Address:
City, State, Zip:
Phone:
E-mail:
Retention in Online Education
Analyzing the Problem and Seeking a Solution by
Sabri g. Bebawi
A Paper for Presentation
March, 2003
301 Bay Shore
Unit I
Long Beach, CA 90803
562-930-0211 sabri@sabri.org

Abstract
Improving retention in online programs is an area of great concern for both instructors and administrators. Yet exactly how this is achieved remains an actively debated topic. Professionals interested in distance education continuously try to understand the factors that contribute to low retention levels, and perhaps find ways to reverse the trend. This paper focuses on the nature of the distance learner and the barriers in distance education; based on that, an understanding of the forces that control retention levels and, thus, finding ways to modify these forces and improve retention.

Retention in Distance Education 2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Introduction ii
3
Definition of Distance Education 4
The Nature of Distance Learners 5
Identifying Barriers 6
The Learner and Educator 6
Technological Barriers 9
Administration 10
Analysis 10
Conclusion 11

Retention in Distance Education
Introduction
Distance education means teaching and learning at a distance. For the purpose of this paper, distance education is defined in terms of technology supported education programs and online education.
Why some distance learners achieve their goals and others do not has been a persistent question. According to a study by the Division of Workforce Development Region III Web-
Based Training Program , (2002), more students drop out from some courses than complete them. Although there is not enough research, preliminary studies indicate that in some cases more than 50% of online learners drop out before they complete their course, (Hart, 2003)
3
In order to understand the forces that control retention in distance education and provide solutions to increase retention levels, this paper will first attempt to find a comprehensive definition for distance education using available literature. Then the focus will look at the nature of distance learners and the barriers that are slowing the progress of distance education as a whole. These barriers will be classified to (1) barriers that relate to students and educators, (2) barriers that relate to administration, (3) and barriers that relate to technology. The paper will review some of the literature related to strategies to assist and motivate learners in order to ultimately increase retention level.

Retention in Distance Education
Definition of Distance Education
4
Today, audio, video, computer, and networking technologies are often combined to create a multifaceted instructional delivery system. The fundamental method to unite the distance learning instructor with the distance learner is the network. Networks suitable for distance learning implementations include satellite, cable modem, digital subscriber lines (DSL), and wireless cable. (Collins, 2002).
Greenberg (1998) defines contemporary distance learning as “a planned teaching/learning experience that uses a wide spectrum of technologies to reach learners at a distance and is designed to encourage learner interaction and certification of learning” (p. 36). Teaster and
Blieszner (1999) say “the term distance learning has been applied to many instructional methods: however, its primary distinction is that the teacher and the learner are separate in space and possibly time” (p. 741). Desmond Keegan (1995) provides another definition. He states that distance education and training result from the technological separation of teacher and learner which frees the student from the necessity of traveling to “a fixed place, at a fixed time, to meet a fixed person, in order to be trained” (p. 7). From these definitions we can see that the student and teacher are separated by space, but not necessarily by time.
For the purpose of this paper, however, distance education will be limited technology supported education programs and online education.

Retention in Distance Education
The Nature of Distance Learners
5
Distance learners are not typical adolescents who spent four years on a residential campus
(Rossman, 1993). They tend to be somewhat older and, by the nature of distance learning, they have to be self-motivated and self-disciplined. Statistics show that “more than half of the students enrolled in distance education courses already had some college education and 80% were seeking to complete or accelerate undergraduate education,” (Qureshi, 2002). In effect, distance learners are more mature, and more likely to be experiencing situational barriers,
(Qureshi, 2002). Distance learners are goal-oriented learner s , activity-oriented learners, and learning-oriented learners, (Cross, 1981)
In 1995 MacBrayne reported on the demographic and motivational characteristics of rural adult
DE learners enrolled in an associate degree distance education program. A questionnaire completed by 672 students showed that the top two reasons (of 13) for DE were related to the location of the course and interest in the course content. These were followed by the desire to obtain a degree and the importance of the course for a future career. A factor analysis revealed four distinct factors that were characterized as motivational qualities. In order of importance to the sample they were: degree seeking, information seeking, participating (attaining goals), and job enhancing. Of course these are not unique to DE; these are surely similar to the motivational qualities that would be found in on-campus learners. (Quershi, p.2)

Retention in Distance Education
Identifying Barriers
Distance education is not without obstacles. These obstacles vary in relevance and intensity.
They may relate to the learner, the educator, the administration and, of course, technology
The Learner and Educator
Research (Qershi, Rossman, Cardenas, Cross) that focus on adult learners in general show that first time learners are reluctant .
In online education, it is a new experience that requires special skills such as self-motivation and self discipline; at times, learners do not even know if they have these skills. Those learners may be any age or any race, from any culture, socioeconomic background, or any geographic portion of the country.
6
Barriers to participation in educational activities most frequently cited by adults are lack of time and cost (Cardenas, 2000; Hyatt, 1992; MacBrayne, 1995). Other barriers include home responsibilities, job responsibilities, and lack of self-confidence or interest. Such barriers can be classified as: (1) situational (circumstances in the individual’s life such as family and work, geography, childcare, etc.), (2) institutional (organizational policies and procedures), and (3) dispositional (attitudes towards self and learning) (Cross,1981).
Cross’s (1981) model has been utilized by a number of researchers in DE (Hezel & Dirr,
1991; Garland, 1993), most of whom focused on situational barriers like family, work commitments, and geographic distance. Dispositional barriers were explored by Grace (1994)

Retention in Distance Education who found that women more often experienced a lack of confidence in their academic abilities and reported fears about being unable to complete the course.
7
Barriers that relate to the learner’s personal life may include f amily needs and requirements, financial obligations, health matters, and employment or lack of time. Barriers that relate to the institution may include “red-tape” and paperwork, program requirements or fees, rules and procedures that serve the institution and not the learner, non-consumer friendly environment and negative past school experiences. As for barriers that relate to technology, they may include lack of computer skills and dealing with technological difficulties, expense, and speed of delivery. In addition, student’s disposition is a major factor. These may include personal values, learner expectations versus reality, low self-esteem and fear of failure, lack of communication with instructor, changes in long or short term goals and most notably lack of support.
As for barriers from the teacher’s view point, Quinn (2002) writes: “Despite all the positive assertions made about the impact that distance learning has upon classroom teaching, some faculty remain skeptical and can be overwhelmed by the knowledge and technical expertise required to deliver courses via a distance.(p. 1 ). When Carr (2001) interviewed a faculty member at Columbia University about his decision to transform his courses to a distance education medium he cited the different techniques he had to master. He spoke about how he missed the face-to-face contact with his students and the control he had over the flow of material which he presented in his classes,” (Carr cited in Quinn, p.1)

Retention in Distance Education 8
Many research studies have shown that cognitive factors such as learning, performance, and achievement in distance education classes are comparable to those observed in traditional classes
(Carr, 2000; Russell, 1999; Schoech, 2000; Sonner, 1999; Spooner, Jordan, Algozzine, &
Spooner, 1999); however, perceptions and satisfaction levels of instructors and students of distance education have not shown the same consistency (Bower, 2001; Hara & Kling, 1999;
Stocks & Freddolino, 1998). Factors such as accessibility to materials, other students, instructors, control of time, and cost can influence individuals' perceptions of distance education (Middleton,
1997). Petracchi (2000) found that students were pleased with the performance of their instructor, availability of materials, and performance of technological tools used for conducting the class, while Carr (2000) found that undergraduates enrolled in an introductory psychology course performed better in distance education courses, but were generally less happy with them.
Carr surmised that one of the reasons for less satisfaction could be more time required to complete assignments. In a study of adult distance education students, Carter (2001) found that most students did not find that technological equipment used in distance education interfered with the instruction. Carnevale (2000) found that distance education students look for many of the same things found in traditional courses including a knowledgeable professor, interaction with the professor, and additional features that create a feeling of community within the class.

Retention in Distance Education 9
Technological Barriers
Despite Carter’s findings (2001) that most students did not find that technological equipment used in distance education interfered with the instruction, other studies found the opposite. In his study “A Comparison of Student Outcomes & Satisfaction between Traditional & Web Based
Course Offerings,”
Rivera
(2002) reported that WebCT, in the form maintained by the institution’s instructional support staff, did not always work consistently. This was a source of frustration for both students and the instructor. For example, it was originally intended that all exams would be administered through WebCT in a proctored lab environment. After a negative experience with the first exam, this approach was abandoned and the class reverted to traditional mark sense forms (Scantron). There were also problems with the grade delivery facilities and occasionally with the delivery of course materials. These experiences quickly reduced the instructor’s and the students’ confidence in the course delivery technology,” (Rivera, 2002).
Web based classes can suffer from problems in consistently accessing web materials through the Internet. These problems can be in several areas such as streaming media where problems with students having the right software to receive it, as well as being able to maintain an Internet connection consistent enough to use it. There may also be problems stemming from the students’ choice of Internet Service Provider, and their peculiar ways of delivering Internet content. For example, students may not be advised to use AOL as their ISP because AOL does not allow their customers to access course sites.

Retention in Distance Education 10
Administration
Wenzel (1998) raised an interesting point in regard to administrators and the scope of their responsibility. He indicated that he encounters administrators who are adamant that an understanding of technology and distance learning should not fall under their responsibilities.
He asserts that administrators play a significant role in influencing teachers' perception of technology. They should provide the support needed to overcome a natural resistance resulting from technophobia. Mageau (1994) agrees that administrators will bring positive change when they identify and support those who do aggressively pursue innovation.
George and Sleeth (cited in Wenzel , 1996) suggest that resistance to technology might be the result of feeling under-skilled or anticipating a loss of control. Through their own understanding of and experience with distance education, they can provide a climate that fosters and encourages distance learning.
Analysis
From the research presented (e.g. Wenzel, Mageau, Rivera, Sleeth), it can be suggested that retention level in distance education depends on the nature of barriers students and teachers face.
Focus should continue in these areas to mitigate against low retention levels . As we fail to combat these barriers, retention levels will continue to be low. Students and teachers may not be able to continue their tasks with the high level of frustration some of these barriers could bring.

Retention in Distance Education 11
There are several reasons, most of which can be avoided, that may lead to students dropping out of classes. Students often need time to familiarize themselves with the course platform and navigation; teachers must be patient and allow students such time. Students can be frustrated if the course design is cumbersome and not simple; too many tools and multiple processes can be overwhelming. The most notable reason why a student withdraws from an online class is that students expectations are not met, (Rossen and Ko, 2001); instructors can minimize this by making personal contact with individual students, by encouraging them to share their concerns, and by just being available and accessible.
Conclusion
From my own experience at San Jose City College, I endorse these arguments wholeheartedly. It has been my experience that the resistance of my colleagues is a result of feeling under-skilled. This is hardly addressed by administration and, at times, is tolerated.
Online teaching/learning is still in its infancy. It is not surprising that some teachers and students are not clear about what it is or how it works. This may sound confusing, but online teaching is very much the same as traditional in-class teaching. Much of what happens online is similar to what happens in a classroom - Communication and interaction take place to achieve learning. The only difference is that the teacher no longer has ownership of knowledge; s/he shares and becomes a facilitator of knowledge. The student takes more responsibility of his/her learning and is no longer a passive learner, but active.

Retention in Distance Education 12
This is not to say that any teacher and any student can be successful online teachers and learners. Teachers and students need to understand this new environment in which everyone participates and interacts and every opinion is valued. Teaching online is a facilitative process.
The idea that the teacher provides knowledge and students learn will not work. In online classes, the teacher guides students to a variety of resources and encourages critical thinking. The teacher needs to show s/he is active and accessible.
Our objectives as educators are to provide the best environment for learning . Online education has the potential to help us meet these objectives, but only if educators are willing to be learners and to embrace change .

Retention in Distance Education 13
References
Cyrs, Thomas E. (1997) Teaching and Learning at a Distance: What It Takes to
Effectively Design, Delliver, and Evaluate Programs. Jossey-Bass Inc, San Francisco, CA .
Fisch, L. (Ed.) (1996). Ethical Dimensions of College and University Teaching: Understanding
and Honoring the Special Relationship between Teachers and Students. . Jossey-Bass Inc San
Francisco, CA
Susan Ko and Steve Rossen (2001) Teaching Online, A Practical Guide. Houghton Mifflin
Company, New York.
Spinello, R. (2000). Cyberethics: Morality and Law in Cyberspace. Sudbuty, MA: Jones and
Bartlett Publishers International.
Shade, Leslie R, Gender and Community in the Social Construction of the Internet, Peter Lang
Publishing, 2002. http://www.com.washington.edu/rccs/booklist.asp
Bower, B. (2001). Distance education: Facing the faculty challenge . Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration, 4 (2). Retrieved April 6, 2002 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/bower42.html
Carnevale, D. (2000). Study assesses what participants look for in high-quality online courses.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (9), A46. Retrieved April 6, 2002 from Academic Search
Elite database.
Carter, A. (2001). Interactive distance education: Implications for the adult learner. International
Journal of Instructional Media, 28 , 249-261. Retrieved April 6, 2002 from Academic Search
Elite database.
Hara, N. & Kling R. (1999). Student’s frustrations with a web-based distance education course.
First Monday, 4 (12). Retrieved April 6, 2002 from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_12/hara/index.html
Inman, E. & Kerwin, M. (1999). Instructor and student attitudes toward distance learning.
Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 23 , 581-592. Retrieved April 6, 2002

Retention in Distance Education 14
from Academic Search Elite database.
Kendall, M. (2001). Teaching online to campus-based students: The experience of using WebCT for the community information module at Manchester Metropolitan University. Education for
Information , 19 (4) 325–346. Retrieved April 6, 2002 online from Academic Search Elite database.
George, G. & Sleeth, (1997). Technology-assisted instruction and instructor cyberphobia:
Recognizing the ways to effect change. Education. vol. 116, no. 4, pp. 604-608.
Krakauer, J. (1997). Into Thinner Air: A Personal Account of the Mount Everest Disaster. New
York: Villard.
Mageau, T. (1994). How technology savvy should a principal be? Electronic Learning. vol. 13, no. 6, pp.16-17.
Trotter, A. (1998). Technology counts '98: Putting school technology to the test. Education Week on the Web [online] Available: http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc98/ [1998, October 1].
Wenzel, G. C. (1998). Principal's optimism in Asian Nepali schools. TESOL in Action: Teachers of English to Students of Other Languages Journal. Carrollton, GA: State University of West
Georgia.
Collins, M.P. and Berge, Z.L. (2000, November/December). Technological minimalism. The
Technology Source.
[Online.] [Accessed November 1, 2000]. http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/commentary/2000-11.asp
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume V, NumberIV, Winter 2002

Retention in Distance Education 15