Introduction
Successful completion of a course or program has
been a grave concern for distance educators
(Tyler-Smith, 2006; Rovai, 2003; Carr, 2000; Taylor
et al., 1993; Bullen, 1996; Galusha, 1996) because
distance education (DE) students have significantly
higher rates of attrition (drop out) than their
face-to-face counterparts (Bernard et al., 2004;
Kember, 1996). DE students are at least 10 to 20
percent more likely to drop out than face-to-face
students, with reasons ranging from a lack of
communication and interaction with faculty (Carr,
2000), long turnaround time for faculty feedback
(Taylor et al., 1993), course content not well
suited for distance delivery (Bullen, 1996), and
poorly designed course materials (Galusha,1996).
Persisting in one’s course or program is a vital
aspect of learner success (Cookson, 1990), and thus
developing strategies to combat the high levels of
attrition in DE is imperative for the field.
Traditional face-to-face undergraduate institutions
have long determined that properly orientating new
students from high school, for example, to their new
college or university learning environment, has an
overall positive effect on the persistence of these
students (Tinto, 1985; 1998). With the advent of new
technologies, the traditional delivery of
orientation events (e.g. ‘welcome sessions’, ‘frosh’
week) can now be contrasted with new,
internet-facilitated methods. This paper reports on
a study of the perceptions of first-time, online,
undergraduate students’ on orientation events geared
at preparing them for their new online learning
experience. In this paper the author presents the
findings of a study conducted at an online division
of a large, urban, Canadian university, in which
the reasons for engaging (as well as not engaging)
in three separate orientation events for online DE
were investigated. These three events were as
follows: a traditional, face-to-face, synchronous,
real-time event (an orientation session); an online
asynchronous, delayed-time event (a pre-recorded
course orientation video); and an online
synchronous, real-time event (a webinar titled
“Getting Ready for Online Learning).
Literature Survey
Persistence and Orientation
Tinto’s (1975) model of student integration has
provided a framework to understanding persistence
and attrition in traditional undergraduate courses
and programs. The model notes that students must be
integrated both academically and socially to
increase the likelihood of their persistence. Tinto
(1975) stated that the importance of interactions
with peers and faculty, and the need for students to
feel as part of the learning community (and not at
odds with it) is integral for persistence.
Additionally, Tinto (1998) noted that this academic
and social involvement is most important for
students during the first year of college, when the
“transition to college is not yet complete and
personal affiliations are not yet cemented.” (p.
169), and consequently when drop out is highest.
As a result of Tinto’s work, many face-to-face
colleges and universities presently offer various
orientation events to help new students join into
the college or university community. The type of
orientation event can range from formal orientation
sessions or workshops to informal ‘meet and greets’.
These interventions are typically ‘face-to-face’,
and thus may not be optimal for online DE students.
Differences between the two populations
(face-to-face and online DE) in aspects, such as
goal and institutional commitments, can make social
integration very different for students in DE (Rovai,
2003). To address persistence, DE institutions need
to:
(1) ensure students’ social and academic integration
(Kember, Lai, Murphy, Siaw, and Yuen, 1994);
(2) do so within the first year of instruction
(Tyler-Smith, 2006); and
(3) do so taking into account the specific
attributes of the online undergraduate DE student
population.
Social Integration in DE
To promote intimacy by building a feeling of
community students synchronous discussions have been
found to be helpful (Maples, Groenke and Dunlap,
2005; Motteram, 2001; Im & Lee, 2003). Synchronous
communication is defined as communication that
occurs at the same time and [virtual] place
(Bernard, Abrami, Lou, and Borokhovski, 2004). This
communication can be mediated through
video-conferencing, audio-conferencing (e.g. VoIP),
computer-conferencing, and/or a combination of these
tools. In online DE, synchronous discussions are
facilitated by synchronous communication tools.
Examples of these tools include readily available
(and free) applications such as MSN Messenger™
(which allows participants to converse either in
text or by voice), as well as integrated components
in Course Management Systems (CMS) such as
FirstClass ™, WebCT Vista™ and BlackBoard™, which
typically permit text-based chats. Virtual classroom
software, such as Elluminate™ and Adobe Connect™,
are intended to create an online environment that
mimics many of the characteristics of a classroom,
using text, voice, and video communication. Some
virtual classroom software also allows users to
perform tasks such as collaboratively updating
files, sending and receiving files, sharing the
presenter’s desktop image, and conducting polls.
Contrasting with synchronous communication is
asynchronous communication, in which neither the
instructor nor student communicate at the same
time. Online asynchronous communication can occur
through e-mail, discussion boards, posted course
materials (such as a published PowerPoint™
presentation from an instructor), and websites,
blogs and wikis, where participants can read and
contribute material at their convenience (Carliner,
2002). Asynchronous DE has been found to outperform
their synchronous counterparts on levels of
achievement; however, not surprisingly, incidences
of drop out are substantially higher in asynchronous
DE than in synchronous DE (Bernard, Abrami, Lou, and
Borokhovski, 2004). Synchronous components have been
found to help students as they cross over from a
face-to-face learning environment to an online
learning environment (Garrison et al., 2003), which
implies that orientation sessions geared towards
facilitating social integrationshould involve synchronous components, and
when content needs to be learned asynchronous
components should be involved.
Orientation for online students
Since most DE programs now leverage online
technologies, DE students typically are online
students. Studies have suggested that what is needed
to properly orient an online learner is
systematically teaching skills needed to be
successful learners in their online environment
(Salmon, 1998). Online students require a different
set of learning skills than those required for
face-to-face learning, orientation events designed
for this group need to be geared towards this
different skill set. Motteram and Forrester's (2005)
qualitative investigation of online student
experiences of orientation events, suggests that
orientation should take place online, but some
students may need face-to-face interaction to
quickly resolve issues. A new technology that may
help to address this need to develop online
orientation events is webinar technology.
Webinars (web-based seminars), are online
synchronous events that use multimedia technology to
host online seminars. Webinars run on a
participant's computer, after they download the
multimedia application and connect to a secure
server. Webinar software typically includes the
following features: a list of participants in the
webinar (viewable by all participants); a forum for
text chats; a two-way audio and video feed; and a
presentation area which is typically used to show
slides (e.g. from a PowerPoint™ presentation). This
presentation area also facilitates showing the
moderator’s desktop to the participants, who often
have the ability to share files and to conduct polls
where participants can answer questions in the form
of multiple choice and yes/no responses. Examples of
web conferencing software used for webinars include
Elluminate™, Adobe Connect™ (formerly Breeze), and
Microsoft Live Meeting™.
The challenge for institutions that offer onl
courses is to design an orientation event that can
positively impact online student persistence. This
paper presents the perceptions of such events by a
group of online undergraduate students. The research
questions to address these perceptions were:
1)
What did students perceive as their biggest
fear to online learning when they registered for
their first online course?
2)
What were the reasons that students gave for
engaging or not engaging in orientation events and
how did this relate to their perception of their
usefulness.
Methods
This study was conducted at the distance education
division of a large, urban university in Canada,
during the winter term of the 2006-2007 academic
year. This university offers approximately 20 online
undergraduate credit courses per semester, aimed at
traditional undergraduate students enrolled at the
university (typically ages 19 through 24) and
returning adults who are continuing their education
(ages 25 and over, and often working part-or
full-time; many also have families). Course topics
range from political science to philosophy and from
chemistry to economics. Most of the courses support
existing face-to-face degree programs in a given
academic year.
One of the reasons that this online division of the
university was chosen as the research site was that
it had two of the three modes of induction
(orientation) implemented prior to the study.
Specifically, they had already implemented a
face-to-face orientation sessions for new students
that is delivered at the beginning of the academic
school year (in September) and an asynchronous
pre-recorded course orientation video made by the
instructor of each course. Additionally, the
division had conducted research on attrition the
previous year, and so the instrument (an online
survey) could be modified and re-administered to
examine a new kind of orientation - a webinar.
Participants
Two sets of participants were recruited. The first
set of participants voluntarily enrolled in a
webinar entitled “Getting Ready for Online
Learning”, that the author developed and
administered. These participants were invited (by
mass e-mail to the online student community ~4500
students) to participate in a webinar for new
students that would address issues of how to succeed
in an online course and provide an opportunity to
communicate and interact with other students.
In total, there were 22 participants in the webinar.
The second set of participants responded to an
online survey sent to the online student community
(n= ~4500) a week before the deadline to drop
courses without penalty. This survey, which was
modified to include questions related to the
perceptions of the orientation interventions, was
responded to by 533 students, of which 207 were
identified as first time online learners.
The Webinar
The 60-minute webinar was conducted at the onset of
the term, and was delivered using the virtual
classroom software vClass from Elluminate Live! The
objectives of the session were to ensure that, at
the end of the session participants would be able
to:
·
Prepare an ergonomically sound work area
·
Create an online-learning file system on their
desktop
·
Create a learning schedule to plan and manage their
semester.
·
Communicate effectively in their online course.
·
Access the university's online research tools
·
Access and utilize online division's guide to online
learning
The Survey
The survey consisted of 50 Likert scale questionsand five open ended questions. The Likert
scale questions used an assessment key with the
values: 0-have no opinion; 1-strongly disagree;
2-disagree; 3-agree; 4-strongly agree. The data
retrieved for this study came from the open
questions on the survey, which were as follows:
1)
List the main reason(s) that would cause you
to drop this course. (examples: poor performance on
midterm, fell behind in the course, procrastinated
too much, commitments at home...):
2)
I attended the orientation session at the
beginning of the semester. If yes, please state what
you liked/disliked about it. If not, please state
why you did not attend.
3)
I watched the orientation video for my
course. If yes, please state what you liked/disliked
about it. If not, please state why you did not watch
it.
These open questions were specifically geared to
ascertain the perceptions that students had about
the two orientation events, the face-to-face
orientation session and the pre-recorded orientation
video.
The face-to-face orientation session was held
in-person at the beginning of the school year. The
session provided an overview of a number of
practical issues associated with taking online
courses, such as how students register and what to
expect from an online course. The pre-recorded
orientation video was a recording of the course
instructor, who provided a background of the course
topics and an overview of what was expected in the
course.
Students viewed these online course videos
asynchronously online. These one-way video feeds
were made available to students in the “Getting
Started” section of their online course.
Results
The data analysis was conducted separately on the
two sets of participants: the webinar participants
and the year-0 or year-1 survey respondents.
Results from the Webinar
Some demographic information about the group was
retrieved during the webinar using the polling
feature in the application. This revealed that 37%
indicated that they were in their first year of
online learning, 16% were in their second year and
21% were in their third year (26% did not respond).
36% of webinar participants indicated that they were
under 24 years, and 36% indicated they were older
that 24 years (26% did not respond). To determine
the perceptions about the webinar, the transcript of
the session was reviewed, and specific responses to
particular questions were grouped and for similar
responses. Additionally, unsolicited comments about
the webinar that were received by email were also
reviewed.To
ascertain what perceptions participating students
had about online learning, open responses (n=14)
retrieved during the webinar were grouped based
recurring themes in the statements. The groups of
responses reflected that interaction (n=5),
scheduling issues e.g., effective time management
(n=5), and technology-related issues (n=3) were the
most common fear that the students reported they had
when embarked on their first online course.
Administrative (n=1) and academic issues e.g.
understanding of content (n=1) were also concerns.
At the end of the session, the group was asked what
they would ‘take away’ from the session, addressing
the perceived usefulness of the webinar. All the
comments received were positive, however,
participants may have felt uncomfortable posting
negative comments given that there was only a
relative amount of anonymity because some real names
(not aliases) were attached to the comments. The
usefulness of addressing issues such as time
management and using the discussion tools were
reported.
Some of these comments are presented in Figure 1.
About the Discussion Boards:
“I will be far more active in the discussion
boards”
“I'll be using discussion boards more as well,
and coordinate elearning with my work schedule”
“…has given me more confidence in future to
participate in these sessions”
About Time Management:
“thank you, it was good to know how to begin
to organize”
“take time to do weekly planning and monthly
planning and semester planning!”
About further uses of webinars:
“very useful overview of the resources
available to students. I’d suggest that each
course hold a webinar at the start of term”
“yes, it would be good to have something like
this again”
“we should do a part II” |
Figure 1: Categorized Webinar Responses
Results from the General Survey
The responses to the open questions on the online
survey were grouped and coded for apparent emergent
themes. To ensure reliability, a co-rater reviewed
randomly selected responses and grouped them
according to the themes that had been extracted by
the primary researcher. There was a 95% reliability
rating achieved. Descriptive statistics about the
group was also attained via the Likert scale
responses; however, there was no specific
information regarding the perceptions of the
orientation events solicited in the questions on
this survey, and thus were not included in the final
analysis.
In response to the question that asked for potential
reasons why a student may withdraw (drop out) from
an online course, several themes emerged in the
responses:
-
31% of respondents (n=65) mentioned
procrastination as a main reason. One participant
responded “[If I]
Fell so behind in the course that I couldn't catch
up at all”.
-
24% (n=49) mentioned evaluation components such as
poor marks on midterm.
-
One participant stated “A
poor grade on any assignment or quiz would prompt
me to drop the course.”
-
13% (n=26) could not specify a reason, but stated
they would not be dropping the course. One
participant stated “I don't believe in dropping
courses - period!!!!”.
-
12% (n=25) mentioned course content being a main
reason. One participant stated “The
main reason I would drop an online course would be
because it does not interest me and the material
is too hard to understand”.
·
8% (n=17) cited oer commitments such as work as
being a main reason for dropping. One participant
stated “The reason I would drop the course would
be if I had too many other commitments…”.
-
7% (n=14) gave no answer at all.
-
1% (n=3) mentioned poor instruction as a reason.
-
One participant mentioned that technical problems
as a main reason.
Table 1 summarizes these results.
Emergent Theme |
Number of responses (n=207) |
Evaluation
– poor results on midterm or assignments
|
65 (31%) |
Time Management
- procrastination, falling behind etc. |
49 (24%) |
No reason...not dropping course |
26 (13%) |
Content
– too much, too hard etc. |
25 (12%) |
Other commitments
– both personal and professional |
17 (8%) |
Interaction
- too little/no interaction |
8 (4%) |
Instruction
- poor or no instruction/resources |
3 (1%) |
Technical problems |
1 (0%) |
No answer |
14 (7%) |
Table 1: Summary of
potential
reasons for dropping an online course
To the question, “I attended the [face-to-face]
orientation session at the beginning of the
semester. If yes, please state what you
liked/disliked about it. If not, please state why
you did not attend”:
·
86% of first time students stated that they did not
attend (n=179). Of these students, the reasons
given as to why they did not attend fell into seven
categories.
·
26% (n=55), belonged to the theme “Did not attend
because of other commitments”.
One participant
stated “I
did not attend it because I had other obligations
(work).”
·
20.2% (n=42) did not attend but did not provide a
reason why.
·
15% (n=31) did not attend because they were late in
registering, or they had heard about the orientation
too late. One participant responded “I didn't attend
because I registered after the orientation date.”
·
13% (n=27) did not attend because their expectations
about the orientation session were low. One
participant stated “I didn't attend the orientation
session because all the information was already
available online and because I took an online course
specifically to avoid having to go to school.”
·
5.3% (n=11) did not know that there was an
orientation session.
·
4.3% (n=9) did not attend the session because of
location. For example one student remarked, ``I did
not attend because I live too far away to come into
the city just for an orientation session”.
Of the 14% (n=29) of respondents who did attend the
session, an almost equal amount of students found it
useful (5.8%, n=12), as not useful (6.3%, n=13). A
small number of respondents attended but did not
provide any feedback about it (1.9%, n=4). Table
2 summarizes these results.
Emergent Theme |
Number of responses (n=207) |
Did not attend because of other commitments
|
55 (26.4%) |
Did not attend (no reason) |
42 (20.2%) |
Did not attend because registered (or heard
about it) late |
31 (14.9%) |
Did not attend because they had low expectations |
27 (13%) |
Did not attend because they did not know about
it |
11 (5.8%) |
Did not attend because of –location |
9 (4.3%) |
Did not attend – various reasons |
4 (1.9%) |
Did attend – found session useful |
12 (5.8%) |
Did attend – was disappointed |
13 (6.3%) |
Did attend but did not provide feedback |
4 (1.9%) |
Table 2: Summary of Reasons for Not Attending the
Face-to-Face Orientation Session
In response to the question, “I watched
the orientation video for my course. If yes, please
state what you liked or disliked about it. If not,
please state why you did not watch it”, 80.7%
(n=167) first time online learners stated that they
watched the video. Their responses were categorized
by three emergent themes.
·
Most (50.2% of all respondents, n=104) had a
positive experience with the video. One participant
remarked “I did see it, and thought it was helpful.
It gave me an insight about the program”, another
participant stated that “I liked that we got to see
the instructor. I think that's who he was. It made
it a bit more personal.”
·
A smaller number (13.5%, n=28) of respondents had
either mixed or neutral feelings about the video,
for example one participant stated “I did watch the
orientation video, but to be honest there was
nothing that I liked or disliked about it”.
·
A comparable group (13%, n=27) watched the video but
had a negative response to it. For example one
participant stated, “I watched the video and found
that the professor seems too mechanized. I think
that there should be more life put into the videos
and an effort should be made so that the professors
do not make it obvious that they are reading off a
screen.”
·
Eight (8) students (3.9%) watched the video but did
not elaborate on their experience.
Reasons that students did not watch the video fell
into three emergent themes:
·
5.8% (n=12) had low expectations of the video and
did not watch as a result. For example one student
mentioned “I watched about 30 seconds of it. It was
too slow and monotone for me. I believe that
although this is an online course, the instructor's
orientation should at least be interesting and
enthusiastic which would promote the class.”
·
Five students (2.4%) had difficulties viewing the
video.
·
Four students (1.9%) did not watch because of time
commitments, for example one participant stated “I
did not watch it because I never got around to it.”
The remainder of the students (8.7%, n=18) did not
watch the video, but did not elaborate as to why.
Table 3 summarizes the results.
Emergent Theme |
Number of responses (n=207) |
Viewed the video – positive experience |
104 (50.2%) |
Viewed the video – neutral/mixed feelings
|
28 (13.5%) |
Viewed the video - negative experience |
27 (13%) |
Viewed the video – no reason |
8 (3.9%) |
Did not view the video - no reason |
18 (8.7%) |
Did not view the video - low expectations |
12 (5.8%) |
Did not view the video - technology |
5 (2.4%) |
Did not view the video - time commitments |
4 (1.9%) |
Did not view the video – late |
1 (0.5%) |
Table 3: Summary of Responses
to the Question about the Course Orientation Video
Discussion
Student perceptions of the webinar
Although 60 students had initially signed up to
participate in the webinar, only 22 participated.
When non-attendees were asked why they did not
attend, students cited technical difficulties and
unforeseen circumstances, in which something
unexpected came up—essentially the same primary
reason for not attending the face-to-face
orientation session (discussed later in this
section). This suggests that the “anywhere,
anytime” model of distance education applies not
only to the courses, but possibly also to
orientation events. Social integration that during
the webinar was difficult to quantify given the
small number of participants and the ‘one-time’
aspect of the event; however, the sharing of fears
and concerns about online learning, the shared
experience of the webinar, and the group reflection
of ‘take aways’ at the end of the webinar did
exhibit signs that social integration had occurred
within the group. These signs included the results
from the 'take aways' prompted in the webinar as
well as unprompted ‘thank you’ e-mails from
participants after the webinar to the author.
Student perceptions of the face-to-face orientation
session
Results
revealed that most first-time online learners that
participated in this study did not attend
face-to-face orientation sessions (81% of those
asked did not attend). The primary reason given for
not attending was
‘Other Commitments’. This is not surprising given
that it has been well documented in the literature
that many individuals choose distance education
because of the convenience of the “anywhere,
anytime” model. Other themes that emerged in
descending order were as follows: the students’
registering late (and therefore, after the session
was held); low expectations; and location. Of those
respondents who did attend, an almost equal number
of students found the session useful as not useful.
Student perceptions of the online course orientation
video
Results
revealed that most (81%) students viewed the videos
in their entirety, and of these 169 students, only
27 (16%) did not like the video. The rest enjoyed
the video, did not comment, or were indifferent. One
student remarked, “I
thought the orientation video was a nice
introduction to begin the semester, just like
teachers do in a classroom environment.”.
What is evident from these results is that students
primarily respond positively to having an
introduction to what is ahead, much like what they
would expect in a face-to-face class. Additionally,
having the video within the course area is an
orientation activity in which most first-time
learners voluntarily engage. When investigating the
reasons for viewing the video, students cite the
convenience, availability, and usefulness of the
information provided.
Limitations of the Study
Several potential
limitations affect this study. One is that while
some inferences could be made with regard to the
perceptions of the attendees of the webinar, the
small number of participants makes these perceptions
non-transferable to a larger population.
Also, the webinar was the first of its kind at this
institution, and thus aptly, there were lessons
learned during this experience. One important lesson
was the need to have an orientation webinar as a
component of each course, embedded within the online
course area. It would seem that students did not
perceive the value-added from webinar participation,
hence the low registration rate, so by expressing
its potential value within the context of the
course, may have had increased participation
results. Another limitation of this study was
incurred by costs. Webinar hosting can be an
expensive endeavor for an institution, and in this
case only one webinar was granted by the host to
conduct this study. A full year, unrestricted
license would be needed to develop administrative
expertise in facilitating orientation webinars.
Additionally, such a license would be needed to gain
a full composite picture of the effects of the
webinars on, for example, the persistence of new
students. Last, the lack of co-rater reliability
obtained from the webinar response groupings also
compromises the validity of the results.
Conclusion
This study investigated the perceptions new online
students at the undergraduate level had of
orientation events. These orientation events were
all geared to help ease the transition of these
students from a traditional face-to-face learning
environment to an online learning environment. The
need to address comes from the higher levels of drop
out experienced by these students. It is widely
accepted that orientation events, as suggested by
Tinto (1975) and others, do help combat attrition
(drop out). By providing new students with the
information they need to successfully embark on
their academic journey, and also by helping create a
sense of community for students, these orientation
events provide the support that students often need
in order to persist.
This study showed that while webinars have great
potential to increase social integration of
students, the low registration and participation
imply that the perceived benefits are low for
first-time online learners. Additionally, as the
term progresses, this need for online students to
socially integrate may likely increase, but being at
the onset of the semester, and not course related,
this social integration would likely have a marginal
effect on students. Additionally, because the
webinar was not attached to the courses that
students were registered for, students likely did
not perceive the webinar as an integral aspect of
their learning. Perhaps if these webinars were
offered periodically throughout a program, where
students could become part of a learning cohort,
sharing their learning experiences as they progress
through a course or program, webinars could
effectively increase social integration of these
online learning groups. This can only happen with
full upper-level administrative support, providing
not only the resources to conduct these webinars in
a timely manner and strategically placing them
within the online course area, but also allow time
for personnel to develop expertise in conducting
these webinars. A “build it and they will come”
attitude is not enough to ensure success, and it can
also end up being a costly error for those involved
(Bates, 2000). Fortunately, webinar technology can
and has been used to facilitate synchronous
communication within online teaching, and so
leveraging this technology in as many ways that one
can is advantageous to administrators as well as
online students and teachers.
This study also showed that while face-to-face
orientation sessions can be also be useful for
online students, like the webinar, their usefulness
was not highly perceived by this student population
(81% did not attend).
In contrast, the asynchronous course orientation
videos were perceived by students as useful and
important, as demonstrated by the significantly
higher proportions of students that watched the
videos (over 80% of new students). The fact that the
course video was embedded in the course area is a
likely contributor to this statistic, however
another possible contributor is that they provide
students an opportunity to “see” who their teachers
are, thus providing a sense of ‘knowing’ who their
teacher is and belonging to an actual 'class'.
Third, the current zeitgeist of online videos and
websites such as YouTube™, which is easily
accessible and also engaging for students, likely
was factor in its popularity as well. Regardless,
this method of delivery had the most effective
uptake and must be considered.
To fully understand the implications and potential
of online orientation events such as webinars,
further research is needed. Research is required to
determine what content would be most valued and
useful for new online students. Since online
students have different perceptions about the
usefulness or importance of different types of
orientation events, it is important that we continue
to investigate ways to optimally design and
delivering these events to effectively engage
students. This study has found that having an
orientation event that is online and connected to
the online course area is important if students are
to perceive the event as useful to their learning.
An orientation webinar provides an innovative way to
provide social interaction to students, as well as a
forum to discuss the challenges that online learning
may present; however, new students need to be made
aware of their potential value to their entire
learning experience if we expect them to engage.
References
Bates, T. (2000). Managing Technological Change. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Lou, Y., & Borokhovski,
E. (2004). A Methodological morass: How can we
improve the quality of quantitative research in
distance education? Distance Education, 25 (2),
175-198.
Carliner, S. (2002). An overview of online learning,
2nd (Ed.). Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age,
the challenge is keeping the students. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 46 (23),
A39-A41.
Cookson, P. (1990). Persistence in distance
education. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Contemporary issues
in American distance education (192-203). Elmsford,
New York: Pergamon Press.
Galusha, J.M. (1997). Barriers to Learning in
Distance Education. Interpersonal Computing and
Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st
Century, 5(3/4), 6-14.
Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Walter, A. (2003). A
theory of critical inquiry in online distance
education. In M. Moore and G. Kearsley (Eds.),
Handbook of Distance Education (113-127).
Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johnson-Curiskis, N. (2007, Summer) Pre-registration
for Online Courses. Journal of Online Learning
and Teaching, 3(2) Retrieved October 23rd
2007, from
https://jolt.merlot.org/vol3no2/johnson-curiskis.htm
Kember, D. (1995). Open learning courses for
adults: A model of student progress. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Kember, D., Lai, T., Murphy, D., Siaw, I., & Yuen,
K. (1994). Student progress in Distance Education
Courses: A Replication Study. Adult Education
Quarterly, 45 (1), 286-301.
Laing, C., Robinson, A. & Johnston, V. (2005).
Managing the transition into higher education – An
online Spiral Induction Programme. Active
learning in highereducation, 6 (3), 243-255.
Maples, J., Groenke, S., & Dunlap, D. (2005). The
Web Pen Pals Project: Students' perceptions of a
learning community in an Online Synchronous
Environment. Journal of Interactive Online
Learning, 4 (2), 108-128.
Motteram, G., & Forrester, G. (2005). Becoming an
online distance learner: What can be learned from
student's experiences of induction to distance
programmes? Distance Education, 26 (3),
281-298.
Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student
Barriers to Online Learning: A factor analytic
study. Distance Education, 26 (1), 29-48.
Rovai, A.P. (2003). In search of higher persistence
rated in distance education online programs.
Internet and Higher Education, 6 (1), 1-16.
Salmon, G. (1998). Student Induction and Study
Preparation. Paper presented at the Telematics in
Education Seminar, Joensuu, Finland. Retrieved July
14, 2006, from
http://atimod.com/research/presentations/Finland2.doc
Taylor, J., Barker, L., White, V., Gillard, G.,
Kaufmann, D., Khan, A., & Mezger, R. (1993). Student
persistence in Distance Education: cross cultural
multi-institutional perspective. In Harry, K., John,
M., & Keegan, D. (Eds.), Distance Education New
Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge.
Tinto, V. (1975). Drop out from Higher Education: A
Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research. Review
of Educational Research, 45 (1), 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as Communities: Taking
research on student persistence seriously. The
Review of Higher Education, 21 (2), 167-177.
Tyler-Smith, K. (2006, Summer). Early Attrition
among First Time eLearners: A review of Factors
that Contribute to Drop out, Withdrawal and
Non-completion Rates of Adult Learners undertaking
elearning Programs. Journal of Online Learning
and Teaching, 2(2). Retrieved October 23rd
2007, from
https://jolt.merlot.org/Vol2_No2_TylerSmith.htm
Vesely, P., Bloom, L., & Sherlock, J. (2007, Fall)
Key Elements of Building online Community: Comparing
Faculty and Student Perceptions. Journal of
Online Teaching and Learning, 3(3) Retrieved
October 23rd 2007, from
https://jolt.merlot.org/vol3no3/vesely.htm
|