Introduction
Online learning is an option which allows students
greater flexibility in building a course schedule
that caters to their lifestyles. This is especially
beneficial to those adult community college students
trying to successfully integrate educational
pursuits into lives already busy with work and
family responsibilities. Although online learning
can provide an attractive option for these adult
learners hoping to pursue higher education, it is
not necessarily a panacea for every challenge
confronting these learners. Despite astronomical
growth in the past decade, distance education
programs see many casualties when large numbers of
students register for online courses with no concept
of what the experience will entail (Bathe, 2001;
Hill & Raven, 2000; Moore, Bartkovich, Fetzner, &
Ison, 2002; O'Brien & Renner, 2002, Stover, 2005).
Various studies which examined student retention in
distance education programs (Dahl, 2004; Nesler,
1999; Valasek, 2001) agree that student attrition is
a huge issue in online learning, and each study
offers proactive measures from learning communities
to technology awareness as methods to increase
retention in online courses.
Online learning can resemble a virtual "field of
dreams" where officials believe that "if you build,
it they will come." Institutions take an aggressive
stance toward building online programs by making
available a large number of online courses to
attract students into the college. Of the large
numbers of students who register for online courses,
many end up withdrawing from the course formally, or
informally through lack of participation, or they
may continue and receive less than desired results.
As such, a huge investment is made in technology,
but little in comparison is made in the human stock
when lack of attention to traditional course
management issues such as learning styles,
individual differences of students, selection of
appropriate course activities and materials, and
proper training for online faculty and students
(Bass & Ritting, n. d.; Bates & Poole, 2003; Conrad
& Donaldson, 2004; Franklin, 2001; O'Brien & Renner,
2002) fails to consider online pedagogy and the
students who are to benefit. Retention rates,
however, directly relate to how well the courses and
facilitators meet the needs of the learners enrolled
in these courses. Palloff and Pratt (2003) contend
that online programs which are designed around the
learner tend to offer more quality which, in turn,
increases learner satisfaction. If learners are
satisfied with the results of their online
experience, they are more likely to stay in the
course.
Online learning presents unique challenges for not
only the learners but the faculty and administrators
as well. Those responsible for making decisions
regarding, designing, facilitating, and even
learning in these cyber-environments must stretch
themselves to think beyond the limitations of the
traditional classroom. The purpose of this study
was to determine what factors community college
administrators, faculty, and students perceive as
important in influencing student persistence in
community college online learning programs. The
study was a descriptive one which compared the
perceptions through these different lenses to reveal
which perceptions are held in common among the
stakeholder groups and where those perceptions
diverge.
Review of the Literature
Persistence in a college or an individual course
requires commitment on the part of the student; the
student’s level of commitment is directly influenced
by a person-environment fit. Tinto’s (1993) Student
Integration Model describes student attrition as a
result of the lack of social and academic
integration into the college or university
community. This idea reasonably suggests that when
students feel comfortable within the social and
academic milieus of the college, they are more
likely to stay. Community colleges fall victim to
overall student attrition at a higher rate than
4-year institutions (Tinto, 1993), and distance
education courses see a larger number of students
who fail to persist than traditional courses (Bathe,
2001; Moore et al., 2002; Stover, 2005). Online
dropout rates have traditionally ranged from 30 to
50 percent (Hill & Raven, 2000; Moore et al., 2002;
O'Brien & Renner, 2002). Reasons for this attrition
coincide with those of traditional students who cite
“personal problems, financial problems, changes in
work schedule, and teacher-related concerns” (Moore
et al., 2002, p. 6). Studies also indicate that a
lack of personal interaction and support are major
reasons for online student attrition (Moore &
Kearsley, 1996; Moore et al., 2002). In addition,
many students enroll in online courses with the
misconception that these courses are less
challenging than traditional courses or with other
mistaken expectations such as the idea that working
at one's own pace means due dates and deadlines are
nonexistent (Burnett, 2001; Moore et al., 2002; Tait,
2004). The realities of virtual learning often
overwhelm many of these students who ultimately
become attrition statistics.
Online Learning Communities
Building community online is a crucial
characteristic for influencing presistence. Palloff
and Pratt (1999) characterize an online community as
one which contains active interaction involving
content and personal communication between students
and the instructor. Students and faculty share
ideas, information, and resources while at the same
time they offer support and encouragement along with
constructive critical evaluations of each other's
work. Online learning communities can also provide a
student-centered learning environment, develop
critical thinking skills, and provide expanded
connections to specialists, faculty, and students
around the world, thus extending phenomenally the
boundaries of the traditional classroom (Alexander,
1999; Milheim, 2001). Likewise, in the absence of a
physical connection to an institution, virtual
learning communities allow students an opportunity
to make connections with the institution, other
learners, and course content in a supportive
environment. Persistence rates are higher for
students who are involved in learning communities
than for those who are not a part of such an
environment (Santovec, 2004).
Access to an electronic learning environment,
however, does not guarantee community. A learning
community develops when the participants recognize
their shared goals and responsibilities and commit
to working toward realization of those goals (Palloff
& Pratt, 1999). Facilitators in online courses
(just as in the traditional face-to-face course)
must use a variety of methods and techniques to
foster this sense of shared community in an
environment in which the primary mode of
communication is text-based. Lock (2003) asserts
that establishing online learning communities
encompasses more than the selection and use of
technology:
Attention ought to be directed to ways in which
online learning environments accommodate the social
and psychological needs of people who come together
virtually to learn. Nurturing the creation of a
learning community is not only about changing
practices and routines; it is about changing how we
empower learners within an online community. (p.1)
Therefore, educators need to re-examine learning
styles theories and methods of assessments which
will move the focus from teaching to the
facilitation of learning (Hart, 2001). A shift in
focus from the “technical to [the] social aspect”
(Chen, 2004, Introduction) of online learning is
also necessary as interaction is touted as a
mainstay of meaningful learning.
A New Paradigm
A most important issue in online teaching and
learning is shifting the paradigm from the
traditional teacher-centered approaches which have
dominated instructional practices of the past.
Although the instructor is still the content expert
in a virtual environment, students in an online
community must assume responsibility for managing
their own learning experiences (Bathe, 2001; Conrad
& Donaldson, 2004). Many faculty, however, are
reluctant to give up their control in the courses
they teach, and many learners are reluctant to take
a more independent role in their learning.
Role of the instructor
For maximum effectiveness, the one-size-fits all
approach should not reflect the online learning
experience. Thus, online facilitators are faced
with challenges unique to the online learning
environment. Like the face-to-face instructors,
they must establish relationships with their
students, determine their needs, and develop a
teaching style which fits those needs; however, they
must do so without any face-to-face contact (Bass &
Ritting, n. d.). In addition, online facilitators
must be aware that their students are adult learners
who bring with them a number of other issues
requiring their time and attention. Recognition of
and attention to these factors contributes to
increased student satisfaction which, in turn,
yields higher persistence rates.
Designing a course and implementing a program of
study conducive to the online environment while
providing meaningful learning experiences is a
special challenge for the online instructor.
Technical considerations, including skills of the
instructor and the learner, availability and
accessibility of technology, and the level of
technical support available are issues which combine
with content presentation, classroom interaction,
and the time required to develop and facilitate such
a course are all aspects which require attention.
Conrad and Donaldson (2004) posit that designing an
online course is much like designing a face-to-face
one in that the main objective is to fulfill the
learning outcome: “an activity that does not
contribute to a learning outcome only adds confusion
to the course and risks learner dissatisfaction at
having to do an unnecessary activity” (p. 17).
Posting of extensive lecture notes which mirror the
textbook presentations, PowerPoint outlines used for
classroom presentations, and "busy work" are all
ill-advised techniques for retaining students in an
online learning environment (O'Brien & Renner,
2002). Faculty in an online learning program must
learn how to be effective instructors in this
medium, and administrators must make available the
necessary provisions to help these faculty (Inman,
Kerwin, & Mayes, 1999).
Role of the learner
Engaged learning is a prerequisite for an effective
learning community. Engaged learning includes
students establishing their own learning goals,
working together in groups, and exploring
appropriate resources to answer meaningful
questions; tasks that are multidisciplinary and
authentic, with connections to the real world;
assessment that is ongoing and performance-based;
and products that are shared with an audience beyond
the classroom (Jones, Valdez, Nowakowski, &
Rasmussen, 1994). Students are also expected to
share in decision making and assessment and
evaluation of themselves, the instructor, and the
course. “When a student is engaged on an individual
level and his/her ideas are validated before the
group, the student is made to feel like a part of a
community where his/her opinion is sought or valued”
(Franklin, 2001, Designing Successful Communities
section, para. 5). This method of engaged learning
equips students to achieve a level of comfort in the
online environment and ultimately to step out of
their traditional passive roles and become active
co-learners with fellow students and the
facilitator.
Social Constructivism
Many instructors adopt a learning-centered
pedagogy using a social constructivist approach in
which students learn new knowledge by assimilating
information, relating it to existing knowledge, and
reflecting on it. For constructivists, reflection
and discussion are key activities through which
knowledge is gained. The asynchronous nature of
online classes allows for and encourages such
reflection. The inherent anonymity and safety of
the online learning platform combined with the
ability to take time to ponder ideas and reflect
before posting enables many online learners to
contribute more readily than in the traditional
learning environment (Chen, 2004; Howard, 2003).
Critical Reflection and Transformative Learning
Critical reflection can be defined as a process by
which an individual carefully and objectively
examines his or her behaviors in a given situation.
Palloff and Pratt (1999) point out that the very
nature of online learning presents disorienting
dilemmas and psychic distortions which cause the
participants to examine their pre-existing beliefs
and behaviors. Although unaware of their
transformation, they are approaching learning
through a new medium which is very different from
the traditional venue of classroom instruction.
Becoming accustomed to new technology as a dominant
means of communication and instruction presents
another nontraditional aspect of their learning
environment. Perhaps the most transforming component
of their experience is the reliance upon self and
other learners as opposed to the traditional view of
the instructor as the authority or expert. Learners
who are unable to reconcile themselves to this new
medium become casualties of virtual learning
environments; in contrast, those who are able to
find an appropriate fit with their educational
objectives and abilities persist.
Climate of the Online Learning Community
Learners are better able to form online communities
when they feel comfortable within the learning
environment. This comfort can result from a number
of activities and sources including comfort with the
technology, clear expectations established from the
beginning, and an opportunity to share ideas in a
non-threatening environment where every voice is
important.
Students must feel free to take risks and challenge
assumptions. Without this level of comfort . . .
they will be reticent to dispute ideas and stretch
their thinking. They will also find the learning
experience very isolating and many will retreat to
the comforts of a classroom setting or be lost to
continuing education entirely. (O'Brien & Renner,
2002, para. 2)
Faculty who are sensitive to their online students
can detect cues, such as “decreased activity level,
diminished quality, and delayed responses” (O’Brien
& Renner, 2002, Course Design section), which may
indicate frustrations with the learning environment
and other issues related to this type of learning.
At this point, faculty should communicate with the
student to determine a reason for the change in
behavior and try to arrive at a resolution which may
involve a behavior modification on the part of the
student, the instructor, or both.
Students who become overwhelmed because of mounting
issues which are unresolved tend to drop out of
their online courses (Gaide, 2004). This is
frequently the result of students entering the
online learning environment without an accurate
assessment of what the venture entails. Online
students need clear expectations about course
objectives, requirements, and policies communicated
from the start (Gaide, 2004; Lorenzetti, 2005a;
Lorenzetti, 2005b). Therefore, feedback from the
instructor is an important retention factor by
helping to develop a connection between the faculty
and the student. Such feedback is automatically
delayed in an asynchronous environment, but the
instructor should make every effort to respond in a
timely manner and in a tone which demonstrates
warmth and caring (O’Brien & Renner, 2002).
Effective online learning communities can be
characterized by four critical components:
interaction, communication, participation, and
collaboration.
Interaction
Isolation or lack of connectedness has been cited
(Bathe, 2001; Stark & Warren, 1999) as a major
threat to student persistence in online courses.
Students report feelings of not being a part of an
institution or an attitude of “out-of-sight
out-of-mind” which leads them to direct their
attentions to more immediate and tangible concerns
(Stark & Warren, 1999). The online instructor can
even fall victim to the latter when attentions are
constantly divided among a variety of
responsibilities: “a name without a face is easier
to not get involved with” (Stark & Warren,
1999, p. 395). However, an ideal online learning
environment is highly interactive with all
participants consistently involved with content, the
facilitator, and each other. Online facilitators
who consider the students’ need for the human touch
and the importance of an interactive course create
learning environments which promote connectedness
and meaningful learning thereby leading to higher
student persistence rates.
Communication
Effective online communication is that in which
faculty and students recognize that they are each a
vital part of a learning community in which
interaction is not only appropriate but necessary
for the attainment of individual and shared goals.
“Communication is the brick and mortar of virtual
communities, and communities only exist as long as
communication is available to participants” (Schweir,
2000, Whither Virtual section, para. 6). Effective
communication includes thoughtful discussion and
feedback among learners and the
instructor/facilitator.
Participation
In order to promote interactivity and participation,
it is important that the instructor is clear about
how much time the course will require of both
students and faculty in order to eliminate potential
misunderstandings about course demands. The
instructor also needs to teach students about online
learning, be a good model of good participation by
logging on often and contributing to the discussion
and community formation, be willing to step in and
set limits if participation wanes or if the
conversation is headed in the wrong direction, and
remember that there are people attached to the words
on the screen (Palloff & Pratt, 2003). Palloff and
Pratt further assert that facilitators should
establish minimum posting requirements and monitor
those for compliance, grade on participation, post
grading rubrics that establish guidelines for
acceptable participation and posting, and use
collaborative assignments and evaluate them
collaboratively.
Collaboration
Collaboration in an online course involves anything
from threaded discussions, chat sessions, and paired
activities to small group activities. Collaboration
allows students to become more involved in the
learning process, and this involvement leads to
greater subject matter comprehension. Not only does
this type of environment and activity mimic the type
of group processes which will be found in the
workplace, it also promotes desirable interpersonal
skills and allows students to connect with each
other (Burnett, 2001).
Barriers to Persistence
Many factors ranging from academic aptitude,
pedagogy, and curriculum to financial factors,
grade-point average, and family backgrounds
influence student persistence in online courses
(Stover, 2005). Clearly, students who opt to take
online courses have issues beyond the actual
learning environment which need attention. These
include access to student support services such as
advising, registration, counseling, financial aid,
and bookstore and library services (Bathe, 2001;
Dahl, 2004; Milheim, 2001). All these and other
factors can be categorized into one of four major
barriers to student persistence:
1. Situational barriers are those which occur as
the result of changes in the social, economic, or
personal life of the student. They include such
issues as transportation, age, time constraints,
family support, or family responsibilities over
which the institution has no control (Cross, 1981;
Lorenzetti, 2004).
2. Conversely, institutional barriers result from
difficulties with college programs, policies, and
procedures; these include issues with admissions,
registration, class schedules, financial aid, and
other support services over which the institution
does have some control (Cross, 1981; Lorenzetti,
2004). Institutional barriers emphasize the need
for an institutional support system that can be
accessed online (Dahl, 2004).
3. Dispositional barriers result from an
individual’s personal background, and which include
issues such as attitude, motivation, learning
styles, and self-confidence (Cross, 1981; Lorenzetti,
2004).
4. Epistemological barriers result from problems
with academic or institutional matters such as
course content, prerequisite knowledge, and
expectations (Lorenzetti, 2004; Moore, et al, 2002).
Many of these barriers can be overcome by training
for all persons involved. Faculty and
administrators should be trained in effective design
and implementation of online courses, and students
should be trained in the concepts and ideology
underlying online learning (Lorenzetti, 2004).
Student Motivation
Motivation is an extremely important characteristic
for any student but particularly the online learner.
These students must utilize a different level of
initiative and self-discipline that students in
traditional classes may not possess. Without this,
many of them would be destined for failure because
the impetus to log into the course, read, and submit
assignments may not be forthcoming without that
little nudge from the “authority” figure.
Since many community college learners are working
adults who have families and who may not have
attended college for many years, they may present
with what Brookfield (1995) calls “imposter
syndrome.” They feel inadequate to do what is
required of them, and they think that everyone else
(but them) knows what they are supposed to be doing.
These students want to avoid failure, and they need
reassurance that they still can learn. “Adults are
much less open to trial-and-error approaches than
children are. Many adult learners will resist
trying something new if it involves the risk of
making an error and feeling foolish as a result” (Stilborne
& Williams, 1996, Dispositional Barrier section).
In an online environment, the syllabus and course
outline should be supplemented with a detailed
description of every task that must be completed. It
is also important to make first assignments such
that every student can be successful. Timely
feedback on first assignment submissions is an
essential retention tool. Such feedback gives
students a glimpse of what to expect in future
assessments and an opportunity to decide whether to
persist or not (Tait, 2004).
This study examined the perceptions of online
persistence factors as seen by the three major
stakeholders in community college distance education
programs. The purpose of the study was to determine
which factors are most important among the three
groups and where those perceptions converge since
lack of convergence could be a factor resulting in
high attrition rates of some online courses.
Consensus of these indicators calls attention to
those areas which should be emphasized in online
teaching and learning. Likewise, a lack of
convergence on major issues related to online
learning reveals possible reasons for high attrition
rates in distance education courses and provides
significant insight into improving the quality of
online learning and increasing retention rates among
online learners.
Methodology
The research methodology was a modification of the
Delphi technique, which is a consensus-reaching
process designed for non-interacting expert groups
whose geographical locations, status differences, or
opposing viewpoints of the members make it difficult
for the members to physically assemble (Andranovich,
1995). The modified Delphi used three separate
groups of participants who represented the various
levels of stakeholders in online learning to compose
the panel. Although participants could respond to
information originating within their respective
groups, all participants remained anonymous to each
other.
Potential panelists who met the criteria for
participation volunteered for the study by
completing an online questionnaire. Thirty-nine
volunteers from 10 community colleges in Alabama met
eligibility requirements to participate as a member
of the administrator, faculty, or student Delphi
group. All of the faculty and student panelists had
completed at least one semester of instruction or
learning, respectively, in an online course, and
administrator panelists had at least one semester’s
experience of oversight in some aspect of online
learning as self-reported on the Preliminary
Questionnaire.
Design of the Study
The study was conducted over a 6-8 week period from
July 2006 through September 2006 through a series of
questionnaires communicated via an online survey
website. The study included three rounds of data
collection and a resolution round in which panelists
were provided the results of the Round 3 responses.
Panelists were notified by e-mail of the
availability of each round’s questionnaire. Each
questionnaire was available for 10 days during which
panelists had an opportunity to reflect, to evaluate
their ideas and those of fellow panelists, formulate
any new ideas, and share their views.
Results
The initial question was an open-ended one in which
panelists were asked to list factors which they
perceived to support student persistence in a
community college online course. They were not asked
to rank those items during Round 1. At the end of
the 10-day period, the researcher compiled a
comprehensive list for each group of all factors
submitted by the panelists in that group.
Round 1 Results
Administrators generated 49 factors and statements
pertaining to online student retention. Those 49
statements were reviewed, coded, and summarized into
20 themes. Faculty panelists generated 72 factors
and statements which were summarized into 25 themes,
and student panelists generated 44 factors and
statements which were summarized into 16 themes. All
themes generated during Round 1 are shown in Table
1. In order to establish consistency, when possible,
themes from each group were matched as closely as
possible to emerging themes developed from the
administrators' responses. This was done only if no
risk of compromising the integrity of the responses
existed. These themes were then used to develop the
Round 2 survey instrument. Although Table 1 shows
the frequency with which each factor was mentioned
during the Round 1 data collection, factors were
presented in random order in Round 2.
Table 1. Themes Emerging from Round 1
Questionnaire
Administrators |
Faculty |
Students |
|
|
|
Convenience/Flexibility (8) |
Student-teacher interaction/ Prompt feedback
(15) |
Convenience/Flexibility (12) |
Responsiveness of Instructor/ Prompt Feedback
(7) |
User-friendly format (7) |
Independent learning/ Responsibility (5) |
Self-motivation (5) |
Clearly-stated requirements (6) |
Course design (4) |
User-friendly format (4) |
Discussion (6) |
Discussion/Interaction (3) |
Course design (3) |
Self-motivation (4) |
Time management (3) |
Collaboration (3) |
Course design (4) |
Personal contact (3) |
Time management (3) |
Computer access (4) |
User-friendly format (2) |
Computer access (2) |
Computer skills (3) |
Clearly-stated requirements (2) |
Self-discipline (2) |
Discipline (3) |
Technical support (2) |
Instructors (2) |
Subject-matter knowledge (2) |
Personal issues (2) |
Availability of courses (1) |
Instructor (2) |
Less class interaction (1) |
Dedication (1) |
Lack of personal contact (1) |
Computer skills (1) |
Basic computer skills (1) |
Cheat-ability (1) |
Accessibility (1) |
Organization (1) |
Textbook (1) |
Less difficult coursework (1) |
Clearly-stated requirements (1) |
IQ (1) |
Efficiency (1) |
Value (1) |
Perception of course difficulty level (1) |
|
Communication/
Writing skills (1) |
Flexibility (1) |
|
Computer support tools (1) |
Alternative means of contact (1) |
|
Difficulty level (1) |
Reliable server and
support network (1) |
|
|
Outside assistance (1) |
|
|
Control (1) |
|
|
Value (1) |
|
|
Time (1) |
|
Round 2 Results
During the second round, panelists were asked to
rate those factors that they perceived most
important in supporting persistence in a community
college online course by using a five-point
Likert-type scale: 1—Not Important, 2—Somewhat
Important, 3—Important, 4—Very Important, 5—Neutral.
Those factors were identified by calculating the
frequency with which each panelist rated a factor as
Very Important, Important, and Somewhat
Important. Administrators identified 11 of the
20 factors produced during Round 1 as important;
faculty identified 10 of their 25, and students
identified 10 of their 16 factors (see Table 2).
Table 2. Round 2 Most Important Retention
Factors
Administrators |
Faculty |
Students |
|
|
|
Responsiveness of Instructor |
Motivation |
Convenience/Flexibility |
Self-discipline |
Student-teacher interaction/
Prompt feedback |
Clearly-stated requirements |
Time management |
Clearly-stated requirements |
Technical support |
Clearly-stated requirements |
User-friendly |
Course design |
Convenience/
Flexibility |
Outside assistance |
Independent learning/Responsibility |
Self-motivation |
Time |
User-friendly format |
Basic computer skills |
Discipline |
Accessibility |
Reading ability |
Reliable server & support network |
Personal contact |
User-friendly format |
Computer skills |
Discussion/Interaction |
Round 3 Results
The third round questionnaire presented the lists of
top 10 indicators and asked panelists to indicate
their rank preferences. The factor receiving the
highest rating in the Round 2 survey was placed in
the number 1 position, and the factor receiving the
lowest rating was placed in the number 10 position
as shown in Table 2. Panelists were asked to rank
each item from 1 to 10 to indicate the level of
importance of each of the factors in contributing to
student retention in online courses. The most
important factor received a ranking of 1, and the
least important factor was ranked 10.
In order to determine the rank order of factors in
the Round 3 survey, the researcher tabulated only
the top 5 totals for each factor. The frequency
with which each factor received a particular ranking
between 1 and 5 was tallied to determine how many
panelists indicated that that factor should be
listed among the top 5 of the 10 factors listed.
Table 3 shows the rankings of each of the top ten
factors as indicated by each group.
Table 3. Round 3 Top 10 Retention Factors
Rank |
Administrators |
Faculty |
Students |
1 |
Self-discipline |
Self-motivation |
Convenience/Flexibility |
2 |
Responsiveness of instructor/Prompt feedback |
Clearly-stated requirements |
Time management |
3 |
Self-motivation |
Student-teacher interaction |
Clearly-stated requirements |
4 |
Computer access |
Computer access |
Independent learning/ Responsibility |
5 |
Basic computer skills |
User-friendly format |
Technical support |
6 |
Clearly-stated requirements |
Discipline |
Course design |
7 |
Reading ability |
Computer skills |
Accessibility |
8 |
Time management (-1) |
Outside assistance |
Personal contact |
9 |
Instructors (-2) |
Reliable server |
Discussion/Interaction |
10 |
Convenience/Flexibility |
Time |
User-friendly format |
In the administrators’ group, Time Management,
Instructors, and Convenience/Flexibility received
high rankings from those who ranked these factors as
important at any level from 1 to 10; however, not
all panelists ranked these factors as important at
any level. Eight of the nine panelists ranked Time
Management; 7 of the 9 panelists ranked Instructors
as important, and 7 of the 9 panelists ranked
Convenience/Flexibility as important using the 1 to
10 scale. Therefore, these factors were not ranked
as high as those receiving a ranking from 100
percent of the panelists. User-Friendly Format
received the lowest ranking and was dropped from the
list.
Summary
Sixteen variant factors emerged from the responses
of the three groups. Of those 16 factors, three
appeared in all of the groups' top 10 lists. Six
factors appeared in two of the groups' top 10 lists,
and the remaining seven factors appeared in one
group's top 10 list (see Table 4). Table 4 also
indicates the ranking of each factor by group of
stakeholders.
Table 4. Comparison of Stakeholders' Top 10
Factors
Factors |
|
Administrators |
Faculty |
Students |
Computer access/ Accessibility |
|
X (4) |
X (4) |
X (7) |
Clearly-stated requirements |
|
X (6) |
X (2) |
X (3) |
Time management |
|
X (8) |
X(10) |
X (2) |
Self-discipline |
|
X (1) |
X(6) |
|
Responsiveness of Instructor/ Prompt feedback/
Student-teacher interaction |
|
X (2) |
X (3) |
|
Self-motivation
|
|
X (3) |
X (1) |
|
Basic computer skills |
|
X (5) |
X (7) |
|
Convenience/Flexibility |
|
X(10) |
|
X (1) |
User-friendly format
|
|
X (5) |
X (10) |
|
Reading
ability
|
|
X (7) |
|
|
Instructors
|
|
X (8) |
|
|
Outside
assistance
|
|
|
X (8) |
|
Reliable
server
|
|
|
X (9) |
|
Independent learning/ Responsibility
|
|
|
|
X(4) |
Technical support |
|
|
|
X (5) |
Course design |
|
|
|
X (6) |
Personal contact
|
|
|
|
X (8) |
Discussion
This study focused on three questions concerning
persistence factors for students in online courses.
Question 1:
What indicators influence student persistence in a
community college online course according to
internal stakeholders, and what importance do the
stakeholders place on each of the indicators?
The administrators' ranking of Self-Discipline as
the most important factor along with
Self-Motivation, Computer Access, and Basic Computer
Skills as subsequent important factors suggests that
administrators value highly the learner's role and
responsibility in completing an online course. The
top five factors for faculty suggest combined
responsibility on the parts of the learner and the
instructor for creating and maintaining a positive
online learning experience. It is not surprising
that Convenience/Flexibility and Time Management
would be the most important factors in a learner's
decision to enroll in and complete an online
course. These factors represent foundational issues
of the online learning phenomenon to make education
more accessible for students who previously may not
have had such an opportunity and to expand those
opportunities beyond the boundaries of the
traditional classroom (Burnett, 2001; Milheim,
2001).
Question 2:
What are the areas of consensus among the
perceptions of the three stakeholder groups by role
(administrators, faculty, and students) in
identifying indicators that support student
persistence?
Computer Access/Accessibility, Clearly-Stated
Requirements, and Time Management are the factors
which all three groups of stakeholders indicated
important in supporting student persistence in
online courses. These are all practical
considerations which address the students' ability
to access the course and
fulfill the requirements necessary for successful
course completion. Therefore, the absence of these
factors can create situational and epistemological
barriers (Cross, 1981; Lorenzetti, 2004; Moore, et
al., 2002) to student persistence.
Question 3:
What are the areas of difference among the
perceptions of the three stakeholder groups by role
(administrators, faculty, and students) in
identifying indicators that support student
persistence?
Eight factors appeared in only one group's Round 3
list of top ten factors. The ability of the students
to read and comprehend adequately in a text-based
medium and the need for instructors who are
knowledgeable in their content and proficient with
the technology were areas of concern for only the
administrators. Likewise, only faculty expressed a
need for students to have access to people outside
of the class who can serve as resources for them.
In addition, faculty emphasized the need for the
institution to commit the financial, technological,
and personnel resources to maintain a reliable
network. This is different from the students'
concern that adequate technical support be available
to assist with technology questions and problems
which arise. This is a natural concern for students
who may feel alone and frustrated in cyberspace
during non-business hours. It is surprising that
faculty did not indicate this issue as a concern
since they as course instructors are the primary
recipients of technical questions and complaints.
While a Reliable Server and Technical Support are
not synonymous factors, they do reflect a valid
concern for technological issues which directly
impact students' ability to successfully participate
in an online course. Where such difficulties exist,
students are less likely to persist. Only the
student group indicated Course Design as a factor
influencing student persistence. This included
primarily a concern for the number and types of
activities and assignments included in the online
courses. Also, only the students indicated a
possible need for some type of personal contact
(i.e., personal conference or telephone conference)
with the instructor in an otherwise totally online
environment.
Conclusion
Based on the results of this study, the
administrators’ and faculty’s ideas about factors
which influence student persistence in online
courses are closely aligned while the students’
factors present a different perspective. These are
not surprising results since the ideas of the
administrators and faculty develop from an
institutional/instructional perspective, and those
of the students emerge from a more personal
perspective of convenience and practicality. Since
students take online courses mainly for the sake of
convenience instead of the academic experience
alone, when situational barriers arise which affect
their ability to successfully integrate educational
pursuits with personal obligations, their priorities
tend toward the personal.
From an instructional standpoint, each course offers
a unique learning experience in which students are
expected to participate at maximum level to derive
maximum benefits. This means that self-discipline,
self-motivation, adequate time, appropriate
technology, and adequate technological skills are
all required commitments to the learning process.
Therefore, when a student enrolls in an online
course, there is the presumption that such a
commitment has been made. To the students, however,
each course represents an advance toward an overall
goal whether it be a degree, a career advancement,
or other form of self-fulfillment. The online
course is merely a vehicle of convenience which best
fits with the students’ lifestyles. While some
students may strive to excel in their courses, other
life challenges equal that of or take priority over
academic coursework. When these differences in
perspectives collide, persistence issues can
result. Community colleges offer online courses
with the understanding that convenience and
flexibility are attractive drawing points. The
level of flexibility, however, varies with each
course, and rarely is a course designed around the
convenience/flexibility factor. Students, on the
other hand, enroll in online courses primarily
because of the convenience/flexibility factor. When
course activities and requirements conflict with
convenience and flexibility, students tend to
neglect or leave the courses.
The same is true of other areas where the students’
expectations or goals for the course conflict with
those of the institution/faculty. Students who
matriculate in online courses are less likely to
inquire and follow up about institutional processes
and technological concerns if they feel they will
have to expend a great deal of time and effort to
resolve issues. That process could be troublesome
to the online student for a number of reasons. For
one, the sense of immediacy may not be as prevalent
with the online student as with the student who
frequents the campus to initiate actions to resolve
problems. Thus, prolonged procrastination
ultimately leads to inevitable separation from the
course or institution as the issues remain
unresolved. Secondly, the anonymity which is so
advantageous in the online course becomes a
detriment as these students may feel isolated as
faceless entities to college personnel who deal with
them on an impersonal level. They may feel ignored
or less important than the traditional students
whose mere presence on campus commands attention.
They may feel the only way to satisfactorily solve
their problems is to visit the campus, which may be
time and cost prohibitive. Thus, attrition becomes
the solution.
Recommendations
The information collected from this study can be
used by individual community college administrators,
faculty, and staff as they develop new and
strengthen existing online retention initiatives.
Specific aspects of these initiatives could range
from the allocation of funds for technology upgrades
and technology support personnel to professional
development programs for new and veteran online
faculty. Training for college personnel should
include attention to principles of adult learning
and best practices for online learning. These would
include course development strategies which
emphasize the need for less rigid, more flexible
scheduling options within the courses and careful
selection of course activities to eliminate those
events which constitute busy work and do not
directly impact student learning. Institutions could
also use this information as the impetus to
ascertain that online students have the same access
to resources and student services (i.e., library
services, bookstores, financial aid, counseling,
etc.) that on-campus students have and that these
students are served efficiently.
Consideration could also be given to the
establishment of student support strategies which
offer face-to-face or online orientation programs
for new online students. These programs could
emphasize not only the technological concerns which
confront students but also those strategies for
learner success which are germane to online
learning. Components might include a list of
services available to the student, points of contact
for issues which may arise, and guidelines for
addressing or resolving issues expeditiously.
Assessments for online learning readiness and
aptitude could also be made available to prospective
students prior to enrollment in an online course.
If students know what to expect before they enroll
in a course, attrition rates will likely fall, a
result that can only benefit students, faculty, and
institutions.
References
Alexander, J. O. (1999, October). Collaborative
design, constructivist learning, information
technology immersion, & electronic communities: A
case study. Interpersonal computing and
technology: An electronic journal for the 21st
century, 7(1-2). Retrieved on January 14, 2005,
from
http://ww.emoderators.com/ipct-j/1999/n1-2/alexander.html
Andranovich, G. (1995, March). Developing community
participation and consensus: The Delphi technique.
Retrieved on May 3, 2004, from Washington
State University: Partnerships in education and
research.
http://cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/wrep0131/wrep0131.html
Bass, L., & Ritting, L. (n. d.). Technology in
education. Retrieved on July 20, 2004, from
http://www.uri.edu/personal/lbas2219/
Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective
teaching with technology in higher education:
Foundations for success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bathe, J. (2001). Love it, hate it, or don’t
care: Views on online learning. Retrieved on
December 15, 2005, from the ERIC database. (ERIC
Document Number ED463805)
Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically
reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burnett, K. (2001, August). Interaction and student
retention, success and satisfaction in Web-based
learning. In Libraries and Librarians: Making a
Difference in the Knowledge Age. Council and
General Conference: Conference Programme and
Proceedings, Boston, MA. Retrieved on December
15, 2005, from the ERIC database. (ERIC Document
Number ED459798)
Chen, Yu-Chien. (2004, October.). Building an
online learning community. Paper presented at
the meeting of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology, Chicago, IL.
Retrieved on December 15, 2005, from the ERIC
database. (ERIC Document Number ED485055)
Conrad, R. M., & Donaldson, J. A. (2004).
Engaging the online learner: Activities and
resources for creative instruction. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cross, P. (1981). Adults as learners. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dahl, J. (2004, August). Strategies for 100 percent
retention: Feedback, interaction. Distance
Education
Report, 8(16).
Retrieved on December 8, 2005, from Academic Search
Premier database.
Franklin, L. (2001, November). Creating and
sustaining online learning communities in the
community college. Connecting: Teaching with
technology in the VCCS. Retrieved on August 19,
2005, from Virginia Community College System.
http://connecting.vccs.edu/feature-1.htm
Gaide, S. (2004, August). Community college
identifies student expectations as key element in
online retention. Distance Education Report,
8(15). Retrieved on November 9, 2005, from
Academic Search Premier database.
Hart, G. (2001). Some perspectives on
establishing online learning communities.
Retrieved on March 7, 2005, from
http://booboowebct.com/2001/papers/Hart.pdf
Hill, J. R., & Raven, A. (2000, October). Online
learning communities: If you build them, will they
stay? Retrieved on February 5, 2005, from
University of Georgia.
http://itech1coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper46/paper46.htm
Howard, D. (2003). The rewards of effective
facilitation of online learners. World
Association of Online Education. Retrieved on March
7, 2005, from
http://www.dianehoward.com/Rewards_Effective_Facilitation_Online.htm
Inman, E., Kerwin, M., & Mayes, L. (1999, June).
Instructor and student attitudes toward distance
learning. Community College Journal of Research
and Practice, 23, 581-591.
Jones, B., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen,
C. (1994). Designing learning and technology for
educational reform. Oak Brook IL: North Central
Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved on
February 28, 2008, from the ERIC database. (ERIC
Document Number ED378940)
Lock, J. V. (2003, June). Designing online courses
that foster the development of learning
communities. Retrieved on March 7, 2005, from
http://www.cade-aced2003.ca/conference_proceedings/Lock.pdf
Lorenzetti, J. P. (2004, April). To drop or not to
drop: Findings from West Texas A&M University.
Distance Education Report, 8(8). Retrieved on
December 8, 2005, from Academic Search Premier
database.
Lorenzetti, J. P. (2005a, March). Lessons learned
about student issues in online learning. Distance
Education Report, 9(6). Retrieved on November
4, 2005, from Academic Search Premier database.
Lorenzetti, J. P. (2005b, June). Secrets of online
success: Lessons from the community colleges.
Distance Education Report, 9(11).
Retrieved on November 11, 2005, from Academic Search
Premier database.
Milheim, W. (2001, November). Faculty and
administrative strategies for the effective
implementation of distance education. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5).
Retrieved on December 15, 2005, from Academic Search
Elite database.
Moore, K., Bartkovich, J., Fetzner, M., & Ison, S.
(2002, June). Success in cyberspace: Student
retention in online courses. Paper presented at
the Annual Forum for the Association for
Institutional Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Retrieved on December 13, 2005, from the ERIC
database. (ERIC Document Number ED472473)
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance
education: A systems view. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Nesler, M. S. (1999, November). Factors
Associated with Retention in a Distance-Based
Liberal Arts Program. Paper presented at the
North East Association for Institutional Research
Conference, Newport, RI. Retrieved on December 12,
2005, from the ERIC database. (ERIC Number ED442440)
O’Brien, B. S., & Renner, A. L. (2002, June).
Online student retention: Can it be done? In
ED-MEDIA 2002 World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications:
Proceeding, Denver, CO. Retrieved on December
12, 2005 from the ERIC database. (ERIC Document
Number ED477076)
Palloff R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building
learning communities in cyberspace Effective
strategies for the online classroom. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual
student: A profile and guide to working with online
learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Santovec, M. L. (2004, April). Virtual learning
communities lead to 80 percent retention at WGA.
Distance Education Report, 8(8). Retrieved on
December 8, 2005, from Academic Search Premier
database.
Schweir, R. A. (2002). Shaping the metaphor of
community in online learning environments.
Retrieved on March 7, 2005, from
http://cde.athabascau.ca/ISEC2002/papers/schwier.pdf
Stark, S., & Warren, T. (1999, Oct.). ‘Connecting’
the distance: relational issues for participants in
a distance learning program. Journal of Further
and Higher Education, 23(3). Retrieved
on December 15, 2005, from Academic Search Elite
database.
Stilborne, L., & Williams, L. (1996, April).
Meeting the needs of adult learners in developing
courses for the Internet. Retrieved on July 14,
2004, from
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/whatis/conferences/inet/96/proceedings/c4/c4_2htm
Stover, C. (2005, August). Measuring—and
understanding—student retention. Distance
Education Report, 9(16). Retrieved on December
8, 2005, from Academic Search Premier database.
Tait, J. (2004, Feb.). The tutor/facilitator role in
student retention. Open Learning, 19(1).
Retrieved on December 13, 2005, from Academic Search
Elite database.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking
the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd
ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Valasek, T. (2001). Student persistence in
web-based courses: Identifying a profile for
success. For a Raritan Valley Community College
Center for the Advancement of Innovative Teaching
and Learning (CAITL) In-College Sabbatical.
Retrieved on December 8, 2005, from the ERIC
database. (ERIC Number ED466276)
|