83	2.86	37.5	10	4.31	2.85	48.9	10	0

Objective 5: Primary motivations for degree seeking and subgroup differences

While there is a fair amount of literature investigating the primary reasons for degree seeking for non-traditional students, there is a gap in the literature when it comes to non-traditional degree programs, such as fully online programs, particularly when examining results by subpopulation (Ahmed et al., 2021; Dwyer et al., 2013; Steinhauer & Lovell, 2021; Tomlinson, 2018). The literature on traditional students states that the value of the degree or financial motivation is dominant (Tomlinson, 2018). Steinhauer and Lovell (2021) also indicated that salary is a primary motivator for academic pursuits for non-traditional students, while Dwyer et al. (2013) cited career enhancement as the primary driver. In contrast, we found that over 94% strongly agreed, agreed, or somewhat agreed with the statement that they were primarily seeking a degree as a personal goal. This compares to the only 48.8% who strongly agreed, agreed, or somewhat agreed that promotion was their primary goal and the 80.6% who strongly agreed, agreed, or somewhat agreed that financial gain was their primary goal. Thus, a majority of our sample from an online degree program appear to have pursued their degrees for personal achievement rather than for more functional reasons (i.e. promotion, career change and money). Therefore, appeals to students in degree completion programs such as BAAS may benefit from focussing more on the achievement of personal goals, with financial advancement as a secondary appeal (Table 7).

Table 7.

Primary reasons for seeking a degree.

Item (n = 88)	Strongly agree/Agree/Somewhat agree (%)	Neither agree nor disagree (%)	Strongly disagree/Disagree/Somewhat disagree (%)
I am seeking a degree primarily for a promotion in my current field.	48.8	22.7	28.4
I am seeking a degree primarily for a career change.	67.1	11.4	21.6
I am seeking a degree primarily for financial gain.	80.6	6.8	12.5
I am seeking a degree primarily as a personal goal.	94.3	2.3	3.4
I am seeking a degree primarily to learn skills desired by employers.	70.5	17.0	12.5

We assessed differences among gender subgroups and found some differentiation. Specifically, women (M = 6.80, SD = .46) more often indicated that they were seeking a degree as a personal goal compared to men (M = 6.21, SD = 1.52; F (1, 86) = 6.21; p = .015). No other gender differences emerged among degree-seeking reasons. All participations identified as male or female, although other options were available for selection (Table 8).

Table 8.

Comparison of degree seeking motivations by gender.

Item	Gender	n	Mean	SD	Sig.
I am seeking a degree primarily for a promotion in my current field.	Men	43	4.47	2.03	.470
	Women	45	4.16	1.97	.470
I am seeking a degree primarily for a career change.	Men	43	4.77	2.17	.344
I am seeking a degree primarily for a career change.	Women	45	5.18	1.87	.344
I am seeking a degree primarily for financial gain.	Men	43	5.53	1.84	.673
I am seeking a degree primarily for financial gain.	Women	45	5.69	1.56	.673
I am seeking a degree primarily as a personal goal.	Men	43	6.21	1.52	.015*
I am seeking a degree primarily as a personal goal.	Women	45	6.80	0.46	.015*
I am seeking a degree primarily to learn skills desired by employers.	Men	43	5.44	1.74	.644
	Women	45	5.27	1.80	.644

*Indicates a p-value of <.05, indicating a significant relationship.

We also assessed differences among income subgroups. As Table 9 outlines, we found that lower income individuals cited financial gain and the learning of skills valued by employers as higher in importance than did higher earning students. That is, respondents making less than $40,000 annually (personal income, not household) rated financial gain significantly higher than those earning more than $40,000 annually, with means of 5.96 (SD = 1.34) and 5.20 (SD = 1.99), respectively (F (1, 86) = 4.53; p = .036). Respondents in the lower income group also rated learning new skills desired by employers as significantly higher than those in the higher income group with means of 5.71 (SD = 1.47) and 4.93 (SD = 1.99), respectively (F (1, 86) = 4.49; p = .037). Meanwhile, higher income individuals valued degree seeking as a personal goal more than lower income individuals, with means of 6.78 (SD = .62) and 6.29 (SD = 1.41), respectively (F (1, 86) = 4.03; p = .048).

Table 9.

Comparison of income ratings for degree seeking motivations.

Item	Income (K)	n	Mean	SD	Sig.
I am seeking a degree primarily for a promotion in my current field.	<$40	48	4.08	2.05	.252
	≥$40	40	4.58	1.92	.252
I am seeking a degree primarily for a career change.	<$40	48	4.96	2.24	.924
I am seeking a degree primarily for a career change.	≥$40	40	5.00	1.75	.924
I am seeking a degree primarily for financial gain.	<$40	48	5.96	1.34	.036*
I am seeking a degree primarily for financial gain.	≥$40	40	5.20	1.99	.036*
I am seeking a degree primarily as a personal goal.	<$40	48	6.29	1.41	.048*
I am seeking a degree primarily as a personal goal.	≥$40	40	6.78	0.62	.048*
I am seeking a degree primarily to learn skills desired by employers.	<$40	48	5.71	1.47	.037*
	≥$40	40	4.93	1.99	.037*

*Indicates a p-value of <.05, indicating a significant relationship.

Finally, we explored trends based on GPA, career status, military status, age, and ethnicity subgroups. Table 10 shows that students with higher GPAs (3.1–4.0) agreed more strongly than students with lower GPAs (0.0–3.0) that seeking a degree as a personal goal was their primary motivation, with means of 6.81 (SD = .44) and 6.03 (SD = 1.66), respectively (F (1, 86) = 10.95; p = .001). Table 11 demonstrates that entry-level respondents rated financial gain significantly higher than mid/upper-level career status students as a primary motivator for degree seeking, with means of 6.02 (SD = 1.48) and 5.17 (SD = 1.82), respectively (F (1, 86) = 5.88; p = .017). No significant differences emerged for motivations for degree seeking for military status, age, or ethnicity.

Table 10.

Comparison of GPA ratings for degree seeking motivations.

Item	GPA	n	Mean	SD	Sig.
I am seeking a degree primarily for a promotion in my current field.	0.0–3.0	34	4.76	1.78	.088
	3.1–4.0	54	4.02	2.09	.088
I am seeking a degree primarily for a career change.	0.0–3.0	34	4.85	2.11	.650
I am seeking a degree primarily for a career change.	3.1–4.0	54	5.06	1.99	.650
I am seeking a degree primarily for financial gain.	0.0–3.0	34	5.79	1.41	.432
I am seeking a degree primarily for financial gain.	3.1–4.0	54	5.50	1.86	.432
I am seeking a degree primarily as a personal goal.	0.0–3.0	34	6.03	1.66	.001*
I am seeking a degree primarily as a personal goal.	3.1–4.0	54	6.81	0.44	.001*
I am seeking a degree primarily to learn skills desired by employers.	0.0–3.0	34	5.32	1.59	.904
	3.1–4.0	54	5.37	1.88	.904

*Indicates a p-value of <.05, indicating a significant relationship.

Table 11.

Comparison of career status ratings for degree seeking motivations.

Item	Career status	n	Mean	SD	Sig.
I am seeking a degree primarily for a promotion in my current field.	Entry level	46	4.15	2.12	.450
	Mid-upper level	42	4.48	1.86	.450
I am seeking a degree primarily for a career change.	Entry level	46	4.91	2.27	.757
I am seeking a degree primarily for a career change.	Mid-upper level	42	5.05	1.74	.757
I am seeking a degree primarily for financial gain.	Entry level	46	6.02	1.48	.017*
I am seeking a degree primarily for financial gain.	Mid-upper level	42	5.17	1.82	.017*
I am seeking a degree primarily as a personal goal.	Entry level	46	5.61	0.96	.520
I am seeking a degree primarily as a personal goal.	Mid-upper level	42	6.59	1.33	.520
I am seeking a degree primarily to learn skills desired by employers.	Entry level	46	5.57	1.15	.238
	Mid-upper level	42	5.12	1.63	.238

*Indicates a p-value of <.05, indicating a significant relationship.

Given the above findings, institutions could consider students who earn lower incomes, have lower GPAs, and/or have entry-level positions as more likely to be seeking financial advancement. These segments of the population may respond better to the financial appeal of completing a degree rather than to the appeal of personal achievement. Of course, our findings emerge from a small sample size and a single program, so these subgroup differences may differ across programs or with larger samples.

Discussion

Our exploratory case study has examined the perceptions, motivations, and barriers to degree seeking among students in the fully online BAAS degree completion program at UNT. Beyond overall and subgroup insights into online degree seeking motivations and other factors, our findings revealed that (1) there is a mismatch between student goals and perceived employer needs, (2) many students expected modest financial gains upon completion, and (3) the primary barrier of continuing higher education was balancing education and life responsibilities.

This study showed a statistical difference in students with lower incomes (<$40K) reporting that financial gain was a motivator for degree completion. Additionally, over 30% of students required half of their tuition to be subsidized to seek their degree. Results build on the policy study from Gurantz (2022) that found financial aid programs increase degree completion for non-traditional students by 11% (Gurantz, 2022). Targeting students who identify as needing this assistance may lead to better allocation of financial assistance when directed towards students from needs-based households as identified by state student aid programs, as well as federal student aid programs such as the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Implications from this study expand on prior knowledge, with an assessment of the magnitude of financial support needed. Although students in this online degree completion program did not expect to earn as much as their counterparts in more traditional programs, previous works did not find significant differences in actual salaries (Chaney et al., 2020; Lennon, 2021). Recruitment and retention efforts could benefit from proactively dispelling these salary differences, particularly as over half of students in this study expected no (20%) to very modest 1%–10% salary increases (34.1%).

Improving student services offerings could be a key focus for success of the non-traditional degree program offerings, as this study found that the primary fear for students was not financial, but rather balancing school and other responsibilities. Additionally, this study found that over one-third had multiple serious attempts at re-entering higher education. Remenick (2019) and Kim (2023) show that enhanced student support services can improve student retention for adult learners in online programs (Kim, 2023; Remenick, 2019). Offering tailored online advising services, with increased hours for evenings and weekends, and building online student forums for participation in social settings with their peers may offer inclusion and a sense of belonging that can be difficult for students not on a physical campus. Building these support services should challenge traditional support offerings as the divergent needs of this online degree completion program population require practices tailored to time, location, financial, and career and dependent demands.

This study found a gap between what skills students perceived to be gaining versus what they perceived employers to want, particularly with respect to teamwork, indicating an area of improvement for the online degree completion program. The perceived value of teamwork to employers is not unique to online adult learners (Peng & Lin, 2019). Challenges exist for students in this program, as teamwork is already embedded in 9 hours of the unifying courses in this degree completion program. Implications suggest that enhanced communication from students for additional teamwork training as it relates to professional settings may be merited. A detailed needs assessment could yield benefits for future course content modifications. Additionally, degree seeking as a personal goal was found to be very important by over three-fourth of students surveyed, which aligns with previous studies (Boshier, 1991; Francis, 2014; Knowles et al., 2005). Results suggest an opportunity for tracking and acknowledging milestones in degree progression throughout the degree completion program, rather than just at graduation to enhance the sense of accomplishment and offer continued support along the journey.

As programs such as the BAAS grow, it will be important to further develop understanding of the student population, which likely includes both students who fit the conventional definition of ‘non-traditional’ and students who are enrolled in non-traditional degree completion programs, such as those fully online. Faculty, administrators, recruiters, advisors, and employers can benefit from our findings in that we furnish a better understanding of the types of backgrounds, expectations, and perceived obstacles that can apply to returning students. With these variables in mind, institutions can better design recruiting materials, advising services, retention models, and course development to consider reducing educational barriers (i.e. flexible course modalities, better clarity and emphasis on teamwork opportunities, increased focus on personal goal attainment alongside financial goals and assistance). We hope studies such as these can assist departments and universities to better adapt and meet the demands of the growing number of students in non-traditional degree completion programs, specifically when offered online.

Although we were able to survey nearly all members of a graduating class in the program, the final sample size was still small and came from a single online course. However, the pilot test of the survey instrument used in this study was conducted with juniors in the BAAS program, which are the first-year students in this program as students are transferring prior credits into the degree completion program. This provided an opportunity for student reflection and a voice to communicate their perceptions, challenges, and reasons for seeking a degree in a nontraditional program. Future studies could include a broader spectrum of all BAAS students to capture these sentiments for all students, regardless of persistence. While the use of the capstone course allowed us to collect data on the broadest group of students in the program, a larger sample drawn from multiple courses could provide further insights, validate the findings of this study, and enhance generalizability across other online degree completion programs.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Susan Watson

Appendix

What is your age?

• under 18

• 18–24

• 25–34

• 35–44

• 45–54

• 55–64

• 65–74

• 75–84

• 85 or older

Are you current or former military?

• yes

• no

What is your employment status?

• employed full time (includes self-employed)

• employed part time

• not employed, but looking for work

• not employed or looking for work (retired, student, disabled, etc.)

How long have you been out of the workforce (if unemployed)?

• <1 year

• 1–2 years

• 3–5 years

• 6–10 years

• >10 years

I have been out of the workforce to raise children.

• yes

• no

How long did you stay out of the workforce to raise children?

• <1 year

• 1–2 years

• 3–5 years

• 6–10 years

• 11–15 years

• >15 years

My biggest fear with beginning higher education after being out of the workforce was:

• computer/technical skills needed

• managing school and other responsibilities

• costs of education

• other

What is your ethnicity?

• White

• Black or African American

• Hispanic

• Asian

• Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

• American Indian or Alaska Native

• Other

What is your gender?

• Man

• Woman

• other

What is your GPA?

• 0.0–1.0

• 1.1–2.0

• 2.1–3.0

• 3.1–4.0

What is your personal annual income (not household income)?

• less than $10,000

• $10,000–$19,999

• $20,000–$29,999

• $30,000–$39,999

• $40,000–$49,999

• $50,000–$59,999

• $60,000–$69,999

• $70,000–$79,999

• $80,000–$89,999

• $90,000–$99,999

• $100,000–$149,999

• $150,000 or more

What percentage increase in salary do you expect upon graduation?

• 0%

• 1%–5%

• 6%–10%

• 11%–20%

• 21%–30%

• 31%–40%

• 41%–50%

• 51% or higher

How many times have you seriously attempted your Bachelor’s degree?

• 1

• 2

• 3

• 4

• 5

• 6 or more

How many years have you been out of formal schooling?

• <1 year

• 1–2 years

• 3–5 years

• 6–10 years

• more than 10 years

Where are you in your career?

• entry level

• mid-level (management or position)

• upper-level (management or position)

I would only be degree seeking if ____ of my classes were available fully online.

• 1%–25%

• 26%–50%

• 51%–75%

• 76%–99%

• 100%

• I did not require online classes to be able to seek this degree.

I would only be degree seeking if ____ of my tuition/fees were paid by an employer or military.

• 1%–25%

• 26%–50%

• 51%–75%

• 76%–99%

• 100%

• I did not require tuition/fees to be paid by an employer or the military to be able to seek this degree.

The following five questions were asked using a seven-point Likert-type scale (strongly agree = 1 to strongly disagree = 7):

• I am seeking a degree primarily for a promotion in my current field.

• I am seeking a degree primarily for a career change.

• I am seeking a degree primarily for financial gain.

• I am seeking a degree primarily as a personal goal.

• I am seeking a degree primarily to learn skills desired by employers.

I am degree-seeking at this point in time primarily because: • I was financially unable to attend earlier

• I did not need a degree until now

• I had other personal/family responsibilities that prohibited it earlier

• I did not feel college-ready earlier in my life

• Other

Rank the following skills based on your perception of what you will gain with a bachelor’s degree. Use 1 as the highest and 10 as the lowest.

• managing ambiguity

• leadership

• oral communication skills

• written communication skills

• teamwork skill

• technical knowledge related to the job

• computer and software proficiency

• problem solving and analysis skills

• selling and persuading others

• ability to plan, organize, and prioritize work

Rank the following skills based on your perception of what employers want with a bachelor’s degree. Use 1 as the highest and 10 as the lowest.

• managing ambiguity

• leadership

• oral communication skills

• written communication skills

• teamwork skill

• technical knowledge related to the job

• computer and software proficiency

• problem solving and analysis skills

• selling and persuading others

• ability to plan, organize, and prioritize work

Write one word that best describes your reason for seeking a bachelor’s degree.

References

Ahmed

Mehta

S. S.

Ganesh

Nararajan

(2021). The antecedents of student satisfaction with online courses. Implications for program design and marketing. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 25(5), 1–9.

Altınay

(2017). Evaluating peer learning and assessment in online collaborative learning environments. Behaviour and Information Technology, 36(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1232752

Arney

J. B.

Hardebeck

Estrada

Permenter

(2006). An innovative baccalaureate degree: Applied versus traditional. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 5(2), 184–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192705285470

Babb

S. J.

Rufino

K. A.

Johnson

R. M.

(2022). Assessing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on nontraditional students’ mental health and well-being. Adult Education Quarterly, 72(2), 140–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/07417136211027508

Ball

Alexander

Cleland

(2020). “The biggest barrier was my own self”: The role of social comparison in non-traditional students’ journey to medicine. Perspectives on Medical Education, 9(3), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-020-00580-6

Bergman

(2016). From stopout to scholar: Pathways to Graduation through Adult Degree completion programs. International Journal of Information Communication Technologies and Human Development, 8(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijicthd.2016100101

Berry

G. R.

Hughes

(2020). Integrating work–life balance with 24/7 information and communication technologies: The experience of adult: Students with online learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 34(2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2020.1701301

Boshier

(1991). Psychometric properties of the alternative form of the education participation scale. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(3), 150–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848191041003002

Carreira

Lopes

A. S.

(2021). Drivers of academic pathways in higher education: Traditional vs. non-traditional students. Studies in Higher Education, 46(7), 1340–1355. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1675621

10.

Cataldi

E. F.

Bennett

C. T.

Chen

(2018). First-generation students: College access, persistence, and postbachelor's outcomes. Stats in Brief. NCES 2018-421. National Center for Education Statistics.

11.

Chaney

C. D.

Nicks

Caldwell

Jr. (2020). From GED to PhD: Eric thomas as a model of educational success. Journal of Education and Learning, 9(6), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v9n6p42

12.

Chen

J. C.

(2017). Nontraditional adult learners: The neglected diversity in postsecondary education. Sage Open, 7(1), 215824401769716. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017697161

13.

Cheng

Chau

(2016). Exploring the relationships between learning styles, online participation, learning achievement and course satisfaction: An empirical study of a blended learning course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12243

14.

Clark

Cluver

Selingo

J. J.

(2023, August 21). Trend no. 1: College enrollment reaches its peak. Deloitte Insights. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/public-sector/articles-on-higher-education/enrollment-rates-in-higher-education.html

15.

Clayton

K. E.

Blumberg

F. C.

Anthony

J. A.

(2018). Linkages between course status, perceived course value, and students’ preference for traditional versus non-traditional learning environments. Computers and Education, 125, 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.002.

16.

Cohen

Sasson

(2016). Online quizzes in a virtual learning environment as a tool for formative assessment. JOTSE, 6(3), 188–208.

17.

Cotronei-Baird

V. S.

(2020). Academic hindrances in the integration of employability skills development in teaching and assessment practice. Higher Education, 79(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00405-4

18.

Cotton

D. R.

Nash

Kneale

(2017). Supporting the retention of non-traditional students in Higher Education using a resilience framework. European Educational Research Journal, 16(1), 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116652629

19.

Coursera . (2022). Bachelor of applied Arts and sciences. Coursera. https://www.coursera.org/degrees/unt-online-bachelor-completio.n.

20.

Cummins

Arbogast

McGrew

Bahr

(2019). Experience and barriers to success for mid-and later-life college students: Applying a gerontological lens. Innovation in Aging, 3(Supplement_1), S667. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igz038.2468

21.

Dolch

Zawacki-Richter

(2018). Are students getting used to learning technology? Changing media usage patterns of traditional and non-traditional students in higher education. Research in Learning Technology, 26, 2038. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2038.

22.

Dumford

A. D.

Miller

A. L.

(2018). Online learning in higher education: Exploring advantages and disadvantages for engagement. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(3), 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9179-z

23.

Dwyer

Thompson

D. E.

Thompson

C. K.

(2013). Adult learners’ perceptions of an undergraduate HRD degree completion programme: Reasons for entering, attitudes towards programme and impact of programme. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.608906

24.

Ebersole

(2010). Degree completion: Responding to a national priority. Continuing Higher Education Review, 74, 23–31.

25.

Finnegan

Valadas

O’Neill

Fragoso

Paulos

(2019). The search for security in precarious times: Non-traditional graduates perspectives on higher education and employment. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 38(2), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2019.1567613

26.

Francois

E. J.

(2014). Motivational orientations of non-traditional adult students to enroll in a degree-seeking program. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 26(2), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20060

27.

Gardner

Brooks

(2018). Student success prediction in MOOCs. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 28(2), 127–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-018-9203-z

28.

Gaulke

A. P.

(2022). Returns to bachelor’s degree completion among stopouts. Economics of Education Review, 86, 102218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2021.102218.

29.

Gilardi

Guglielmetti

(2011). University life of non-traditional students: Engagement styles and impact on attrition. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2011.11779084

30.

Goodman

Melkers

Pallais

(2019). Can online delivery increase access to education? Journal of Labor Economics, 37(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1086/698895

31.

Gopalan

Goodman

Hardy

Jacobs

(2019). A fine balance: Understanding the influence of job, school and personal characteristics in predicting academic and job satisfaction amongst non-traditional students. Journal of Education and Work, 32(6-7), 570–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2019.1673890

32.

Gurantz

(2022). Impacts of state aid for nontraditional students on educational and labor market outcomes. Journal of Human Resources, 57(1), 241–271. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.57.1.0618-9570r2

33.

Hixon

Barczyk

Ralston-Berg

Buckenmeyer

(2016). Online course quality: What do nontraditional students value. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 19(4), 1–12.

34.

IBM Corp . Released (2017). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 25.0. IBM Corp.

35.

Jerrim

(2015). Do college students make better predictions of their future income than young adults in the labor force? Education Economics, 23(2), 162–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2013.769045

36.

Johnson

Bell

(2014). Scaling completion college services as a model for increasing adult degree completion. Lumina issue papers. Lumina Foundation for Education.

37.

Kearney

Stanley

Blackberry

(2018). Interpreting the first-year experience of a non-traditional student: A case study. Student Success, 9(3), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v9i3.463

38.

Kim

(2023). What do they suffer? An examination of personal, program, and environmental factors impacting nontraditional undergraduate students’ dropout. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 0(0), 15210251231210494. https://doi.org/10.1177/15210251231210494.

39.

Knowles

M. S.

Holton

Swanson

(2005). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (6th ed.). Elsevier.

40.

Lennon

(2021). How do online degrees affect labor market prospects? Evidence from a correspondence audit study. ILR Review, 74(4), 920–947. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793919899943

41.

Littenberg-Tobias

Reich

(2020). Evaluating access, quality, and equity in online learning: A case study of a MOOC-based blended professional degree program. The Internet and Higher Education, 47, 100759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100759.

42.

Liu

Zou

Shi

Pan

(2019). What do participants think of today’s MOOCs: An updated look at the benefits and challenges of MOOCs designed for working professionals. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32(2), 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-019-09234-x

43.

Louie

(2010). Passing the Torch. In Sociological forum (Vol. 25(No. 4), pp. 870–873). Wiley, Springer.

44.

Luik

Lepp

Feklistova

Säde

Rõõm

Palts

Suviste

Tõnisson

(2020). Programming MOOCs–different learners and different motivation. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 39(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2020.1780329

45.

Baum

Pender

Libassi

C. J.

(2020). Trends in college pricing and student aid 2020. College Board. https://research.collegeboard.org/pdf/trends-college-pricing-student-aid-2020.pdf

46.

McCall

Western

Petrakis

(2020). Opportunities for change: What factors influence non-traditional students to enrol in higher education? Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 60(1), 89–112.

47.

McCarthy

(2017). Enhancing feedback in higher education: Students’ attitudes towards online and in-class formative assessment feedback models. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417707615

48.

McFarland

Hussar

Zhang

Wang

Hein

Barmer

(2019). The condition of education 2019. NCES 2019-144. National Center for Education Statistics.

49.

Mills

(2020). Understanding the experiences of college students who work full-time: Juggling competing responsibilities and defining academic success. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 68(3), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2020.1743629

50.

Murray

J. A.

(2019). Massive open online courses: Current and future trends in biomedical sciences. In Biomedical visualisation (pp. 47–53). Springer.

51.

Nage-Sibande

Morolong

B. L.

(2018). A trend analysis of opportunities and challenges of open and distance learning provision in dual-mode institutions. Distance Education, 39(4), 495–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1457951

52.

National Center for Educational Statistics . (nd). National postsecondary student aid study: 1986-87 (NPSAS:87), 1989-90 (NPSAS:90), 1992-93 (NPSAS:93), data analysis systems. Nontraditional Undergraduates/Definitions and Data. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97578e.asp#:∼:text=These/characteristics/include/older/than,or/high/school/completion/certificate

53.

National Student Clearinghouse . (2023). More than 39 million Americans have some college, no credential, according to New Research. https://www.studentclearinghouse.org/more-than-39-million-americans-have-some-college-no-credential-according-to-new-research/

54.

Osmani

Weerakkody

Hindi

Eldabi

(2019). Graduates employability skills: A review of literature against market demand. The Journal of Education for Business, 94(7), 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2018.1545629

55.

Park

J. H.

Choi

H. J.

(2009). Factors influencing adult learners' decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207–217.

56.

Pelletier

S. G.

(2010). Success for adult students: Looking at the demographics of todays student body, nontraditional is the new tradition. In How can public universities best serve todays older student population (pp. 2–6). Public Purpose.

57.

Peng

Lin

W. C.

(2019). Evaluation a career planning course with case-based teaching model on college students’ career decisions and learning satisfaction. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 11(4), 102–114. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v11n4p102

58.

Rajabalee

B. Y.

Santally

M. I.

Rennie

(2020). A study of the relationship between students’ engagement and their academic performances in an eLearning environment. E-learning and Digital Media, 17(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753019882567

59.

Reid

Armstrong

Todd

Ballard

Szczepaniak

Tinsley

(2021). An examination of mental health, perceived barriers, and outreach recommendations among rural college students. American Journal of Health Education, 52(2), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2021.1877220

60.

Remenick

(2019). Services and support for nontraditional students in higher education: A historical literature review. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 25(1), 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477971419842880

61.

Rose

(2017). Higher education and the transformation of American citizenship. PS: Political Science and Politics, 50(02), 403–407. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096516002900

62.

Rozvadská

Novotný

(2019). The Structure of non-traditional students’ motives for entering higher education. Form@ re-Open Journal per la formazione in rete, 19(2), 133–148.

63.

Schnusenberg

(2020). Overconfidence in salary expectations after graduation. The Journal of Education for Business, 95(8), 513–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2019.1707750

64.

Serrano

D. R.

Dea-Ayuela

M. A.

Gonzalez‐Burgos

Serrano-Gil

Lalatsa

(2019). Technology-enhanced learning in higher education: How to enhance student engagement through blended learning. European Journal of Education, 54(2), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12330

65.

Siivonen

Filander

(2020). ‘Non-traditional’ and ‘traditional’ students at a regional Finnish university: Demanding customers and school pupils in need of support. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 39(3), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2020.1758814

66.

Steinhauer

Lovell

E. D. N.

(2021). Non-traditional community college students’ academic pursuits: Time, connectedness, support, wages and research. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 45(3), 223–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2019.1666066

67.

Stephen

J. S.

Rockinson-Szapkiw

A. J.

Dubay

(2020). Persistence model of non-traditional online learners: Self-efficacy, self-regulation, and self-direction. American Journal of Distance Education, 34(4), 306–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2020.1745619

68.

Succi

Canovi

(2020). Soft skills to enhance graduate employability: Comparing students and employers’ perceptions. Studies in Higher Education, 45(9), 1834–1847. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1585420

69.

Texas Administrative Code. Title 19, §9.672: Education . (2018, February 28). https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=19&pt=1&ch=9&rl=672

70.

Tomlinson

(2018). Conceptions of the value of higher education in a measured market. Higher Education, 75(4), 711–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0165-6

71.

Turner

Briggs

(2018). To see or not to see? Comparing the effectiveness of examinations and end of module assessments in online distance learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1048–1060. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1428730

72.

University of North Texas . (2024). Home - UNT. https://www.unt.edu/index.html

73.

University of North Texas (UNT) . (2020). Designated a Hispanic-Serving Institution, UNT can amplify resources for growing and better serving Hispanic student population. University Brand Strategy and Communications. https://news.unt.edu/news-releases/designated-hispanic-serving-institution-unt-can-amplify-resources-growing-and-better

74.

UNT . (2021). BAAS 4100 – managing a 21^st Century career. Catalog. https://catalog.unt.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=26&coid=103052

75.

UNT . (2022a). All about UNT. University of North Texas. https://allabout.unt.edu

76.

UNT . (2022b). 2022-2023 undergraduate catalog. University of North Texas. https://catalog.unt.edu

77.

UNT Factsheet . (2023). 2022-2023 Factsheet. https://institutionalresearch.unt.edu/sites/default/files/factbook_dair_2022-2023.pdf

78.

UNT Factsheet . (2021). 2020-2021 Factsheet. https://institutionalresearch.unt.edu/images/factsheet_2020-2021_0.pdf

79.

U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics . (2021). Definitions and data. Nontraditional Undergraduates/Definitions and Data. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/97578e.asp

80.

Volk

Floyd

C. G.

Shaler

Ferguson

Gavulic

A. M.

(2020). Active duty military learners and distance education: Factors of persistence and attrition. American Journal of Distance Education, 34(2), 106–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1708842

81.

Wong

Chiu

Y. L. T.

(2019). ‘Swallow your pride and fear’: The educational strategies of high-achieving non-traditional university students. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 40(7), 868–882. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2019.1604209

82.

W. C. V.

Hsieh

J. S. C.

Yang

J. C.

(2017). Creating an online learning community in a flipped classroom to enhance EFL learners’ oral proficiency. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 142–157.

83.

Yazan

(2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134–152. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2102

84.

Yin

R. K.

(2009). Case study research: Design and methods (5). Sage Publications, Inc.