Persistence in Distance Education

Context:
This selection reviews the research on learner persistence in distance learning and summarizes ways that institutions can promote learner persistence and prevent or reduce dropout. References for the studies reviewed are included.

Source:
Cookson, P. 1990. "Persistence in Distance Education." In M. G. Moore and others, eds., Contemporary Issues in American Distance Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 193–97, 201–02, 203–04.

Copyright:
Reproduced by permission, Butterworth-Heinemann LTD and Peter Cookson.

Studies of students' reasons for dropout

The reasons people give to account for their discontinuance of participation in distance education fall into fairly common sets of responses. In a study of people whom they considered "pre-dropouts," Woodley and McIntosh (1977) enclosed reply-paid cards with each "Guide for Applicants for Undergraduate Courses" (in the British Open University). Those who requested the Guide without proceeding to register constituted a self-selected group of 6439 respondents. Almost two-thirds cited personal or domestic reasons, comprising insufficient time available for study (29 percent), financial commitments too great (25 percent), and care of children and or other domestic demands (23 percent). Sixty percent cited other plans for study, and an equal number (40 percent) reported being dissuaded by the nature of the courses offered or by the available teaching methods. The most significant objection relating to the teaching methods reflected dissatisfaction with a mandatory summer school. Slightly more than one-quarter cited the work situation as a reason for nonparticipation.

Carr and Ledwith (1980) sought to determine the factors related to success of disadvantaged adults beginning their studies with the British Open University. They obtained questionnaires from 332 disadvantaged students who had dropped out or failed, and a random sample of 100 who had completed their course work, and a random sample of students who were interviewed by telephone. They discovered that while only one-fourth of the disadvantages group had received any academic counseling, two-thirds of those who had dropped out would have appreciated more academic assistance. They noted that the reasons stated by students who had withdrawn varied according to course type. Those who were enrolled in the arts and social sciences were more likely to cite personal or domestic problems. Those who were in math, science, and technology courses cited more job-oriented reasons—with employment a major difficulty.

Concerned about the increasing percentage of students failing to sit for the final examination in higher-level mathematics courses of the British Open University, Phythian and Clements (1980) surveyed more than 180 students who withdrew from third-level maths courses in 1978 and 1979. When respondents were asked to check the three most salient of 12 possible reasons for dropout, the three most often reported main and secondary reasons were job (27 percent), domestic (26 percent) pressure, and "course too hard or long" (1 6 percent). As concluded by the researchers,

These data serve to underline the fact that the set of finally registered students is a function of many variables-students in the system, prerequisites, student and staff grapevines, usefulness of the course, together with the counselling which a student has received from his tutors and counsellor(s) (Phythian and Clements 1980:39).

Besides the fixed alternative questions, the researchers provided a free-response section to their questionnaire. On the basis of these comments it was apparent that one reason why the course dropout rates ranged from 42 percent to 71 percent was that there were varying degrees of mismatch between difficulty of the courses and students' academic preparation. Some courses had been designed at an unreasonably high level, given the level of competence of a large percentage of a third-year students. Many students referred to the loneliness and lack of support when they encountered difficulties. For others the fatigue associated with the cumulative personal and family costs of the third year of a strenuous academic program had become unbearable. "Having sweated blood and ignored all those personal and job activities to gain a degree, the pressure of usually several domestic matters could no longer be ignored" (Phythian and Clements 1980:42).

On the basis of data collected over a 10-year period, Rekkedal (1983) reported that when students were prompted to supply reasons for their withdrawal from the NKI School (Norway), they tended to emphasize circumstances beyond the immediate control of the institution, e.g. "lack of time," "job required too much time," "changed to other studies" or "changed career plans," economic reasons, illness, unsatisfactory living or study conditions and personal reasons (Rekkedal 1983:21).

Kennedy and Powell (1976) also found that most dropouts report external or circumstantial reasons for their withdrawal:

Such students often have a demoralizing history of educational failure and bring feelings of insecurity and educational and intellectual inferiority to their studies. This problem is compounded by the fact that by joining the Open University a student is not simply put in contact with a body of knowledge; he is forced to accommodate himself to a specialized pattern of interaction and communication. The student does not only have to learn new vocabularies; he must learn to debate and communicate in a manner which is acceptable to the academic community (p. 69).

The reasons students give to explain why they withdraw may reflect the depth of questions they are asked. When more probing questions were asked individuals who had dropped out from the Norwegian NKI School, additional, study-related reasons were revealed: "problems concerning the teaching/learning method itself, the subject matter of planning/organizing of studies, dissatisfaction with the study material, the tutors' work, and turn-around time of assignments" (Rekkedal 1983:21).

Student profile studies

Various studies have been conducted to formulate profiles of persistent students. Most of these tend to be descriptive in nature, some include multivariate analysis to identify the most influential factors which predispose one or more forms of student performance. Essentially pragmatic in orientation, these studies seldom draw on a theoretical conceptualization of adult learning.

On the basis of institution-maintained records, Carr and Ledwith observed that differences in dropout by occupation (housewives: 13 percent, skilled trades: 27 percent, other manual trades: 46 percent), overall: 30 percent); gender (while female were more successful in arts, social sciences and maths, males were more successful in science and technology); and age (the youngest and oldest tended to register a higher rate of dropout but results were not consistent across all faculties). On the basis of a formal survey and experimental research program from 1970 to 1982 at the NKI School in Norway, Rekkedal (1983), in contrast, reported higher levels of persistence for older students (those more than 27 years of age).

Formal education attainment (FEA) is one characteristic investigated in relation to distance education performance. In Norway, too, both previous formal education attainment and previous completion of NKI School courses were positively correlated with "all criteria of success" (Rekkedal 1983:21). Not only the level of FEA but also the length of time away from schooling, when examined independently of other variables such as level of formal education attainment, work experience, and age, was shown to disadvantage students enrolled in the Norwegian NKI School (Rekkedal, 1983).

The aim of a study (Shohat, 1983) in Israel was to identify the dominant characteristics and factors in the profile of persistent students in Everyman's University. On the basis of questionnaires completed by 528 students a total of 35 demographic and background variables and 35 motivational and attitudinal variables were analyzed. Twenty-five of the 70 variables were found to impact on student achievement. Nine were found to relate to their degree of persistence: eight demographic or background variables and one attitudinal-motivational variable.

Kennedy and Powell (1976) attempted to reconcile the possible conflict between individually reported reasons and more in-depth explanations. Via a "micro-sociological approach" they sought to reconstruct the phenomenon of dropout from the point of view of the students enrolled in the British Open University. Applying a human development, life-stage perspective they analyzed detailed case-study information on 684 students who had withdrawn entirely, 291 who had partially withdrawn and 236 students who were "at risk." They conceptualized dropout as a phenomenon "caused primarily by the combination of student characteristics and their life circumstances" (p. 62). Personal characteristics which tend to change slowly include: motivation, stage of adult development, educational background, personality, aptitude and educational self-concept. Life circumstances which may change rapidly include changes in occupation, relationship with family and peer group, health, finance and support from the distance education institution. On the basis of their findings, Kennedy and Powell proposed a two-dimensional model consisting of two axes of personal characteristics and life circumstances, each with strong and weak poles. Individuals extremely weak on both axes are posited to drop out; those who approach those extremes are at risk. Kennedy and Powell explain:

The individual part-time student has a difficult time in maintaining an equilibrium of pressures within his life, pressures arising from his job, from his domestic situation, from his academic work and also from possible variations in his own personality. If one or more pressures increase unduly, the equilibrium is upset and the student may become "at risk" . . . (p. 62) and large the stronger the characteristics of a student the more unlikely an increase in pressure will upset his equilibrium (p. 70).

Some researchers have utilized multiple linear regression models to determine the relative strength of personal vis-à-vis institutional, life circumstances and other kinds of characteristics as predictors of persistence or withdrawal. In their study of the influence of demographic, social interaction, psychological and institutional variables on course withdrawal from the New Zealand Technical Correspondence Institute, Ostman and Wagner (1987) also found that lack of time was reported as the most influence single predictor of discontinuance. In his study of 200 students enrolled in correspondence study at Penn State University, Sung (1986) reported that "perception of program" and 4c environment-based perceptions" respectively accounted for 19 and 21 percent of the variance in persistence. In the same study "motivational variables" were not found to be significant. Of the "environment-based perceptions," corresponding to perceptions of current life situation, availability of time was the most significant single item. In an earlier study of the same correspondence study population, Greenberg (1981) sought to operationalize a method to predict likelihood of learners completing a course. A stepwise regression analysis failed to yield results which confirmed the expectancy model of motivation to explain either course completion or course achievement. The most significant single predictor of course achievement was high-school grade point average. The most significant single variable predictor of course completion was correspondence study performance.

Implications for institutional intervention

Given the results of studies of institutional responses to various characteristics and conditions which predispose, or at least encourage, dropout, it is apparent that distance education institutions can institute activities which have profound effects upon students who participate in their courses and programs. Depending upon the institutional orientation, the following interventions may be considered as either (1) reactive, compensating for certain limitations of the method of distance education delivery; or (2) proactive, being directed to build in the particular personal characteristics and life circumstances of students:

1. Students' active participation should be sought in planning remedial or introductory courses (Siqueira and Lynch 1986).
2. Interviews with students while in their first year (or even before it starts) (Kennedy and Powell 1976:73).
3. Skilled diagnostic counseling to "help each applicant to explore his aims, motivation and commitment and comprehend how they might relate to the ... [institution]" (Kennedy and Powell 1976:73).
4. Counseling out of high risk students (Woodley and Parlett 1983:23).
5. "Conditional registration ... after students have taken advantage of the counseling service, every effort should be made by the University to ensure that they are able to follow the courses they really want. . . . Students interested in courses which entail projects should be made aware of the volume of work involved and the type of library resources required (especially remote students)" (Kennedy and Powell 1976:73).
6. "Counselors, academic advisors, course designers, and administrators of distance-taught programs should develop a diagnostic and remedial program to assist students in organizing their time and energy toward a successful completion of their study program" (Siqueira and Lynch 1986:197).
7. Regulate the study load of students (Chacón-Duque 1985).
8. Active tutorial assistance during the course. This might be provided either face-to-face or via mediated communications (Woodley and Parlett 1983:23).
9. Examination of students' completed assignments to analyze students' cognitive learning styles, strengths and weaknesses, and affective responses to the instructional materials (Kennedy and Powell 1976:73).
10. Provide option of longer time period for students with difficulty to complete the course (Woodley and Parlett 1983:23).
11. Monitor the performance of participant instructors for needs amenable to improve via in-service training.
12. Distance education institutions should develop programs to enhance their academic status and social credibility so as to enhance student satisfaction and commitment (Siqueira and Lynch 1986:198).
13. Concentrate resources for student advising and other assistance on the more vulnerable first-year students.
14. Periodical redesign of courses and print materials (Chacón-Duque 1985).

References

Bean, J. 1980 Dropouts and turnover. The synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education 12, 155–187.

Billings, D. M. 1986. Factors related to progress toward completion of correspondence courses in a baccalaureate nursing program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.

Carr, R. and F. Ledwith. 1980. Helping disadvantaged students. Teaching at a Distance 18 (Winter), 77–85.

Chacón-Duque, F. J. 1985. A multi-variate model for evaluating distance higher education.Ph.D. diss., Pennsylvania State University.

Gatz, F. A. 1985. Personal, instructional, and environmental factors associated with completion and attrition in correspondence study and distance education. Ph.D. diss., Indiana University.

Greenberg, J. S. 1981. Expectancy theory predictions of completion behavior and achievement in correspondence education. D.Ed. diss., Pennsylvania State University.

Holmberg, B. 1967. Correspondence Education. Malmo: Hermods.

Holmberg, B. 1983. Guided Didactic Conversation in Distance Education: international perspectives, eds D. Sewart, D. Keegan and B. Holmberg. London: 114–122.

Keegan, D. 1986. The Foundation of Distance Education. London: Croom Heim.

Kennedy D. and R. Powell. 1976. Student progress and withdrawal in the Open University. Teaching at a Distance 7 (November), 61–75.

Ostman, R. E. and G. A. Wagner. 1987. New Zealand management students' perceptions of communication technologies in correspondence education. Distance Education 8(l), 47–63.

Persons, H. and M. Catchpole. 1987. The addition of audio-teleconferencing to interactive telecourses: An experimental analysis of dropout rates. Distance Education 8(2), 251–258. Peters, 0. 1965. Der Furnunterricht. Julius Beltz.

Peters, 0. 1973. Die Didaktische Struktur des Furnunterricht: Untersuchungen Zu Einer Industralisierten Form des Lehrens and Lerns. Julius Beltz.

Phythian, T. and M. Clements. 1980. Post-foundation tutorial planning. Teaching at a Distance 18 (Winter), 38–43.

Rekkedal, T. 1983. Enhancing student progress in Norway. Teaching at a Distance 23 (Summer), 19–24.

Scales, K. 1984. A study of the relationship between telephone contact and persistence. Distance Education 5 (2), 168–276.

Shohat, A. 1983. Exploration of the characteristics and competencies dominating the profile of the persistent student in adult distance learning (Israel). Ph.D. diss., Wayne University.

Siqueira de Freitas, K. and P. Lynch. 1986. Factors affecting student success at the National Open University, Venezuela. Distance Education 7(2), 191–200.

Sung, N. 1986. Perceptions of program and learning environment as determinants of persistence and poststudy attitudes in adult distance learning. D.Ed. diss., Pennsylvania State University.

Sweet, R. 1986. Student drop-out in distance education: an application of Tinto's model. Distance Education 7(2), 201–213.

Taylor, J. C. et al. 1986. Student persistence in distance education: a cross-cultural, multi-institutional perspective. Distance Education 7(l), 68–91.

Tinto, V. 1982. Limits of theory and practices in student attrition. Journal of Higher Education 53(6), 688–700.

Woodley, A. and N. McIntosh. 1977. People who decide not to apply to the Open University. Teaching at a Distance 9 (July), 18–26.

Woodley, A. M. and M. Parlett. 1983. Student drop-out. Teaching at a Distance 24 (Autumn), 2–23.