Online
Human Touch (OHT) Instruction and Programming: A
Conceptual Framework to Increase Student Engagement and
Retention in Online Education, Part 1
Kristen Betts
Drexel University
School of Education
Philadelphia, PA USA
kbetts@drexel.edu
|
Abstract
The long-term sustainability of online degree
programs is highly dependent upon student enrollment
and retention. While national growth in online
education has increased approximately 10% between
2005 and 2006 to 3.5 million students, student
attrition in online programs remains higher than
on-campus traditional programs (Allen & Seaman,
2007). To proactively address student attrition, the
Master of Science in Higher Education Program at
Drexel University has developed and implemented the
concept of Online Human Touch (OHT) instruction and
programming. This interactive and personalized
approach to online education has resulted in high
student retention rates and high levels of student
satisfaction. This article is the first of a
two-part series that focuses on OHT in online
education.
Key words:
Online education, distance education, instruction,
engagement, retention, attrition, online
communities, work-integrated learning, and
communication
|
Introduction
The conceptual framework for Online Human Touch (OHT)
instruction and programming was developed in 2005 to
proactively meet the needs of a new, fully online
Master of Science in Higher Education (MSHE) Program
in the School of Education at Drexel University.
Since the student market segment for the MSHE
Program was and continues to be higher education
administrators working throughout the United States
and abroad, it was imperative that the instruction
and programming a) actively engage students, b)
incorporate work-integrated learning, c) foster and
support community development, and d) personally
connect students to Drexel University as future
alumni. Furthermore, the OHT concept was developed
to strategically assist with student retention since
national online attrition rates range from 20% to
50% (Diaz, 2002; Frankola, 2001) and even as high as
70% to 80% (Dagger & Wade, 2004; Flood, 2002).
The OHT concept asserts that students are more
likely to persist in an online program if they are
engaged in and outside of their courses and if the
educational experience is personalized. This
involves much more than simply having students
participate in discussion boards, receive emails
from faculty, or work in online groups. The OHT
concept is a holistic approach that builds upon the
program director, faculty, adjunct faculty, and
staff developing a personal connection between
Drexel University and each student. The OHT concept
begins with the first point of contact that the MSHE
Program has with a potential student during the
application process. It is a bond based on human
interaction fostered through instruction,
programming, and personalized engagement with
potential students, matriculated students, and
alumni.
Over the past 3 years, the OHT concept has continued
to evolve through the emergence of new technologies
and data collected from MSHE students, faculty,
adjunct faculty, and staff. Moreover, policies,
procedures, and guidelines that support the OHT
concept have been developed for faculty and staff to
integrate into all aspects of the MSHE Program
(i.e., recruitment, advising, orientation,
instruction, events, etc.). To date, the
implementation of OHT instruction and programming
has been successful. Since fall 2005, the MSHE
Program has grown from its first cohort of 26
students to 145 students in spring 2008. The overall
average student retention rate for the past three
years is 83% which is higher than many on-campus
programs. MSHE alumni are also actively involved in
alumni groups across the United States and often
serve as guest speakers for MSHE online courses and
events.
Review of Literature
The proliferation and increasing affordability of
technology is providing new opportunities for
individuals seeking higher education degrees. In
fact, online enrollment is outpacing overall higher
education student enrollment rates in the United
States. According to Online Nation: Five Years of
Growth in Online Learning (Allen & Seaman,
2007), the enrollment rates for online education in
fall 2006 increased 9.7% while there was only a 1.5%
enrollment increase across the entire higher
education student population. Data also reveals in
fall 2006 that nearly 20% of all higher education
students in the United States were taking at least
one online course (Allen & Seaman, 2007).
National data relating to online student attrition
is limited. According to Eduventures (2007),
“Program-level online student retention and
completion data in the public domain is almost
non-existent. Delivery mode is not a variable used
by the National Center for Education Statistics, the
main source of retention and completion data for
U.S. higher education” (p. 4).
Data regarding online student attrition varies.
Online attrition is often cited as 20% to 50% within
the literature (Diaz, 2002; Frankola, 2001).
However, the literature also reveals that attrition
can be as high as 70% to 80% (Dagger & Wade, 2004;
Flood, 2002). There are other publications that cite
online attrition to be 10% to 20% higher than
traditional on-campus programs (Angelino, Williams &
Natvig, 2007; Carr, 2000). According to the National
Center for Educational Statistics, the national
six-year graduation rate for traditional on-campus
programs is 58% for undergraduate students (Knapp,
Kelly-Reid, Ginder, & Miller, 2008) which equates to
42% attrition. By combining national undergraduate
attrition data (NCES, 2008) and online attrition
estimates (Angelino, Williams & Natvig, 2007; Carr,
2000) then the national online attrition rate would
be approximately 52% to 62%. This means that
institutions are losing half or more of all students
who enroll in online programs.
Why do online students leave? Online education
provides many challenges to students including
isolation and feeling disconnected (Angelino,
Williams, & Natvig, 2007; Bathe, 2001; Stark &
Warren, 1999). The literature also indicates that a
lack of personal interaction and support are major
reasons that lead to student attrition (Moore &
Kearsley, 1996). Additionally, online students are
not land locked to a given geographic area.
Therefore, if students are not satisfied or decide
they would like to enroll in a different program,
other nationally accredited degree programs are just
one click away.
OHT Instruction and Programming Concept
In an effort to proactively address online attrition
and create a lifelong bond with future alumni, the
OHT instruction and programming concept was
developed and implemented within Drexel University’s
MSHE Program. This personalized approach to online
education has resulted in continued program growth,
financial sustainability, high student retention
rates, active alumni participation, and national
recognition for best practices in online education
by the United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA)
in April 2008.
The conceptual framework supporting the development
of OHT instruction and programming builds upon five
areas of research including:
I.
Student Engagement
(Astin, 1984; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Tinto,
1975, 1993);
II.
Community Development
(Johnson, 2001; Palloff & Pratt, 1999;
Stanford-Bowers, 2008);
III.
Personalized Communication
(Faharani, 2003; Kruger, Epley, Parker & Ng, 2003;
Mehrabian, 1971);
IV.
Work-Integrated Learning
(Boud, 1991; Kolb & Fry, 1975; Milne, 2007); and
V.
Data Driven Decision-Making
(Cranton & Legge, 1978; Scriven, 1967).
Figure 1 illustrates the interconnection between the
five areas of research that support the OHT concept.
While each area of research independently
contributes to the overall student experience, it is
when all five areas are strategically integrated
into instruction and programming that they fully
support the conceptual underpinnings of OHT.
Figure 1. OHT Instruction and Programming Concept
An overview is provided to further describe the five
areas of research that support the OHT instruction
and programming concept. Additionally, examples are
provided to illustrate how each area of research is
integrated into OHT instruction and programming to
support the conceptual framework.
I. Student Engagement and OHT Strategies
The OHT concept builds upon Tinto’s theory of
student departure (1975, 1993). Tinto’s (1975)
research reveals that the more students are engaged
in the college community, the less likely they are
to depart. Tinto identifies lack of social and
academic integration into the college community as
factors that lead to student attrition. Further
research into student departure (Chickering & Gamson,
1987; Tinto 1993) reveals the more opportunities
provided for student engagement within the college
community, the more likely students will become
engaged and connected which consequently can lead to
greater student persistence.
Research by Chickering and Gamson (1987) identifies
frequent faculty-student contact in and outside the
classroom as the most important factor in student
motivation and involvement. However, for fully
online programs, the lack of on-campus physical
attendance provides distinct challenges since this
limits opportunities for student engagement and
involvement. This is of particular concern since
Astin’s (1975) theory of involvement reveals that
student departure is associated with noninvolvement
on-campus.
The OHT concept extends the work of Tinto (1975,
1993, 2006), Chickering and Gamson (1987) and Astin
(1984) by asserting that online students must be
involved strategically in the campus community
through instruction and programming to increase the
likelihood of student involvement. Therefore, online
programs need to identify ways in which they can
bring the campus to the students through
innovative and personalized instruction and
programming.
According to Angelino, Williams and Natvig (2007),
challenges to online education include physical
isolation, lack of support, and feeling
disconnected. Therefore, the OHT concept promotes
the development of proactive strategies that engage
students in the online environment even prior to
matriculation to encourage and foster student-campus
connectivity. Furthermore, the OHT concept promotes
integrating academic and social networking
activities into courses and programming to support
ongoing student-campus connectivity.
The OHT concept is employed by MSHE faculty, adjunct
faculty, and staff throughout the two-year program
(i.e., recruitment, advising, orientation,
instruction, events, etc.). However, there is
particular emphasis on student engagement and
personal connection to Drexel University during the
first two quarters. Since the majority of student
attrition in the MSHE Program occurs within the
first two quarters (87%), connecting students early
to peers, faculty, adjuncts, staff, and Drexel
University is critical.
Included below are four examples of how student
engagement is integrated into OHT instruction and
programming.
Student Recruitment:
Potential students who submit inquiries and
enrollment applications to the MSHE Program receive
personalized email invitations to participate in
Live Open Houses similar to on-campus programs. The
Live Open House sessions support human
interaction through personal
introductions to the MSHE Program Director, Academic
Advisor, current students, and alumni. Through an
interactive PowerPoint presentation, potential
students are engaged in polling, asking programmatic
questions, and talking with other potential
students, current MSHE students, and MSHE alumni.
These Live Open House sessions are particularly
important to cultivating a connection with potential
students since less than half of the MSHE students
(47%) reside in Pennsylvania and only 20% of all
MSHE students reside in Philadelphia. For the
majority of the MSHE students, their first time on
campus is at graduation.
Student Support Services:
The MSHE Program strategically integrates student
support services into courses. For introductory
courses, students are invited in Week 2 to attend a
Horizon Wimba Live Classroom lecture where they
introduce themselves to their classmates (optional
voice, text, or video) and they are personally
introduced to student support services staff at
Drexel University who discuss academic services
offered by their program or division. Support
services staff include (a) the Information Services
Librarian, (b) an Online Learning Support
Specialist, and (c) a representative from the
Writing Center. Each support services specialist
shares a short PowerPoint presentation highlighting
their departments’ services and then answers
questions. As students progress through the MSHE
Program, they are personally introduced
through their courses to additional student support
services specialists representing the Steinbright
Career Development Center, Office of Research
Compliance, Office of Information Resources &
Technology, and Institutional Advancement.
Links to Online Campus Events:
To further connect and engage students in the campus
community, students are invited by the MSHE Program
Director several times during the year to
participate in on-campus events that are offered
online through streaming video accessible by
electronic links. In fall 2007, students were
invited to watch the United States Democratic debate
held on Drexel University’s campus. In spring 2008,
students were invited to electronically attend an
educational technology conference held on-campus. In
June 2008, MSHE students were invited to watch
Drexel University’s graduation through a live link
to support their graduating peers. This link enabled
MSHE students who were graduating the opportunity to
share this exciting event with family members and
friends who were unable to attend the graduation
ceremony in person but wanted to be part of the
celebration.
On-campus Annual Conference:
The MSHE Program offers a one-day conference at
Drexel University to provide students with an
opportunity to physically come to the Philadelphia
campus and meet classmates, faculty, adjuncts,
staff, and administrators (Dean, Vice Presidents,
Associate Vice Presidents, and Directors). This
one-day conference includes a welcome breakfast
where all attendees introduce themselves. There are
two panel presentations. The first panel
presentation includes current students and alumni
who discuss their experience in the MSHE Program as
well as answer questions from the audience. The
second panel presentation includes faculty,
adjuncts, and administrators who discuss current and
emerging issues in higher education. Additionally,
there is a series of workshops presented throughout
the day on topical issues relating to Drexel
University (student and academic resources), the
MSHE Program, and the MSHE academic areas of
specializations (Higher Education Administration & Organizational Management;
Institutional Research & Planning; Enrollment
Management; and
Academic Development, Technology & Instruction).
Students in the MSHE Program also have an
opportunity to present workshops. The conference
concludes with a campus tour and a networking
reception. Students who are unable to come to campus
are able to watch and participate in the panel
sessions and workshops through Mediasite Live.
Recorded sessions are made available to all students
through the MSHE Resource Portal. The MSHE
conference is being expanded to include additional
online programs so students are able to academically
and socially network with students outside of the
MSHE Program to further foster ongoing student
engagement and connectivity to Drexel University.
II. Community Development and OHT Strategies
The OHT concept asserts that community development
is critical to student engagement, connectivity to
the institution, and retention in online education.
Therefore, administrators and faculty need to
develop strategies to promote and support academic
and social community development for online
students. With on-campus programs there is a natural
integration of students into freshmen seminars, core
courses, or assigned rooms in resident halls that
typically support community development. However, in
the online environment, community development must
be strategically integrated into instruction and
programming. As stated by Palloff and Pratt (1999):
It is really up to those of us involved with the use
of technology in education to redefine community,
for we truly believe we are addressing issues here
that are primal and essential to the existence of
electronic communication in the educational arena.
(p. 23)
The OHT concept builds upon the research of
Johnson (2001) and Stanford-Bowers (2008).
Literature for on-campus traditional education
programs indicates that student retention is linked
to student integration into the campus community and
the first year experience (Angelo, 1997; Tinto,
1982; Kuh, 2003). According to Johnson (2001),
student retention is linked to engagement in the
learning environment beginning the first month
on-campus. Furthermore, Johnson (2001) states, “The
chances of staying beyond the first year rise as
connections are made and academic and social
integration are achieved” (p. 220). Within online education, research by Stanford-Bowers (2008)
indicates that building community online is crucial
for influencing student persistence but just being
part of an electronic learning environment does not
guarantee community.
The OHT concept extends the research by Johnson
(2001) and Stanford-Bowers (2008) and asserts that
community development begins with the recruitment
process and continues through matriculation and
graduation. Moreover, the OHT concept purports that
students should be engaged in numerous academic and
social communities throughout their enrollment to
create a sense of inclusion. These diverse
communities increase online student involvement and
connectivity which can increase retention and
ultimately alumni engagement.
The OHT concept asserts that students must be
presented with community development opportunities
through courses and extra curricular activities.
These academic and social communities should
encourage and support student interaction on a
weekly, monthly or quarterly basis depending upon
the particular community. In an online environment,
community development relies heavily on programming,
course design, and instruction. Community
development is not simply developing a virtual
campus or an online resource portal that includes an
infinite number of electronic links to student
resources and chat rooms. Online administrators must
design meaningful opportunities for students to
interact with their peers, faculty, adjuncts, and
staff in a supportive and inclusive
environment.
Included below are four examples of how community
development is integrated into OHT instruction and
programming.
Audio/Text Introductions:
To foster community development among newly
matriculated MSHE students, students and faculty are
required to post audio/voice and text
self-introductions in the core courses the first
week of class. The self-introductory topics include
name, place of residence (city/town and state),
place of employment, academic background,
professional focus/expertise, research interests,
and hobbies/interests. Students are then asked to
respond to at least two classmates during the first
week of class. It is common to have over 100 posts
in the first week by students who are connecting and
bonding with new classmates.
Weekly Discussion Boards:
To further extend community development
opportunities among students, weekly discussion
boards have been designed to provide unique
opportunities for students to respond to sets of
questions relating to current issues or to actively
participate in asynchronous text or audio/voice
debates and/or role-plays. Students are required to
respond to classmates following their initial
posting. Through these interactive discussions,
academic and social communities begin to emerge as
students engage with peers who share similar
academic and professional interests.
Virtual Teas:
Virtual teas are held through Horizon Wimba Live
Classroom or in Second Life. Typically students from
two or more classes are invited to discuss
current/emerging higher education issues or they are
introduced to new technologies. Students are sent an
email invitation to attend the virtual tea. Students
also are sent a signed invitation in the mail with a
sachet of tea so they can join their classmates for
the virtual tea. The virtual teas provide an
informal opportunity for students, faculty, and
adjuncts to interact in a relaxed environment that
supports learning, engagement, and community
development. Students are able to speak and
text-chat with faculty, adjuncts, guest speakers,
and/or their classmates while they enjoy their
tea.
Group Assignments & Presentations:
Throughout the MSHE Program students must complete
group assignments that require asynchronous or
synchronous presentations. In some MSHE courses
students are placed in groups of two or three based
on their area of professional expertise or research
interest while in other courses students are able to
select group participants. Assignments are
“real-life” scenarios in which students must conduct
research and present findings to various assigned
“audiences” in a simulated role-play scenario such
as the Board of Trustees, President, students,
national conference, etc. Students use Camtasia or
Impatica for the asynchronous presentations. Horizon
Wimba Live Classroom is used for the “live”
(synchronous) presentations which enables presenting
groups to answer questions from the defined
audience. The group assignments and presentations
provide students with extensive opportunities to
expand their academic and social networks.
III. Personalized Communication and OHT Strategies
Communication and engagement are essential to
connecting students to an institution and increasing
student persistence. According to Tinto (2006), “Frequency
and quality of
contact with faculty, staff, and students has
repeatedly
been shown to be an
independent
predictor of student persistence” (p. 2).
Moreover, Chickering and Gamson (1987) state that
knowing faculty and faculty concern assist students
get through challenging times and enhance students’
intellectual commitment. However, in online
education, frequency and quality of contact need to
be defined and outlined for faculty, adjuncts, and
staff. Online policies and guidelines need to be
developed to establish expectations for
faculty-to-student and staff-to-student
communication. Additionally, faculty, adjuncts, and
staff need to be trained on inherent differences
between face-to-face and online communication.
Interaction in a face-to-face classroom is
predominately based on verbal and nonverbal
communicative behaviors (Farahani, 2003). However,
in an online program communication is primarily text
oriented and email is a primary form of
communication. According to Mehrabian, author of
Silent Messages (1971) and Non-Verbal Communications
(1972), face-to-face communication is broken down
into three categories: 55% is non-verbal, 38% is
tone and 7% is words. Over the telephone
communication is broken down into two categories:
86% is tone and 14% is words (International Customer
Management Institute, 2008; Lockwood, 2008). These
percentages for communication are important when
considering course development for online programs
particularly since non-verbal communication and tone
can be limited or non-existent in asynchronous
programs.
In terms of email, communicating may not be as easy
as type and send. Kruger, Epley, Parker and
Ng (2005) conducted research to examine
communication and interpretation of tone in emails.
The research showed that participants who sent
emails overestimated their ability to communicate by
e-mail and that participants who received emails
overestimated their ability to interpret e-mail.
According to Winerman (2006), the study by Kruger,
Epley, Parker and Ng (2005) revealed that
participants who sent emails predicted about 78% of
the time their partners would correctly interpret
the tone. The data revealed that only 56% of the
time the receiver correctly interpreted the tone.
Moreover, the receivers “guessed that they had
correctly interpreted the message's tone 90% of the
time” (Winerman, 2006, p. 16). While email is a
common form of correspondence in online education,
ensuring the correct message or intended message is
being sent is imperative.
The OHT concept asserts that personalized
communication creates a supportive, nurturing, and
respectful learning environment. Moreover, the OHT
concept stresses that faculty, adjuncts, and staff
must be trained on how to effectively communicate
online. Policies and guidelines must be developed to
provide a foundation and framework that supports
frequency and quality of personalized feedback using
multiple modes of online communication (i.e., text
email, audio/voice email, text discussion boards,
audio/voice discussion boards, podcasts, text
announcements, audio/voice announcements, phone
calls, etc.). Instituting high expectations for
communication, particularly personalized
communication, is essential to connecting students
to an institution and increasing student
persistence.
Included below are four examples of how personalized
communication is integrated into OHT instruction and
programming.
Congratulations and Welcome Calls:
When applicants are accepted to the MSHE Program,
each student receives a personal phone call from the
MSHE Director welcoming them to Drexel University
and congratulating them on their acceptance. Within
one week, another personal phone call is placed by
the MSHE Academic Advisor. These calls are placed to
personally connect the potential student to
the MSHE Program and Drexel University.
Using Names in All Correspondence:
MSHE policies and guidelines reinforce the
importance of making students feel they are truly
individuals in the MSHE Program and not just a
number or attached to a cohort. The policies and
guidelines strongly recommend and encourage faculty,
adjuncts, and staff to refer to students by their
first name in all correspondence (i.e., text
email, audio/voice email, discussion boards, podcast
critiques, phone calls, letters, etc.). The use of
personal names in all correspondence is much like
eye contact, a handshake, a friendly smile, or a
head nod that students often naturally see in a
face-to-face classroom. Developing a connection and
bond with students early in their enrollment is very
important since students work with the MSHE faculty,
adjuncts, and staff over a two-year period.
Individualized Feedback on All Graded Assignments:
MSHE faculty and adjuncts are required to provide
individualized comments throughout submitted graded
assignments (i.e., typed comment boxes/tracking
using Reviewing in Microsoft Word or written
comments using a tablet PC). These personal comments
provide students with an opportunity to see what
they have done well and what they need to modify.
Faculty and adjuncts are also advised to use a
constructive layered approach to providing
individualized feedback on graded assignments in an
effort to leave little chance for possible negative
interpretation by students. The constructive layered
approach provides students with (a) positive
comments on overall aspects of the document, (b)
constructive criticism citing specific areas that
need modification, and (c) summative constructive
comments that provide recommendations for the
document and/or upcoming assignments. The
personalized comments on each student’s assignment
are intended to (a) engage students in the learning
and evaluation process, (b) identify areas that need
improvement, and (c) motivate students to utilize
the feedback.
Audio/Voice Announcements, Emails, Discussion Boards
& Podcasts:
MSHE faculty and adjuncts are trained to integrate
audio/voice communication into the courses to
personalize instruction and feedback. Audio/voice
communication includes announcements, emails,
discussion boards, and podcasts. MSHE policies
require faculty to post several weekly announcements
for students. These announcements can be a
preliminary overview of the weekly lecture,
commentary regarding current issues relating to the
weekly lecture, reminders about upcoming
assignments, a weekly wrap up that highlights the
lecture and discussion board, etc. The MSHE Program
encourages augmenting text announcements with
audio/voice announcements since this provides
faculty and adjuncts with an opportunity to speak
to the students in the classes and adds a human
touch to an online course that could easily be
completely text-based. Individual audio/voice emails
are typically sent to students by faculty and
adjuncts in the first week of class to welcome
students to the course. This is much like the
personalized welcome students receive when they come
to class on campus correlating to a virtual smile,
eye contact, and handshake. Audio/voice emails are
also used to provide individual and group feedback
on assignments to augment written comments. It
should be noted that that MSHE faculty, adjuncts,
and staff are expected to respond to student emails
(text or audio/voice) within 24 to 36 hours as
stated in the MSHE policies and guidelines.
Audio/voice discussion boards are integrated into
all MSHE courses and support student debates and
role-plays. Audio podcasting is a requirement for
some graded assignments. For example, students are
put into groups of two prior to submitting a final
paper. They exchange final drafts of their papers
and then record an audio podcast of their comments
with detailed feedback regarding the paper. Students
then send the audio podcast to their partner. The
audio podcasts allow students to provide
individualized and personalized feedback to their
partner page by page which is similar to working in
groups in a classroom setting.
IV. Work-Integrated Learning and OHT Strategies
Work-integrated learning builds upon the
experiential learning model developed of Kolb and
Fry (1975) that includes four points: concrete
experience, observation and reflection, formation of
abstract concepts, and testing in new situations.
While Kolb and Fry (1975) state that the learning
cycle can begin at any of the four points of the
model, they recommend that the learning process
start with an individual identifying an action that
will be carried out and observing the effects as
they relate to the action within the selected
environment.
Boud’s (1991) research on self-assessment and reflective learning builds upon Kolb and Fry’s point on observation and reflection . According to Boud (1991) self-assessment challenges
students to think critically about what they are
learning and to select appropriate performance
standards to use in their work. Boud (1991) states
that “Self-assessment encourages students to look at
themselves and to other sources to determine what
criteria should be used in judging their own work
rather than being dependent solely on their teachers
or another authorities” (p. 1).
Milne (2007) developed a model for work-integrated
learning in which academics and mentors collaborate
to provide student learning experiences. This
work-integrated learning model expands the work of
Alderman and Milne (2005), Boud (1991), Kolb (1984),
and Murray (1991). According to Milne (2007):
As properly planned, designed and monitored learning
experiences that expose students to professional
culture and workplace practice they ensure an easier
transition from study to employment as well as
developing knowledge, skills, and attributes that
are difficult to foster with academic studies alone.
(p. 1)
Building upon the research of Milne (2007), Kolb and
Fry (1975), Boud, (1991), the OHT concept asserts
that work-integrated learning applied to online
instruction and programming increases a student’s
involvement in their courses. This meaningful
involvement, increases the value of the program to
the students and thus increases student engagement
and retention.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there
are
an estimated 6,000 jobs in higher education
administration that will need to be filled through
2014 as a result of the growth and retirement within
higher education (Leubsdorf, 2006). With the growing
number of professional opportunities in higher
education, there is a need for skilled
administrators to fill these positions. Therefore,
the MSHE Program has incorporated work-integrated
learning into instruction and programming to provide
students with the knowledge, skills, and experience
needed to fill employment opportunities. OHT
strategies include real-life work-based assignments,
mock interviews, ePortfolios, and reflective
journals and papers.
Included below are four examples of how
work-integrated learning is integrated into OHT
instruction and programming.
Practice-Based Assignments:
All graded assignments for the MSHE Program are
developed by higher education administrators and
require students to address current and emerging
issues through individual and group assignments.
Assignments often require students to conduct
strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat (SWOT)
analyses or environmental scans relative to a
particular issue. Additionally, students must
develop PowerPoint presentations to share their
findings with classmates through Horizon Wimba Live
Classroom similar to when administrators or
committees present to faculty, staff, the public, or
the Board of Trustees. These practice-based
assignments allow students to apply the skills and
knowledge they are acquiring from the MSHE courses
to actual problems within higher education and
challenge students to identify or develop solutions.
ePortfolios:
In the EDHE 606: Higher Education Career Development
course, MSHE students are required to identify a
“real” job posted in the Chronicle of Higher
Education that would be considered their next
professional career step upon completion of the
MSHE Program. Students develop an ePortfolio that
includes a cover letter for the position, resume,
and professional biography. They are required also
to include three to five sample documents (e.g.,
projects from their current employment position,
papers or projects from the MSHE Program, etc.), and
a list of three references. The ePortfolio is
submitted to Drexel University’s Steinbright Career
Development Center (SCDC). Students receive detailed
feedback from SCDC staff and the EDHE 606 professor
regarding the ePortfolio. The ePortfolio is later
required to be updated and submitted by all students
as part of the MSHE master’s defense. The
development of the ePortfolio provides students with
an opportunity to prepare for career advancement or
transition into higher education.
Learning Simulation:
As part of the EDHE 606: Higher Education Career
Development course, MSHE students are required to
participate in a mock interview using Horizon Wimba
Live Classroom or Second Life. This simulated
assignment builds upon the ePortfolio that is
required for EDHE 606. Once students send their
ePortfolios to the SCDC, they receive an email from
the SCDC stating they are finalists for the position
for which they applied. The email also states
students are required to present a PowerPoint
presentation as part of the final interview process
to serve as (a) a self-introduction, (b) highlight
their professional skills and experience, and (c)
state why they are the best candidate for the job.
This mock interview includes a search committee
comprising of the professor teaching EDHE 606 and a
representative from the SCDC. During the mock
interview, the search committee asks specific
questions relating to the advertised position, the
student’s background, and submitted ePortfolio. The
search committee completes two evaluations following
the simulated interviews covering (a) the content
and (b) the interview/presentation. The search
committee members then send each student their two
evaluations with personalized text comments and an
audio/voice email providing constructive feedback.
Reflective Journals and Papers:
In several of the MSHE courses, reflective journals
or reflective papers are required. The reflective
assignments provide students with an opportunity to
share with faculty their academic and professional
development throughout the course. The reflective
journals provide a more informal and personalized
format that enables students to self-evaluate their
own learning. An evaluation criteria for the
journals provides students with an outline of what
to include in the reflective, self-assessments
including meeting expected outcomes, the acquisition
of knowledge and skills from course lectures, newly
honed skills from experiential learning, etc.
V. Data Driven Decision-Making and OHT Strategies
The OHT concept builds upon research by Cranton and
Legge (1978) and Scriven (1967) that focuses on the
importance of evaluation and need for data driven
decision-making in higher education. According to
Cranton and Legge (1978), “evaluation can be
discussed along two major dimensions: formative
versus summative and internal versus external” (p.
464).
Formative evaluation is conducted during a program
to assist with development and improvement (Scriven,
1967). Summative evaluation is conducted at the end
of a program to measure effectiveness and value (Scriven,
1967). According to Cranton and Legge (1978), “it is
often the case that formative evaluations are
internal and summative evaluations are external;
however, this division is by no means necessary” (p.
465). Formative internal evaluations are typically
conducted by faculty involved in the program while
summative external evaluations are conducted by
employees outside of the program and tend to be for
the purpose of accountability (Cranton and Legge,
1978). The data garnered from program evaluation in
higher education is critical for assessing content,
value, engagement, and outcomes that ultimately
support data driven decision-making. Data driven
decision-making has and continues to serve as a
cornerstone in the development and continuous
quality improvement of the MSHE Program. According
to Microsoft (2004), “With effective data driven decision making capabilities, higher
education administrators and staff can more
accurately identify trends, pinpoint areas that need
improvement, engage in scenario-based planning and
discuss fact-based decision making options and
likely outcomes” (p. 1).
Data driven decision-making is not new to education.
“Notions of data driven decision-making (DDDM) in
education are modeled on successful practices from
industry and manufacturing, such as Total Quality
Management, Organizational Learning, and Continuous
Improvement, which emphasizes that organizational
improvement is enhanced by responsiveness to various
types of data” (Marsh, Pane & Hamilton, 2006, p. 2).
Included below are four examples of how data driven
decision-making is integrated into OHT instruction
and programming.
MSHE Annual Student Survey:
The MSHE Annual Student Survey is conducted at the
end of each spring quarter and provides critical
benchmarking data relating to student engagement,
retention, academics, satisfaction, and professional
development. While the core of the survey is
consistent annually, a portion of the survey is
modified each year to collect data on new OHT
initiatives or ideas that have been or will be
incorporated into instruction or programming.
Key Learning Points:
During Weeks 5 and 10 in all courses, students are
required to post Key Learning Points through an
audio/voice discussion board. Students are provided
3-4 minutes to summarize and articulate the
knowledge and skills they have acquired and applied
during the first five and last five weeks of the
course. Through this reflective assignment, students
often share accolades and challenges they have
experienced in the program or at their place of
employment as they relate to the lectures.
Additionally, students share with faculty new
relationships they have acquired through discussion
boards, Live Classrooms, or virtual teas. These
personal accounts provide faculty an opportunity to
assess student involvement in the lectures as well
as connect to students through their shared
experiences.
Exit interviews for Non-degree Completers:
Students who decide to leave the MSHE Program
without completing the degree are first contacted by
the MSHE Academic Advisor to discuss their reasons
for leaving prior to graduating. This preliminary
exit interview provides the Academic Advisor with
the opportunity to personally reach out to the
student and share options for continuing enrollment.
For students who make the final decision to leave
the MSHE Program, a second interview is set up with
the MSHE Director. This discussion with the MSHE
Director provides an additional opportunity to reach
out to students and to identify specific reasons as
to why they are leaving the MSHE Program. Attrition
data is collected and added to the MSHE Program
database to identify and monitor current or emerging
enrollment issues.
Continuous Quality Improvement and Innovation:
The MSHE Program works closely with the Office of
Research Compliance throughout the academic year to
conduct quantitative and qualitative research
relating to continuous quality improvement and
satisfaction with new instructional strategies
and/or new technologies. Instead of surveying the
entire MSHE student population on all studies,
select courses throughout the year are chosen for
the implementation of new instructional strategies
and use of new technologies. At the end of the
courses, students complete electronic surveys and/or
participate in focus groups regarding their
experience. Based on the collected feedback, the
instructional strategies and/or new technology are
implemented on a larger scale or across the entire
program. Past studies have shown this mixed methods
approach to be very important and cost effective.
For example, two dynamic technology platforms
that have garnered national attention received very
poor reviews from MSHE students; therefore, they
were not implemented on a full program scale.
Student surveys revealed the platforms were
extremely cumbersome and difficult for students to
use in the courses. Conversely, there have been
instructional strategies applied across three to
four courses that were extremely successful and
later implemented across all courses.
Results of OHT Instruction and Programming
Data collected from the MSHE Program over the past
three years supports the value of OHT and the
ongoing development of this dynamic and evolving
concept. Comparative data is not available since the
OHT instruction and programming concept was
developed in fall 2005 to support the launching of
the new online MSHE Program which did not and still
does not exist as an on-campus program. Descriptive
data and feedback garnered from three types of
evaluation will highlight the critical role of OHT
instruction and programming in the MSHE Program: (a)
2008 Annual MSHE Student Survey; (b) 2008 course
evaluations; and (c) student feedback from
reflective papers and reflective journals.
2008 MSHE Annual Student Survey
In June 2008, the MSHE annual student survey was
sent to 144 students enrolled in the MSHE Program in
spring quarter 2008. Over half of the students
(N=75) responded representing a 52% response rate.
The purpose of the annual survey is to collect
student data relating to student engagement,
retention, academics, satisfaction, and professional
development.
The results of the 2008 survey indicate students
feel highly connected to MSHE faculty and adjuncts
as well as students in their cohort (see Table 1).
While MSHE students feel less connected to the
School of Education and Drexel University, they feel
least connected to MSHE students outside of their
cohort.
MSHE students are actively engaged in educational
activities that are integrated into instruction and
programming. MSHE data revealed high levels of
student engagement in weekly discussion boards,
group assignments, and Horizon Wimba Live lectures
(see Table 2). However, students are less engaged in
the audio/voice chat rooms and text chat rooms that
are supplementary and not integrated into courses.
Text and audio/voice communication and feedback are
important in connecting students to the MSHE
program. The majority of students indicated that
text comments on graded assignments made them highly
connected to the MSHE Program. Furthermore, the data
revealed that weekly discussion boards,
announcements, emails, and “live” classroom lectures
connect students more to the MSHE Program than
recorded video lectures or recorded voiceover PPT
presentations (see Table 3).
Table 1. Question:
As an online student in the MSHE Program how
connected do you feel to the following constituent
groups?
|
Connected |
Very connected |
Total |
Faculty and adjuncts |
51% |
18% |
69% |
Your cohort |
55% |
12% |
67% |
School of Education |
35% |
11 % |
46% |
Drexel University |
32% |
10% |
42% |
MSHE students outside of your cohort |
12% |
1% |
13% |
Likert scale: Very connected, Connected, Neutral,
Disconnected, Very Disconnected
Table 2. Question:
As an online student how engaged are you with the
following course activities?
|
Engaged |
Very engaged |
Total |
Weekly Discussion Boards |
39% |
53% |
92% |
Group Assignments |
26% |
62% |
88% |
Horizon Wimba Live Classroom lectures offered by
faculty and adjuncts |
42% |
45% |
87% |
Audio/voice Chat Rooms |
24% |
19% |
43% |
Text Chat Rooms |
21% |
12% |
33% |
Likert scale: Very engaged, Engaged, Neutral,
Disengaged, Very Disengaged
Table 3. Question: Rate the level to which each educational activity makes you feel connected as a student to the MSHE Program.
|
Connected |
Very connected |
Total |
Text comments on graded assignments |
41% |
53% |
94% |
Weekly Discussion Boards (text) |
45% |
47% |
92% |
Text announcements |
46% |
43% |
89% |
Text email |
52% |
36% |
88% |
Audio/voice announcements |
45% |
39% |
84% |
Live Classroom lectures presented by faculty and adjuncts |
35% |
49% |
84% |
Live Classroom lectures presented by individual students and groups for graded assignments |
40% |
43% |
83% |
Audio/voice comments on graded assignments |
30% |
48% |
78% |
Audio/voice email |
34% |
42% |
76% |
Weekly Discussion Boards (Audio/Voice) |
33% |
43% |
76% |
Video lectures by faculty/adjuncts |
30% |
27% |
57% |
Voiceover PPT/Camtasia presentations by faculty/adjuncts |
34% |
23% |
57% |
Likert scale: Very connected, Connected, Neutral, Not very connected, Not connected at all
MSHE data revealed that 100% of the students
identified quality of instruction and academic rigor
of courses as important and very important to their
overall master’s degree experience. Academic support
from faculty and adjuncts as well as accessibility
also had high ratings of importance to students. In
addition, students indicated technical support,
quality and accessibility of academic advising, and
connecting with faculty and MSHE students were of
high importance to their overall master’s degree
experience (see Table 4).
Students were asked to rate their professional
skills prior to enrolling in the MSHE Program and
then their current skills since enrolling in the
MSHE Program. The data revealed that students
increased their skill level between 9% and 45% since
enrolling in the MSHE Program (see Table 5).
Students stated that the MSHE Program offers the
same (53%) or higher academic (39%) quality courses
than on-campus programs in which they had attended
(see Figure 2). One quarter (25%) of the students
stated they had been promoted since enrolling in the
MSHE Program. Additionally, over one-third to half
of the students stated they have been asked to be a
speaker (37%), asked to serve on a committee (46%),
asked to lead a project (50%), and have received an
award (14%) since enrolling in the MSHE Program (see
Figure 3).
Almost all of the students (96%) stated they would
recommend the MSHE Program to individuals seeking to
advance their career in higher education.
Additionally, 92% stated they would recommend the
MSHE Program to individuals seeking to transition
into higher education.
Table 4. Rate the level of importance of each item to your overall
master’s degree experience.
|
Important |
Very important |
Total |
Quality of instruction |
22% |
78% |
100% |
Academic rigor of courses |
42% |
58% |
100% |
Academic support from faculty and adjuncts
|
26% |
73% |
99% |
Accessibility to faculty and adjuncts |
38% |
56% |
94% |
Technical Support |
34% |
59% |
93% |
Quality of academic advising |
44% |
45% |
89% |
Accessibility to academic advisor |
49% |
40% |
89% |
Opportunities to connect with faculty and
adjunct |
43% |
44% |
87% |
Opportunities to professionally network |
44% |
41% |
85% |
Opportunities to connect with students in the
MSHE Program |
40% |
43% |
83% |
Accessibility to library resources |
38% |
44% |
82% |
Student Support Services |
43% |
26% |
69% |
Feeling connected to Drexel University |
41% |
28% |
69% |
Likert scale: Very important, Important, Neutral,
Not very important, Not important at all
Table 5.
Prior
to enrolling in the MSHE Program, how would you rate
your previous skills in the following areas? and
Since enrolling in the MSHE Program, how would you
rate your current skills in the following
areas?
|
|
NA |
Very weak |
Weak |
Moderate |
Strong |
Very Strong |
Strong & Very Strong |
Writing |
Previous skills |
0% |
1% |
3% |
25% |
41% |
30% |
71% |
Current skills |
0% |
1% |
0% |
11% |
43% |
45% |
88%
(+17%) |
Online communications (email, text chat rooms) |
Previous skills |
0% |
1% |
1% |
19% |
35% |
44% |
79%
|
Current skills |
0% |
0% |
0% |
7% |
39% |
54% |
93%
(+14%) |
Oral communication (audio/voice boards,
presentations) |
Previous skills |
0% |
0% |
3% |
22% |
57% |
18% |
75% |
Current skills |
0% |
0% |
0% |
15% |
53% |
32% |
85%
(+10%) |
Conducting research (i.e., SWOT analysis,
environmental scan, literature review, etc.) |
Previous skills |
4% |
1% |
19% |
36% |
25% |
15% |
40% |
Current skills |
3% |
0% |
4% |
18% |
48% |
27% |
75%
(+35%) |
Working in groups |
Previous skills |
0% |
0% |
1% |
27% |
47% |
25% |
72% |
Current skills |
0% |
0% |
3% |
14% |
44% |
39% |
83%
(+11%) |
Serving as a leader |
Previous skills |
0% |
0% |
8% |
27% |
39% |
26% |
65% |
Current skills |
0% |
1% |
1% |
11% |
52% |
35% |
87%
(+22%) |
Decision making |
Previous skills |
0% |
0% |
0% |
23% |
52% |
25% |
77% |
Current skills |
0% |
0% |
0% |
14% |
51% |
35% |
86%
(+9) |
Developing PowerPoint (PPT) Presentations |
Previous skills |
0% |
6% |
10% |
27% |
41% |
16% |
57% |
Current skills |
0% |
1% |
0% |
11% |
52% |
36% |
88%
(+31%) |
Delivering PPT Presentations |
Previous skills |
0% |
4% |
11% |
40% |
28% |
17% |
45% |
Current skills |
0% |
1% |
0% |
19% |
44% |
36% |
80%
(+45%) |
Figure 2. Question:
How does the academic quality of the online MSHE
courses compare to
on-campus programs you have attended?
|
|
Figure 3. Question:
Since enrolling in the Higher Education Program,
identify how you have been
recognized professionally by the institution or
organization where you are employed?
Course Evaluations
The OHT concept integrates student and faculty
interaction into course design to increase learning
and satisfaction. Therefore, it is important to
review course evaluations as a measurement for
student engagement and satisfaction on a quarterly
basis. Two course evaluations from winter 2008 are
provided in Table 6. The evaluations include eight
questions using a 5-point Likert scale (Outstanding,
Above Average, Average, Below Average, and
Unacceptable). The evaluations from both courses
indicate high levels of course satisfaction.
However, it is recognized that the evaluation
instrument does not provide robust feedback with
specific indicators to overall engagement,
assignments, and learning outcomes.
Table 6. Course Evaluations for Winter 2008
|
EDHE 606: Higher Education Graduate Co-op |
EDHE 715: Higher Education
Career Development |
Rigor of the course |
88% Outstanding
12% Above Average |
83% Outstanding
17% Above Average |
Stimulation of my thinking |
88% Outstanding
12% Above Average |
83% Outstanding
17% Above Average |
Teaching Method |
88% Outstanding
12% Above Average |
83% Outstanding
17% Above Average |
Instructor’s Knowledge |
88% Outstanding
12% Above Average |
100% Outstanding |
Support and Feedback |
88% Outstanding
12% Above Average |
100% Outstanding |
Value of Course |
71% Outstanding
29% Above Average |
67% Outstanding
33% Above Average |
Overall Rating of Course |
79% Outstanding
21% Above Average |
67% Outstanding
33% Above Average |
Overall Rating of Instructor |
100% Outstanding
|
85% Outstanding
15% Above Average |
Note: While the samples for the evaluations are
small, the MSHE Program typically does not have more
than 20-25 students in an online course and less
than 20 students in specialization courses in its
commitment to support community development.
Response rates for EDHE 715 was 64% (7 /11 students)
and EDHE 606 was 50% (6/12 students).
It should be noted that MSHE course evaluations were
outsourced from fall 2005 to winter 2008. During
this time course evaluations were modified several
times providing distinct challenges for
benchmarking. In 2007/08, three of the four quarters
had different course evaluations which provided very
limited comparative data. However, course
evaluations will be brought in house to the
School of Education in June 2008. Recognizing the
importance of data driven decision-making, the MSHE
Program has utilized other types of formative and
summative data for data driven decision-making.
Reflective Papers and Journals
Reflective papers and journals provide qualitative
feedback on engagement and learning. Sample feedback
collected from reflective papers in EDHE 606: Higher
Education Career Development and reflective journals
in EDHE 715: Higher Education Career Development are
provided in Tables 7 and 8. The overwhelming
positive comments relating to engagement,
self-esteem, and the acquisition of skills highlight
the positive impact of OHT instruction and
programming.
In EDHE 606, students are required to develop
ePortfolios, apply for an real position
posted in the Chronicle of Higher Education but send
the application to Drexel’s Steinbright Career
Development Center. They then participate in a Live
Mock Interview with a search committee as described
previously. In EDHE 715-716, students participate in
a 20-week Higher Education Graduate Co-op. The Co-op
requires students to develop and lead an action
research project based on an actual
problem within their place of employment. The
faculty who teach EDHE 715/716 also serve as mentors
for the students on these projects. As part of the
course, students are required to submit reflective
journals every two weeks during the 20-week period.
Furthermore, students are required to submit a full
co-op report that includes five chapters similar to
a master’s thesis or abbreviated doctoral
dissertation.
Table 7. Comments Shared in Reflective Papers from
EDHE 606 (Winter 2008)
The Live Classroom Mock Interview helped me
formulate a plan to present my best self
in an interview setting and answer questions
thoroughly yet spontaneously. Receiving feedback
brought to my attention areas where I can
improve my performance in interviews. |
The mock interview left me with a greater
understanding of what is expected in the
professional world. I have been on several
interviews in my lifetime and I have to say that
the mock interview helped me better prepare for
future professional endeavors. |
The verbal responses from the faculty were
beneficial because they allowed me to receive
criticism, positive feedback, and they also
allowed me to further understand the point of
view of others. In the future, I will be more
responsive to others and will use verbal
responses as a means to communicate with my
professional peers and colleagues. It was also
easier to comprehend points made by faculty when
hearing their verbal response versus having to
try to figure out their point of view through
writing. |
The higher education career
development course was filled with practical
information that one could utilize in his or her
career. The most valuable experience for me was
the e-Portfolio experience because all the
documentation was electronic, the required
documentation was of practical relevance, and
the follow-up mock interview and feedback helped
identify strengths and weaknesses in this
process. |
Due to my experience in this course, I know that
I will be a great leader. I believe that
leadership is the ability to assist others in
reaching their goals and setting an example of
how to be a leader simultaneously. |
Conclusion
The OHT instruction and programming conceptual
framework builds upon five areas of research:
student engagement, community development,
personalized communication, work-integrated
learning, and data driven decision-making. This
dynamic and evolving concept provides students with
a personalized educational experience that brings
the campus to the online environment. Data and
feedback collected over the past three years in the
MSHE Program at Drexel University indicates that OHT
instruction and programming positively affects
student engagement, connectivity, and retention.
Online students seek strong academic programs that
offer opportunities for personal interaction. This
is illustrated by MSHE students placing a high level
of importance on the quality of instruction and
academic rigor of courses while also placing a high
level of importance on their personal interaction
and engagement with faculty, adjuncts, academic
advisors, and students. Additionally, MSHE data
reveals that OHT strategies that emphasize frequent
and quality personal interaction influence student
connectivity to an online program.
Online education offers extensive opportunities for
students to acquire new skills and knowledge from
courses through work-integrated learning. While most
students in online programs do not come to campus,
MSHE data indicates that students can greatly
augment professional skills through OHT instruction
and programming. The integration of practice-based
assignments and reflective learning personalize the
educational experience for students as well as
prepare students for promotion, to serve as
speakers, to lead projects, and to serve on
committees.
Lastly, community development is important for
building and fostering a lifelong connection between
the university and online students. The OHT concept
emphasizes the importance of student engagement
across academic and social communities since this
has an affect on the overall student experience.
Since many online students will never step foot on
campus, interaction may be limited to the online
classroom. Therefore, community development must go
beyond the online classroom and engage students
across all cohorts to extend networking
opportunities and support ongoing student-campus
connectivity.
Table 8. Comments Shared in Reflective Papers from
EDHE 715-716 (Winter & Spring 2008)
As we are approaching the end of this term, I
look back at the work done and the
accomplishments up to date. This term was very
challenging but also very rewarding. I see how
the hard work is shaping into a co-op project
that will help me grow in my current position,
develop my knowledge to help me further in my
career, and will add to the literature. The
support and help from the professor was
extremely helpful in giving me direction. Her
feedback and suggestions kept me on track with
the project. I understand the importance of
having an advisor that provides feedback and
direction. |
Since my last journal entry, I have received
feedback from the professor on my Literature
Review. I invested a lot of sweat equity
in writing my review, and was not sure I was on
the right track, so hearing that it was well
done and that I should be so proud of my work,
was a HUGE boost to my ego and my confidence.
It also provided some incentive to soldier on
with this project. |
Overall, I feel that the research project helped
me to not only learn how to do research but also
will help my program in a very positive way.
Although I work, on a daily basis, with many of
the issues surrounding the functioning of the
program, the research project provided me with
deeper insight on how to make curriculum
development more effective. Examination through
SWOT analysis, environmental scan, and gathering
student data helped me to gain important
information that can help guide our program for
success in the future. While my co-op research
project will be ending soon, I plan to continue
to implement the recommendations that were
developed through the data that was gathered
through this valuable research. |
Since the last journal entry, I've received
helpful feedback on my literature review from a
classmate and the professor. I need to
incorporate suggestions into my final document
before this month ends.
Finally, I've noticed that my experience in this
co-op, and especially in this higher education
program generally, has made profound positive
contributions to my new job. This happens both
in what I know and how I express it. |
My professor has looked at numerous drafts of my
Capstone project, and always provided me with
great feedback. It is actually amusing in one
regard because a colleague of mine is in a
masters program and she received a paper back
from her professor and there were very few
comments. I asked her where the comments from
the professor were. I am so used to receiving
such constructive and rich feedback, that if I
do not receive that on a project, they must have
not read it. Another thing I have learned is
that feedback is good, and to take it and
improve upon the project at hand. |
It is an extraordinarily valuable experience. It
is an exercise in what I've done in the HE
program to day. It is training for future work
assignments when I may be able to follow a
similar project. After this, I'm also interested
in finishing my doctorate in the future. |
The entire Drexel online experience has been one
I would never exchange. I was skeptical, and
hesitant, at first about earning this degree
completely online. In comparing this program to
that of my peers at other institutions, however,
I feel as if I went through a higher ed program
that was more challenging and more engaging than
theirs, despite the distance in proximity. |
Recommendations
The OHT concept can be integrated into online and
hybrid/blended programs. However, the implementation
of the concept must be supported by standards and
guidelines for faculty, adjuncts, academic advisors,
and staff. Furthermore, data driven decision-making
is quintessential for the sustainability of the OHT
instruction and programming. Data and feedback on
OHT strategies must be collected as part of an
evaluation process to monitor affects on student
engagement, connectivity, and retention.
Since the development and implementation of the OHT
instruction and programming concept into the MSHE
Program in fall 2005, the results include continued
student growth, financial sustainability, high
student retention rates, active alumni
participation, and national recognition. However,
continued research is needed as the OHT concept
evolves. Furthermore, comparative research with
hybrid/blended and on-campus programs is recommended
to expand the OHT literature.
References
Allen, E. & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five
years of growth in online learning. The Sloan
Consortium. Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved
April 20, 2008, from
http://www.sloanc.org/publications/survey/pdf/online_nation.pdf
Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from
dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A
developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 24 (4),
297-308.
Angelino, L. M., Williams, F. K., & Natvig, D.
(2007). Strategies to engage online students and
reduce attrition rates. The Journal of Educators
Online, 4 (2),1-14. Retrieved
May 6, 2008,
from
www.thejeo.com/Volume4Number2/Angelino%20Final.pdf
Bathe, J. (2001). Love it, hate it, or don’t
care: Views on online learning. ERIC database.
ERIC Document Number ED463805.
Boud, D. (1991). Implementing student
self-assessment. Campbelltown, New South Wales:
The Higher Education Research and Development Society
of Australasia (HERDSA).
Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age,
the challenge is keeping the students. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 23, A39 .
Retrieved May 20, 2008, from
http://chronicle.com/free/v46/i23/23a00101.htm
Chickering, A. W. & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven
principles for good practice in undergraduate
education." AAHE Bulletin, 39 (7), 3-7.
Cranton, A. & Legge, L. H. (1978). Program
evaluation in higher Education.
The Journal of Higher Education,
49 (5), 464-471. Ohio State University Press.
Dagger, D. & Wade, V. P. (2004) Evaluation of
adaptive course construction toolkit (ACCT).
Retrieved May 5, 2008, from
http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~acristea/AAAEH05/papers/6a3eh_daggerd_IOS_format_v1.1.pdf
Diaz, D. P. (2002). Online drop rates revisited.
The Technology Source. Retrieved April 10, 2008,
from
http://technologysource.org/article/online_drop_rates_revisited/
Faharani, G.O. (2003). Existence and importance of
online interaction (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute, 2003). Retrieved May 8, 2008,
from
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-04232003
202143/unrestricted/Gohar-Farahani-Dissertation.pdf
Flood, J. (2002) Read all about it: online learning
facing 80% attrition rates, Turkish Online
Journal of Distance Education, 3 (2). Retrieved
May 15, 2008, from
http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde6/articles/jim2.htm
Frankola, K. (2001). Why online learners drop out.
Workforce, 80, 53-58.
International Customer Management Institute (2008).
ICMI’s Queue Tips. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from
http://www.icmi.com/WebModules/QueueTips/Question.aspx?ID=182
Johnson, J. (2001). Learning communities and special
efforts in the retention of university students:
What works, what doesn't, and is the return worth
the investment? Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 2 (3),
219-238. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from
http://baywood.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,4,6;journal,29,35;linkingpublicationresults,1:300319,1
Knapp, L., Kelly-Reid, J., Ginder, S., & Miller, E.
(2008). Enrollment in postsecondary institutions,
fall 2006; Graduation rates, 2000 & 2003 cohorts;
and financial statistics, fiscal year 2006. National
Center for Educational Statistics. U.S. Department
of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved July 9,
2008, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008173.pdf
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning:
Experience as the source of learning and
development, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Kolb, D. A. & Fry, R. E. (1975). Toward an applied
theory of experiential Learning. In Cooper, C.
(Ed), Theories of group processes. London:
Wiley Press.
Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., & Ng, Z. (2005).
Egocentrism over email: Can we communicate as well
as we think? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 89, 925-936.Retrieved May 9,
2008, from
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/nicholas.epley/html/publications.html
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement
from NSSE. Change, 35 (2), 24-32.
Retrieved
May 10, 2008, from
http://cpr.iub.edu/uploads/Kuh (2003) What We're
Learning About Student Engagement From NSSE.pdf
Leubddorf, B. (2006). Boomers' retirement may create
talent squeeze. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
53 (2), A51. Retrieved June 12, 2008, from
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i02/02a05101.htm
Lockwood, T. (2008). Voice and language.
Call centres: Maximising performance training
manual. Fenman Professional Training Resources.
Retrieved May 1, 2008,
http://www.fenman.co.uk/traineractive/training-activity/voice-and-language.html
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. & Hamilton, L. S. (2006).
Making sense of data-driven decision-making in
education. Rand Corporation. Retrieved May 9, 2008,
from
http://rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2006/RAND_OP170.pdf
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages.
Wadsworth, Belmont, California.
Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication.
Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, Illinois.
Microsoft Corporation (2004). Data driven
decision-making in higher education. White Papers.
Retrieved on April 9, 2008,
from http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/1/2/012e8e6e-ff65-4b04-857c-1e2c991f57f4/DDDM_Higher_Education.doc
Milne, P. (2005). A model for work integrated
learning: Optimizing student learning outcomes.
World Association for Cooperative Education (WACE).
Retrieved July 19, 2008
http://www.waceinc.org/pdf/A%20Model%20for%20Work%20Integrated%20Learning%20%20Optimizing%20Student%20Learning%20Outcomes%20-%20Milne.pdf
Moore, M. G. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance
education: A systems view. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Murray, M. (1991). Beyond the Myths and Magic of
Mentoring San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Inc.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation.
AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation:
Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation. Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Selingo J. (2006). Colleges must plan better to
attract and keep keypersonnel, panel speakers
say.
The Chronicle of Higher Education.Retrieved
May 9, 2008, from
http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/07/2006071303n.htm
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropouts from higher education: A
theoretical synthesis of the recent literature. A
Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.
University of Chicago.
Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of theory and practice in
student attrition. Journal of Higher Education,
53 (6), 687-700.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the
causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2006). Taking student retention
seriously: Rethinking the first year of college.
AACRO Speech. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from
http://soe.syr.edu/academics/grad/higher_education/Copy%20of%20Vtinto/Files/AACRAOSpeech.pdf
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building
learning communities in cyberspace: Effective
strategies for the online classroom. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Palloff, R. M. & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual
student: A profile and guide to working with online
learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation.
In Tyler, R. W., Gagné, R. M., & Scriven, M. (Eds.),
Perspectives of curriculum evaluation,
39-83. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Stanford-Bowers, D. (2008 ). Persistence in online
classes: A study of perceptions among stakeholders.
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 4
(1), 37-50.
Retrieved April 15, 2008, from
https://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no1/stanford-bowers0308.pdf
Stark, S. & Warren, T. (1999). ‘Connecting’ the
distance: relational issues for participants in a
distance learning program. Journal of Further and
Higher Education, 23 (3). Retrieved June
10, 2008, from
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/archive/cjfh-con.asp
Weisman, M. & Vaughan, G.F. (2001). The Community
College Presidency 2001. American
Association of Community Colleges, Leadership Series
3. Retrieved June 12, 2008, from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/ContentGroups/Research_Briefs2/Presidency_Briefv1.pdf
Winerman, L. (2006). Emails and egos. American
Psychological Association Online, 37 (2), 16.
Retrieved May 12, 2008, from
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb06/egos.html
|
|