Towards a Conceptual Model of Retention and
Success in Distance Education:
The Case of the University of South Africa
Presented at the NADEOSA Annual Conference
Unisa, 17-18 August, 2009
Prof George Subotzky, ED: Information & Strategic Analysis
Dr Paul Prinsloo, Education Consultant, DCLD
University of South Africa
Overview
• Brief background and context (GS)
• Towards a (unique?) Conceptual Model for Distance
Education Retention and Success
– Overview of literature review (PP)
– Key constructs (PP)
– Outline of model and underlying propositions (GS)
– Exposure at/to two international conferences (GS)
• Critical engagement
Background
• Retention and Success a major focus of concern in
HE system and, in particular, at Unisa
• Strong external imperative to improve retention
and success rates from government outcomesbased funding framework
• Focal area in all key institutional policy and
planning documents
– 2015 Strategic Plan
– Recent Institutional Operational Plan Reviews
– Recent QA Audit Reports: 3 cohort case studies
conducted
The UNISA Throughput Forum
• Co-ordinated and integrated effort to improve retention
and success
• Approach adopted: to achieve the comprehensive
understanding of all factors shaping retention and
success through modeling initiative
• Purpose of modeling initiative: to provide a systematic,
evidence-based, contextually-relevant foundation to
inform and guide initiatives to improve retention and
success
• This work undertaken by modeling Task Team
2-fold Framework for Enhancing
Retention & Success
1. Comprehensive modelling initiative
– Literature review (conducted by Dr Paul Prinsloo)
– Drawing from this, the conceptual/hypothetical modelling
of the positive and risk factors shaping the student
experience, retention & success in the ODL context of
Unisa (Modelling Task Team)
– Together, the literature review and conceptual model
released as a Strategic Discussion Forum discussion
document during April for comprehensive engagement &
feedback and then to STLSC & Senate
– Regarding the model, determining what variables are
knowable, measurable, (is/may be) available and actionable
– Utilising model to shape student tracking system, to gather
relevant and available quantitative and comprehensive
complementary qualitative data (myUnisa)
– Statistical and analytic modelling to determine factors
shaping success and to predict and address risk and
readjusting the model as necessary
A 2-fold framework for enhancing
throughput & success
2. Transforming institutional identity, attributes &
practices
–
Utilising consolidated findings (as actionable
intelligence) to inform and guide existing and new
Learner Support Framework and initiatives and
academic practices and operational improvements in
order to improve success, throughput and the
student experience;
– Monitoring and evaluating these initiatives over time
as part of continuous reflection and improvement
and ongoing QA
MANAGEMENT OF STUDENT EXPERIENCE, RETENTION, SUCCESS & GRADUATENESS
Shaped by modeling process
Conceptual
Modeling
M&E
Learner
Support
Interventions
and other
academic &
administrative
changes
Identifying
what is
relevant,
measurable,
available &
actionable
Tracking
System
(In-depth
qualitative &
quantitative
information)
Statistical &
Analytic
Modelling
producing
Actionable
Intelligence
SHAPING CONDITIONS: (predictable as well as uncertain)
• Social structure, macro & meso shifts: globalisation, political economy, policy; National/local culture & climate
• Personal /biographical micro shifts
STUDENT
IDENTITY & ATTRIBUTES:
• Situated agent: SES, demographics
• Capital: cultural, intellectual, emotional,
attitudinal
• Habitus: perceptions, dispositions,
discourse, expectations
THE STUDENT WALK:
Multiple, mutually constitutive
interactions between student, institution
& networks
• Managing complexity/ uncertainty/
unpredictability/risks/opportunities
• Institutional requirements known &
mastered by student
• Student known by institution through
tracking, profiling & prediction
INSTITUTIONAL
IDENTITY & ATTRIBUTES:
• Situated organisation: history, location,
strategic identity, culture, demographics
• Capital: cultural, intellectual, attitudinal
• Habitus: perceptions, dispositions,
discourse, expectations
TRANSFORMED STUDENT IDENTITY & ATTRIBUTES:
Processes:
• Informed responsibility & ‘choice’
• Ontological/epistemological dev.
• Managing risks/opportunities/
uncertainty: Integration, adaptation,
socialisation & negotiation
F
I
T
F
I
T
Domains:
• Intrapersonal
• Interpersonal
Modalities:
• Attribution
• Locus of
control
• Selfefficacy
F
I
T
F
I
T
FIT
F
I
T
Retention/Progression/Positive experience
Choice,
Admission
Learning
activities
Course
success
Graduation
Employment/
citizenship
F
I
T
F
I
T
F
I
T
F
I
T
F
I
T
TRANSFORMED INSTITUTIONAL IDENTITY & ATTRIBUTES:
Processes:
• Informed responsibility & choice
• Managing risks/opportunities:
Transformation, change
management, org. learning,
integration & adaptation
Domains:
• Academic
• Operational
• Social
Modalities:
• Attribution
• Locus of
control
• Selfefficacy
SHAPING CONDITIONS: (predictable as well as he uncertain)
• Social structure, macro & meso shifts: globalisation, internationalisation, political economy, technology, social demand
• HE/ODL trends, policy
• Institutional biography & shifts; Strategy, business model & architecture, culture & climate, politics & power relations
Success
FIT
Proposition 1
Student success is broadly interpreted and indicated by
retention, progression through the main phases of the
student walk, and ultimately successful graduation and
effective entry into the labour market and/or citizenship.
Success also incorporates a positive student experience as
a result of student-centred service excellence and efficient
operations provided by the institution.
Proposition 2
Student success and positive experience is the outcome of
sufficient fit between the identity and attributes of the
student and the institution through all phases of student
walk.
Proposition 3
Fit arises when elements of the student and institutional
identity and attributes (capital and habitus) are optimally
aligned at each successive stage of the student walk. Fit at
these various points is the outcome of the specific
individual student and institutional preconditions.
Proposition 4
In order for fit to arise at each successive stage of the
student walk, relevant transformative changes in the
identity and attributes of the student and the institution
are required.
Student & Institutional Transformation
• Processes
– Crucially dependent on relevant mutual actionable
knowledge
– This is an essential precondition in the management
of risks, uncertainties and opportunities
– Student: understanding institutional expectation &
requirements & executing these
– Institution: tracking, profiling, predicting relevant
activities, risks & opportunities and adapting practices
accordingly
Institutional Transformation
• The institution’s obligation is to continually reflect on its
assumptions and practices not only in order to improve
delivery but to eradicate hidden socio-economic and
cultural barriers to equitable student access & success
and thus to achieve the QA criterion of fitness to
purpose
• This captures the transformative approach, failing which
the institution perpetuates the social reproduction of
elites
Proposition 5
The student walk comprises a series of multiple, mutually
constitutive interactions between the situated student and
the situated institution and between the student and
his/her various networks through all points of the walk
(Articulation with ODL model)
Proposition 6
The formation and transformation of student and
institutional identity and attributes is continuously shaped
by overarching conditions at the macro, meso and micro
levels
International conferences
• Retention 2009, New Orleans: Educational Policy Institute
– Pre-conference workshops:
a) General conceptual issues
b) Developing an institutional retention strategy
• Annual forum of the Association for Institutional
Research, Atlanta
– Pre-conference workshops:
a) Statistical modelling
b) Data mining
c) Balanced scorecard in HE
International conferences
•
Strong corroboration of key elements of model:
– Focus on students, institution and interaction
– Focus on intensive engagement with a view to
mutual knowledge
• Strong interest in:
– Quantitative & qualitative mechanisms for in-depth
engagement, prediction & proactive interventions
– Constructs
• Key lessons:
– Need for institutional strategy
– Need for mixed quantitative methods: statistical
modelling & data mining
Conclusion
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
5.
6.
Unisa: Integrated, comprehensive approach to addressing the imperative of
improving success, throughput & student experience – modelling approach
Literature Review: Rich field of enquiry, with interesting array of theoretical
perspectives
International models not appropriate to developing country ODL context and
do not recognise imperative for institutional transformation
International conference exposure provided strong corroboration
Unique features of Unisa Model: Key constructs and propositions, especially
the central component of the need for student and institutional
transformation on the basis of relevant, mutual knowledge & engagement
Evidence suggests that non-cognitive and institutional variables impact
equally (if not more) on student retention and success
The initial indications from the literature and the conceptual model, as well
as the envisiged qualitative and quantitative actionable intelligence should
provide the basis of a much more comprehensive understanding of the
student experience, retention & success at Unisa.
In turn, this should provide an important basis for fulfilling the objectives of
the ODL model by helping to bridge the various distances between the
student and retention and success, as well as a positive student experience.
Thank you!