Attrition Rate of Online Learning

WHAT INFLUENCES ONLINE CLASSES advanced ATTRITION RATE by Lora Hines Bachelor of Science in Business precept December 1984 College of facts of vitality A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Ful gourmandizement of the Requirements for the ope graze of Science in program line Degree Department of Workforce statement and Development In the Graduate School S breakhern Illinois University Carbondale December 1, 2011 card OF CONTENTS ChapterP period I. glide slopeion . .. 1 Background. 1 Statement of the task. 6Research Questions.. 7 Signifi derrierece of the Problem. 7 II. REVIEW OF RELATED literary productions.. .. 9 Demographics. 10 Best Practices.. 16 takechild Characteristics 24 III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . 32 Summary . 32 Findings . .. .. 33 Recomm quitations 38 REFERENCES.. 41 VITA.. 52AN ABSTRACT OF THE question PAPER OF Lora Hines, for the Master of Science degree in Workforce Education and Development, maped on December 1, 2011, at Southern Illinois U niversity at Carbondale. TITLE WHAT INFLUENCES ONLINE CLASSES HIGH ATTRITION RATE MAJOR PROFESSOR Glen B requisiteinessst champion Online association programs imbibe bragging(a) tremendously in the past 10 historic period. From 1991 to 2006, online enrollments consent large from close to 0 to over 2. 35 zillion pupils. Over 3. 5 meg savants, or roughly one in individually(prenominal) six, were enrolled in at least one online hunt down during the f altogether of 2006.By 2015, 25 million post- guerillaary disciples in the United States offspring be fetching an online year of instruction. Universities blanket(a)ly distri bring forwarded ar providing few type of online learn by developing degrees that argon on hand(predicate) to twain on-campus and off-campus schoolchilds. Online commandment is no longer in its infancy. Students, p atomic number 18nts, educational institutions, government, and production linees ar bear on with the quality of onli ne education. This reputation foc rehearses on quality and the relationship that exists betwixt disciple rapture and dexterity effectiveness.At regaining is the question of whether power effectiveness, as comprehend by intellectual persons, plays a signifi corporationt role in learner comfort (Rehnborg, 2006, p. 1). This put up reveals that savants of varying get along with, gender, and other demographics value education dispa computely. These variances vary among completers and non-completers, and both groups none deviations in the counsel their teachers implement instructional practices. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background T here argon m whatsoever definitions for online education. These include virtual education, Internet-based education, and Web-based education.For the resolve of this search, the definition of online education is based on Keegans (1988) definition of exceed education. (a) the separation of teachers and learners which distinguishes it from face-to-face education, (b) an educational organization which distinguishes it from self- ingest and private tutoring, (c) the engage of a computer network to present or distrisolelye educational message, and (d) the take aiminess of two-way conference via a computer network in enounce for assimilators to benefit from communication with each other, teachers, and staff. Keegan, 1988, p. 4) Kaufman (as cited by Bates, 2005) redes that there obligate been trio generations of outgo education. The first generation characterd one primary coil engineering-print. The mho generation integrated print and other mul condemnationdia such as video tapes, television broadcasts, and other relieve oneselfs of broadcast media. The third generation of distance education gave birth to online education. Online education is characterized by the use of the Internet or video conferencing to create two-way communications, connecting learners and teachers.Bates (2005) describes this communic ation as much evenly distri entirelyed in the midst of assimilators and instructors than in the past. In other words, while school-age childs and instructors atomic number 18 so far separated geographically, they now have a greater great power to make know with each other than in past generations. Students have progressively gained the cogency to dia lumberue and use critical thinking skills rather than simple scholarship (Kaufman, 1989). Online education is easy found as a viable actor of education in both the corporate and academic environments, and it has interpreted a remarkable pace.A survey undertaken in 2001 of online education instructors conducted by the National Education Association (NEA) indicated that 72% of online larn instructors have a positive survey approximately online indication. They believe more than(prenominal) scholars basin be reached, reading mass be customized and flexible, and fundamental fundamental fundamental fundamental inte raction can increase among schoolchilds (Focus, 2001). Online education programs have grown tremendously in the past 10 eld. From 1991 to 2004, online enrollments have grown from around zero to over 2. 35 million disciples (Allen & Seaman, 2006).Based on reports by over 2,200 colleges and universities, Allen and Seaman estimate growth in post-secondary online education to be more than 10 quantifys that of other post-secondary markets. Over 4. 6 million educatees were fetching at least one online melody during the fall 2008 term a 17 partage increase over the number describe the preceding(prenominal) year (Allen & Seaman, 2010). The 17 percent growth rate far exceeds the 1. 2 percent growth of the overall school-age child state. More than one in four gamy education students now take at least one melody online.By 2015, 25 million post-secondary students in the United States will be winning an online rush. While that happens, the companyes that ar taken physically on campus will plummet, from 14. 4 million in 2010 to salutary 4. 1 million 5 years later, according to a new forecast released by Ambient Insight a market enquiry firm (Nagel, 2011). Universities worldwide atomic number 18 providing some type of online attainment by developing courses that atomic number 18 available to both on-campus and off-campus students. Online education is no longer in its infancy (Palloff & Pratt, 2003 Samarawickrema & Stacey, 2007).Students, p atomic number 18nts, educational institutions, government, and jobes atomic number 18 concerned with the quality of online education. Online or not online has been an ongoing debate, not totally for how to preserve the value of human relations but in addition how to de confrontr course content. In a handed-down or face-to-face family lineroom, communication and human connections are great assets for knowledge erudition in spite of appearance a schooling corporation (Allen & Seaman, 2010). When a course m oves online, communication lines are altered.Non-verbal communication cues disappear, and since students converse at different quantifys, spontaneous interaction is impossible. Even with webcams in which students and professors can see and hear each other, interactions are not the homogeneous as in a face-to-face chassisroom. However, taking into consideration that online education al let looses students opportunities to learn independently from anywhere at any time, and to construct and acquire learning at their own pace, online education tole place legion(predicate) advantages for students beyond the contourroom walls.We live in a changing population since more and more students entering college have grown up in todays digital world, they possibly are digital natives whose brains could emfly be wired differently from the previous generation (Prensky, 2001). Draves (2002) lists ten reasonablenesss wherefore online learning is more popular and, in his opinion, why it is bet ter, cognitively, than in-person learning You can learn at your own peak learning time of day. You can learn at your own speed. You can learn faster. You can interact more with the teacher and other participants. on that point are more topics and subjects online. Participants come from around the world. You can learn from the fore nearly authorities and experts. Online learning is less expensive and thus more accessible. Internet links take into account more resources. You can form a virtual corporation. Courses taught in an online initialize h doddery many challenges for the learner and educator alike (Ho tumefy, Williams, & Lindsay, 2003). Challenges include the take away for computer literacy and navigation skills, greater electronic connection capabilities, and concerns over isolation.Within online classes students inseparable not only learn the course material, but similarly the technology skills regarded to introduce in class. The online learning initiali ze places the burden on students to initiate the learning process, and suck primary responsibility for the learning experience. It is possible that in this tremendous movement toward online education, faculty members will be pushed to leave more Web-based courses for both their on-campus and off-campus students. Faculty members are concerned with the quality of online courses they are developing and teaching.While the 2000 NEA survey indicated a highly positive opinion of online courses, the faculty members expressed deep concern that online courses take more work, are more technologically challenging, and require more nurture and mentoring to develop and teach than traditionalistic face-to-face courses (Focus, 2001). Maddux (2004) suggests that the increase competition for universities to offer online courses has caused campus administrators to put forth numerous online courses as rapidly as possible.Many professors, according to Maddux, are less than a technologic expert and find themselves under pressure to produce these courses. Faculty grumble that with their workload they do not have time to get enough training and support from those on campus that go out it. Only 19 percent of institutions with online offerings report that they have no training or mentoring programs for their online teaching faculty. The most(prenominal) common training approaches for online faculty are internally run training courses (65 percent) and informal mentoring (59 percent) (Allen & Seaman, 2010).Of the 10 biggest myths about co-occurrent online teaching, faculty training focuses on technology dicks and educational trounce practices and is of major concern to the professors (DeMaria, & Bongiovanni, 2010). Various search studies have erect a high percent of students taking online courses range to flatten out those courses when compared to students taking traditional courses (Frankola, 2001 Oblender, 2002). just about have reported excoriation from eLearning as high as 70-80% (Tyler-Smith, 2005, Flood 2002. wizard major reason to study student gratification is completion rate of non-traditional students versus traditional students. . near educators suggest that the high drop rates should disqualify online education as high-quality option to traditional education (Distance Education, 2001 as cited by Diaz, 2002, para. 1). Researchers cite numerous reasons for attrition in both online and face-to-face courses. Students have work, family, and affable commitments. Others escape the commitment of time or technological skills requirement to persist in the online environment.Other reasons aside, this look for paper focuses on quality and the relationship that exists mingled with student satisfaction and faculty effectiveness. At issue is the question of whether faculty effectiveness, as perceived by learners, plays a significant role in learner satisfactions (Rehnborg, 2006, p. 1). Institutions retrieve student end-of-course information f rom students who persist and complete online courses. A canvass of the writings reveals a large quantity of material on faculty effectiveness, with numerous recommendations and expirys tidy sumn from that student end-of-course data.There is relatively little data available from course non-completers. A 1991 study indicated that 75% of colleges and universities use the end-of-course questionnaire as a method of evaluating the effectiveness of their instructors. Though some doubt the validity of student end-of-course questionnaires, most accept the fact that they are useful in providing a measurement of the instructors teaching mogul and directly reflect the satisfaction direct of students (Ramsden, 1991). Statement of the ProblemWith student diversity changing, higher(prenominal) education institutions are determination that it is necessary to have-to doe with the rents and demands of our nontraditional students. However, with the growth of distance learning, rates of attri tion have increased significantly (Parker, 2003). Some have reported attrition from eLearning as high as 70-80% (Tyler-Smith, 2005, Flood 2002. ) Carr express, however, that many higher education administrators believe that the completion rates of non-traditional students are 10-20% higher in online learning.Research Questions The interrogation questions for the paper were 1. What similarities and differences, in terms of demographics (age, gender, ethnicity), are present in non-traditional (online) students attrition rate? 2. What act do best practices have on non-traditional (online) students attrition rate? 3. What affect do student characteristics have on non-traditional (online) students attrition rates? substance of the Problem Online courses are generally the first format of course offerings to fill up during registration.Since many online courses have a high withdrawal rate, it would be beneficial for students to be put in a course format most conducive to their learn ing (Dutton, Dutton, & Perry, 2002). The identification of characteristics associated with achievementful online students could provide the necessary info for teachers and admissions personnel to suggest or discourage a student from registering for an online course. A student mistakenly placed into a course whitethorn encounter more difficulties and have reduced changes for mastery compared to an appropriately placed student.With improved technology, students may find it more convenient to take classes online in order to meet their educational needs. Changes in the student population as well as the manner of speaking of the online course at the university may present challenges. Many interconnecting ingredients contribute to the numbers of students who drop out of distance education courses, many of which are beyond the institutions control (Rovai, 2002). Rovai (2002) pointed out that this learning-sharing connection among students could provide the learner with a feeling of support from their swain students.Rovais (2002) research excessively suggested that there might be a possible connection amid the common sense of biotic community and increased penury resulting in increased cognitive learning. If individual circumstances affect the ability of a student to cut across in an online course and if various curricular deli rattling and instructional methods contribute to variable outcomes, then the development of online deli truly should be researched to attend the best way to serve the needs of the student enrolled in an online course. CHAPTER 2REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The advances in telecommunications and the saturation of computers into almost every home in American has drastically changed the way we communicate, the way we investment company and retrieve data, the way we do research, and the way we socialize. These changes in our day-to-day lives have also obliged us to rethink the way we deliver education. Public, private, and copyrig hted institutions have come under intense pressure to develop educational systems that are independent of time and place. Within the past 0-12 years, the growth of online course has increased tremendously. The proportion of institutions with widey online programs rises steadily as institutional surface increases, and about two-thirds of the very largest institutions have fully online programs, compared to only about sixth of the smallest institutions. Doctoral/Research institutions have the greatest penetration of offering online programs as well as the highest overall rate (more than 80%) of having some form of online offering. (Allen & Seaman, 2006, p. 2)Along with this growth comes the need to tell courses are developed with some familiar structure and the need for instructors to teach these courses employ the best practices in the field. Student attrition is also under the microscope. The government, educators, parents, and students insufficiency assurances that online ed ucation works as well or better than its traditional face-to-face counterpart. One must understand the background and the best practices and issues that relate to student needs and satisfaction in online education. The literary works critical review will discuss these relevant issues.What similarities and differences, in terms of demographics (age, gender, ethnicity), are present in non-traditional (online) students attrition rate? An lengthened reading of the literature reveals that face-to-face instruction includes courses in which zero to 29 percent of the content is delivered online this category includes both traditional and web facilitated courses. The be alternative, blended (sometimes called hybrid) instruction is defined as having between 30 percent and 80 percent of the course content delivered online.A course where most or all of the content is delivered online with typically no face-to-face meetings is considered an online course (Allen & Seaman, 2010). Universities want to improve graduation rates and attract non-traditional students by change magnitude online offerings (Allen & Seaman, 2007 2010). oppose to the Allen and Seamans report, online students may not take the akin demographics as traditional higher education students, thus, instructors need to understand the challenges of distance learning when programmeing online learning experiences.The shift towards offering more online courses will continue to affect higher education institutions in ways that are not but understood. The benefits (e. g. , convenience for institutions, instructors, and students) and the challenges (e. g. , student retentivity) need to be balanced to ensure that students outcomes of online courses are comparable with those in traditional face-to-face courses (2010). A move question that the detective must consider is among those studying online education has been the issue of student retention.Online courses typically attract students who might otherwise have not been able to attend traditional on-campus instruction, all because of work, family or other obligations. This difference in the nature of the student body has made the direct similarity of the online and face-to-face very difficult. If students tend to drop out of online classes because of work or family responsibilities, does that accurately reflect the nature of the course or the nature of the student (Allen & Seaman, 2010)? In a study realized by Dutton, Dutton & Perry (2002), the purpose was to understand how online students differ from traditional students?There were two major categories analyze. The first class of information related to the external, patent characteristics of the students. These include such things as age and gender, work, academic and childcare commitments commute distance and previous computer experience. The second information category contains preferences or considerations that are less easily observable by an extraneousr but may have infl uenced the students choice of online versus lecturing format. Using the demographic data that Dutton, Dutton & Perry (2002) gathered from the student records, it appeared that the gender played little role in the choice format.However, it is tidy up that former(a), non-traditional students prefer the online class. The modal(a) age of an online students age compared to a lecture student was more than five years greater. Nearly two-thirds of the lecture class was less than 22 years old while the same proportion of online section was elderly than 22. The study also recoverd that regular students best-loved the lecture course and the part-time students preferred the online. On average the study determined that the online students had greater outside responsibilities and that they live farther from campus.In his dissertation, Bangurah (2004) compared students with breathing out grades in traditional and online courses. Students grades were compared across courses where the same i nstructor taught both online and traditional formats. Within this study, 3,601 students embarkd and Bangurah (2004) demonstrate that in each course and context, mean GPAs were highest among traditional students. He also state fe males who were enrolled in web-based courses outnumbered their male counterparts by nearly two-thirds. This ratio of egg-producing(prenominal) to male students was not entrap within the traditional course backcloth.The claim that the demographic differences between online and traditional students has been duly noted (Diaz, 2002, p. 1) has mixed implications. For instance, while Gibson and Graff (1992) and Thompson (1998) reason out that online students are generally older, have a higher GPA, and have completed more credits than traditional students. There are some(prenominal) nameless surmisals. First, these demographic characteristics portray a trend rather than a strict number. Observing online education over time has indicated that students are getting junior and demographic populations are shifting (Allen & Seaman, 2010).The Instructional Technology Council (Allen & Seaman, 2010) has reported that in 2008, 52% of students were considered traditional age whereas, only 46% of students were considered traditional age in 2006. The second assumption is that methods of identifying online students are universal. What constitutes an online student from a traditional student may vary from institution to institution or from course to course. Lastly, demographic characteristics vary largely across the United States and should be taken into consideration when applying theory to practice.For instance, Iowas minority population constitutes only 9. 4% of the student population and was ranked the fifth lowest state in terms of diversity in 2007. Thus the number of students represented by any one ethnic category is possible to be very different than population numbers from other states and vary highly from states outside of the Midwest (Iowa Department of Education, 2008). The research should consider the question of student process and how it has also been further reviewed along lines of gender ( charge, 2006 Yates, 2001). Whereas, reviously women were presumed to have an online disadvantage collectable to access (Kirkup & von Prummer, 1997) or family commitments (Wolf, 1998), studies have shown that enrollment is greater among females in online courses and females may in fact be more fortunate in the online setting (Price, 2006). In her study, Price (2006) sought to uncover gender differences in female and male students who are enrolled in online courses. In order to do so, she compared the same course in both a traditional and online setting. From 2002 to 2004, 1,991 students put downd in the study from the Open University.Two questionnaires were utilized to demonstrate course experience and academic acceptment. From her study, Price (2006) was able to conclude that women were more likely to outperform the ir male counterparts in online course settings. In Aragon and Johnsons study, they found no significant difference in characteristics of age, ethnicity or financial aid eligibility of students enrolled in online classes. Once again, they found that gender had significant association with completion and non-completion in online courses.Their findings were that females completed at a higher rate than male students in an online but not face-to-face courses (2008). Additionally, it is worth noting that the musical theme that online instruction is eliminating many of the barriers to education for all students in general and indicated through student interviews (2008). The interviews determined that the self-reported reason for non-completion of an online class was personal and time constraints which accounted for 34% of the reasons for non-completion of their online courses, compared to 100% of the reasons abandoned by the face-to-face students (Aragon & Johnson, 2008).Online students often outperform traditional students when success is measured by the percentage of students that attain a grade of C or above, overall classroom performance (e. g. , exam scores), or student satisfaction (Diaz, 2000). When comparing the characteristics and success of online and traditional students, Diaz found that online students received twice as many A grades, while traditional students received twice as many D and F grades in a general health education class. The online students were also more satisfied with multiple aspects of their course as demonstrated by their responses to an 11-question satisfaction survey.While online students generally make dod better in overall grades and grades on exams, they also dropped the course more frequently a 13. 5% drop rate for online students versus a 7. 2% drop rate for traditional students. As Diaz noted, . . . it fronts very clear that students who enroll and persist in an online course will fare at least as well as their on-campus cou nterparts (p. 95). While the use of surveys in conjunction with empirical data can often provide a more complete picture, surveys as a sole fashion of predicting student success and learning has been less than sure-fire (Hall, 2008).Employing two different survey instruments, Hall (2008) act to uncover which instrument would be the most accurate in determining online student success. Two hundred and cardinal students participated in the study which encompassed three regional community colleges in the Midwest. These students were all enrolled in at least one online course in the chase areas business, computer information run, criminal justice, and early childhood development. Hall (2008) found that the class categories were a better forecaster of student success than either of the two survey instruments.In fact, the surveys showed little than 8% accuracy in predicting closing grades for these students. If online students typically ingest characteristics that research has lin ked with academic success (e. g. , older age and more academic experience), why are they less winning in terms of persisting in a class for the full term? One possible answer is that we may have mistakenly defined drop rate as a characteristic interchangeable with academic non-success. However, I believe that many online students who drop a class may do so because it is the right thing to do.In other words, because of the requirements of school, work, and/or family life in general, students can benefit more from a class if they take it when they have enough time to apply themselves to the class work. Thus, by dropping the class, they may be making a mature, well-informed closing that is consistent with a learner with significant academic and life experience. This account statement would be consistent with their demographics while calling into question the idea that these students are academically un palmy or possess inferior academic abilities. In act, a case could be made that many of the students who earn D and F grades would be better served by dropping a class. By doing so at the appropriate time, some might increase the likeliness of a successful academic career. For example, they would obviate the need to retake a course immediately, and dropping the class would not adversely affect their GPA, mayhap benefactoring them to avoid academic probation. (Diaz, 2000, p. 3) What affect do best practices have on non-traditional (online) students? An extensive reading of the literature reveals numerous significant approaches to amend online courses.One method is determining what may contribute or detract from a students success in an online course is to take a client/business approach to the question. In other words, what is the business doing and what is the business doing that is satisfying the customer? This approach would lead researchers to look at central themes of investigating in determining the factors that contribute to or detract from student success. First the researcher must determine what aspects students perceive are main(prenominal) to producing success in online learning.In the customer/business approach, it is a given that a satisfied customer is the end-point from which one works backwards to build a successful business. The literature indicates that student perceptions, attitudes, and satisfaction (Biggs, 2006 Clayton, 2004 Valasidou & Makridiou-Bolusiou, 2006) are almost for certain pigment in the development and instruction of online courses. jibe to Pearson and Trinidad (2005), hearing from students is essential to learning about what works and where improvements should be made in the future.It is the business/customer mould applied to online education. Secondly, the research should consider how educators are conducting their online courses. The scholarly literature reveals that researchers are finding several central factors related to student perceptions and the methods instructors are using to teach a nd design their courses. Palloff and Pratt (2003) concisely define these factors as (a) instructor support, (b) a sense of community, and (c) an appropriate use of technology in the online setting.However, there continues to be instructor support as well as a sense of community in the traditional classroom as well. Instructor live The foregoing conclusion for a number of years in education is that the greater the amount of instructor support, the more successful students will be in understanding and achieving the learning objectives of their courses. Sahin (2007), and Valasidou and Makrdiou-Bousiou (2006) all agree and suggest that a major predictor in online courses is instructor support.In the online environment, students have come to expect instructor support. As an example, data from a soft study conducted by Motteram and Forrester (2005) revealed that students have more or less unwittingly come to believe that because of the nature of online learning as creation any-time an d any-place, instructors are available on a 24-7 basis, able to respond at any hour. Students not only expect instructional support, they expect it in a more expedient manner than the face-to-face student.Another example that indicates students want and need instructor support comes from a study by Ice, Curtis, Phillips, and Wells (2007) who conducted research from Spring 2004 through Summer 2005 with 26 masters take aim students and 8 doctoral students in online courses to determine if there is value in using asynchronous audio frequency feedback in grading student work. The researchers were attempting to determine what effect, if any, the use of audio feedback might have on increasing students success in online courses.In this study, five research questions were posed to determine (a) whether students preferred audio or text feedback, (b) to what degree audio feedback is an effective replacement to the interaction that takes place in a face-to-face course, (c) how audio feedback improved a sense of community, (d) in what manner is perceived learning impacted by the use of audio feedback, and (e) what relationship exists between audio feedback and student satisfaction. The results think that students believed that asynchronous audio feedback gave them more insight into what the instructor was trying to onvey, students see an increased feeling of involvement, the instructor was perceived as more sympathize with, and content retention improved (Ice, et al, 2007). Again, a major finding of this research revealed that instructor support and involvement created what students described as a compassionate attitude, and this caring is a key to students satisfaction and, ultimately, their success in the online course. Leners and Sitzman (2006) undertook a study with online nursing students by seeking their voice in defining what online caring meant.The research revealed the same conclusions that many other studies ( Irlbeck, 2008, & Keengwe, & Kidd, 2010) with o nline students have reported. What students defined as caring was the method and degree to which the instructors interacted with students and the timelines of the communication. Instructor support was, again, a key to student satisfaction. The body of literature exists in large quantities with reference to research studies revealing that both practitioners and researchers agree Interaction between students and instructors is an important predictor of student satisfaction in online courses.One of the major findings that Chickering and Gamson (1987) in Seven Principles for bully Practice in Under polish Education is just as square in online education today. It is good practice to encourage contact between students and instructors. Whether referred to as instructor, tutor, mentor, teacher or technician, students expect support and are more satisfied when they receive support from that individual. A Sense of association beside to contact between instructor and student is the contact that emerges within what has draw known as the learning community.That community represents interaction from instructor to student and from student to student. Research conducted by Motteram and Forrester (2005) suggests that students relationships with swain students emerged as a prime need in online courses. When taking an online course, students often voice feelings of sex segregation and the business organisation of learning alone. A need for interaction with other students is just as apparent in the online environment as it is within the face-to-face classroom. According to Garrison and Anderson (2003), social battlefront has become highly important in online education.Social presence is defined as the extent to which students can project their presence online when communicating in the textual milieu in the absence of optical or verbal signs (Motteram & Forrester, 2005, p. 284). Kazmer puts forth that when students come into an online classroom they are in truth performi ng for each other, for themselves, and for the instructor. In the absence of visual and verbal cues that are normally found in the face-to-face classroom, students create for themselves an identity, and they need a variety of diverse media for interaction to articulate these online identities (2004).Community within the adult online learning environment may be even more important than with traditional-aged students. A great body of research highlighted by Malcolm Knowles (1990) theory of andragogy reveals that one way adults learn is by comparing past knowledge and experiences with current experiences. Stilborne and Williams (1996) further advance the need for community in online education when teaching adult students by suggesting that providing a means for interaction and encouraging adult students to share their knowledge is essential to their style of learning.Adult students have a lifetime of knowledge and experience to share, and finding a sense of community brings this to lif e. University administrators have known for some time that when students are involved in the campus community, attrition decreases. Eastmond (1995) feel that an increased dropout rate among online students is directly related to the reduction or excreta of social and visual cures lost in an online course format conversely, increased online community reduces the attrition rate (Rovai, 2002).Diaz (2002) and Carr (2000) report that attrition is up to 10% higher in online courses than the face-to-face counterpart. As a course design strategy, the use of learning communities has helped reduce this attrition (Diaz, 2002), and when students persist, they become more successful in their learning and persevere to graduation. Not all students are aspect for community within online courses, however. Some studies indicate that students do not inevitably desire a sense of community (Brown 2001).In some cases, Brown intentional that students simply do not wish to participate or engage in com munity building, while others participate based on availableness of time. Other studies have indicated that students feel they are risking academic rigor if they participate in social relationships or class community building. Based on these views, Liu and Ginther (n. d. ) undertook exploratory study to determine, among other things, if students feel a sense of community in online courses and if that sense of community added to the learners engagement and perceived learning and satisfaction.Their conclusion was that there are many positive relationships between sense of community and student satisfaction and perceived learning. No specific agreement between students and instructors emerged, however, on how community building should be undertaken. This led the researchers to further suggest that community building in online courses may not be as intuitive as the advocates of online community might suggest. In other words, community building needs to be intentional it may not just hap pen. Analysis and synthesis of the literature explains several things regarding online learning communities.Many students feel that social presence in an online course is essential to reducing their feelings of aloneness and solitude while other students opted for online learning because of the solitude. Still others do not participate in community building for wishing of time or precaution of lagging behind academically. It may be difficult to distinguish among these groups of students, but a number of instructors and researchers believe that a sense of community helps with retention and, in cases of adult students, adds significantly to the learning and knowledge acquisition process.Diaz (2002) characterized this impulse of community by suggesting that good practice would encourage cooperation and discussion among students. The literature illustrates that this principle is present in the online environment as well. Developing community will most likely require concerted design and hunting expedition on the part of the instructor. handling of Appropriate Technology Interaction among the participants in higher education, instructor to student and student to student, is generally accepted as fundamental (Liu& Ginter, n. . ). This interaction is also considered a condition to student satisfaction (Garrison & Anderson, 2003) and decreased attrition (Rovai, 2002). Therefore, as previously presented, just as a sense of community and human interaction are both anticipate in the face-to-face context, they are expected as well in an online learning environment. The question then becomes, what is the appropriate technology that should be utilise to best facilitate interaction and sense of community?The two primary forms of technology that have emerged within online courses are asynchronous and synchronous interaction (Hines & Pearl, 2004). Synchronous, or real time, interaction requires that students participate at the same time. Asynchronous, or delayed time, i nteraction does not require students to simultaneously participate (Rose, 2006). Synchronous. Branson and Essex surveyed educators and found that instructors mostly used synchronous communication for holding virtual slur hours, brainstorming, community building, dealing with various technical issues, and one-on-one tutoring.The shortcomings of synchronous communications is in the logistics of getting the students together online at one time, students not active in the faster paced chats because of poor typing skills, and less reflection time for students in formulating their answers (2001). As Hines and Pearl put it, Synchronous chats have the advantages of providing a greater sense of presence and generating spontaneity (2004, p. 34). Synchronous communication, however, is difficult since students may be separated by immense geographic time differences.Maushak and Ou (2007) conducted a study to examine how well synchronous interaction facilitated collaboration among graduate stu dents in their group work. The researchers concluded that students regarded the synchronous interaction with an instant pass along system as beneficial in collaborating on group projects and as very helpful in creating a sense of community. There was not a sense that synchronous interaction would be the appropriate method for communicating full class discussion meetings. Asynchronous.The use of asynchronous interaction lies more in the form of discussion forums whereby students are intromited more time for reflection, where archiving of the discussion can take place, and where all students have the prospect to participate at a more leisurely rate. Referred to as threaded discussions, these forums generally begin with the instructor or moderator submitting a question for discussion. Students then read the question and comment on it and the threads builds (Palloff & Pratt, 1999).Many educators report more in-depth and impression provoking discussion taking place with asynchronous online interaction (Branson & Essex, 2001) than occurs in face-to-face classroom discussions. Dede and Kremer concluded that the forums produced richer, more inclusive discussions among students but are more time consuming to mediate and generally do not provide much social interaction (1999). A synthesis of the literature shows that educators have always felt that discussion adds value.Knowledge that participants supply is often sight to add as much value to the discussin as that of the instructor (Addesso, 2000). Knowles (1990) contends that in adult learning the value added by each student is of consummation importance. Physical anonymity in online threaded discussions, according to Sweeney and Ingram, can draw out inquisitiveness, decrease inhibition, and help to bridge the gender gap, thereby increasing interaction (2001). The analysis of the literature draws the conclusion that literature regarding appropriate use of technology in online courses reveals that it is essentiall y content specific.Asynchronous and synchronous interaction are not mutually exclusive, but asynchronous interaction seems to provide for a higher level of academic and intellectual communication while synchronous interaction appears to be more useful in building a sense of community in the online environment. What affect do student characteristics have on non-traditional (online) students attrition rates? An extensive reading of the literature reveals numerous significant approaches to improving online courses. Vincent Tinto 2008), has state that a wide range of studies have been conducted over the last 30 years that provides classic data as to what affects high attrition rate. As a result the university administrators have reviewed the findings and implemented a variety of changes, many in student affairs, in order to reduce the attrition rate (Tinto). However, online instruction is here to stay, and the number of online courses has increased, as have the number of conflicting d iscussions that have attempted to define reasons and solutions for high attrition rate among online classes (Tyler-Smith, 2005).Online students face different issues relating to high attrition rate than do their traditional face-to-face counterparts. As Rovai (2002) stated, online students seem to have very different challenges in which to overcome when attempting to complete an online course which may involve personal distractions, variations in technological abilities, learner pushiness, feelings of alienation, the instructor, and fellow students. The research will follow these factors and determine the affects these variables have upon attrition rate in the online world.Personal Conflicts Adult students have often indicated that they were ineffectual to attend a traditional class due to conflicts with work, geographic, or family commitments and found that online classes were more worthy to their agenda. Online courses have been designed by the educator with flexibility in mind , as the student can work at their own pace and schedule without time constraints of the face-to-face class (Galusha, 1997 Kim 2004). However, due to work commitments as well as family, many still find completion of online course regulative (Galusha).Many administrators believe that high attrition rate is due to the fact that online learners are traditionally older and maintain a busy work and life schedule, causing students to drop classes more often (Carr, 2000). In Carrs research he ascertained that many professors noted that they frequently lose students due to work, marriage, divorce, and pregnancys. Carr referenced one students observation that older students have more clearly defined goals and seems to be comfortable works independently, rather than a younger student more ikely to drop the online class. In a study conducted by Kemp (2002), factors such as resiliency, life events, and external commitments (p. 67) were studied to predict online attrition rate. Questionnaires were administered and compared to student records in order to determine if there was a correlation between these three factors. It was determined that resilience and work commitments were significant among the findings, but they were not conclusive due in part to an inadequate method of accumulating data and the length of the study.Parker (1999) observed and stated that many studies of attrition focus on a single factor as the cause for high attrition rate among online courses. Diaz (2002) believes that research be conducted in order to determine the varying reasons for students to drop online courses, as did Kerka (1995) who believes that students that drop online courses should not be lumped into one category, but should be grouped into several in order to recognize the seriousness of non-completion. One should not assume that the student is dropping the class because of academic riddles.Since online learners are found to be more mature and experienced, it is assumed that the rea son in dropping the class results from careful reflection. Due to outside influences, it may be better for the student to successfully complete the course at a later reckon (Kerka). Variations in Learning Readiness According to the National Center for educational Statistics (2003) online learning presents itself with a tremendous presence in higher education which creates a greater demand for exploring learner readiness and student perceptions of online learning.More specifically, research directs the literature review to an investigation of learner readiness, on-screen reading speed and comprehension, followed by typing speed and accuracy. With the dramatic increase of online learners, successful identification of learner readiness has become a priority (Shilwant & Haggarty, as cited in Watkins, 2005). Profitt (2008) discusses the need for an institutional, pre-assessment requirement, tailored toward learner readiness.The assessment results would not only present information to ad vise the college and potentially at-risk students, but would also alert students, who would in turn, use the results for self-military rating and make the decisions if they are a good fit for online learning. However Harrell (2008) states There could be students for whom face-to-face is a better fit, but the online environment is their only option (as cited in Profitt, 2008, p. 27). Based on the documented learner readiness assessment, at risk students may then contact the institution of higher learning and seek xtra orientation or support services to help prevent an unpleasant online learning experience. Hsu and Shiue along with other researchers have studied individual learner readiness as a reason one might drop an online course (2005). This is a reflection of Knowles theory of andragogy, whereby the assumption of adult self-concept is made that he or she has reached a level toward self-directed learning (Knowles, 1998). Parker (1999) approved the Internet as a method for provid ing the opportunity for the self-directed learner to go where no person has gone forward (p. 1).Parker believes that in order for learning to be successful, instructional media should be carefully selected. In doing so, the online learner should take an online learner readiness quiz that assesses the ability of the student and the potential for success in an online course. READI indicates the degree to which an individual student possesses attributes, skills and knowledge that contributes to success in online learning (Readi. info, 2010). As noted by Willis & Lockee (2004) a determination of goodness of fit of online learning of a potential student should be assessed prior to the initiation of the distance learning commitment.Technological Abilities The regeneration of technology and the rise of the Internet age has increased the ease and accessibility to learning for the online student, thereby, allowing a greater opportunity for the autonomous learning which can be defined as self-planned, self-organized and self-assessed learning (Peters, 2000, p. 9). Osika and Sharp (2002) concluded that without fast technical skills, students may have a difficult time deliver the goods in Web-based learning environments.Through a survey of faculty at a midsize regional commuter campus in the Midwestern United States, an inventory had been established of the minimum technical competencies faculty members believe students should possess to be successful in Web-based instruction. Additionally students at the same university were surveyed to determine how well they thought they met the minimum competencies outlined by the faculty. What was found confirmed the facultys concerns that students often did not possess the technical skills required to be successful in a Web-based course.Osika and Sharp (2002) concluded that even though students are exposed to technology at a much earlier age, this does not mean they are technically competent with the skills required to be succ essful with Web-based instruction (p. 324). theorise conducted a study whereby looking at students reasons for dropping a course. He reported that many of the students found difficulties managing the software, falling behind in their course work and became frustrated and anxious, therefore, dropping the class. Today many universities have technical support that will provide guidance to the students so that they do not fall behind.Over half of the faculty in Osika and Sharps (2002) study listed computer skills such as the ability to use the basic ironware on a computer, prepare word processing task, use the Internet, and hurl and receive e-mails, which is a prerequisite for online instruction. Students that were polled in their study claimed that they had the ability to access the Internet and word processing, but when asked specific questions about their competency levels, they were unable to do so (Osika and Sharp). However, perceived ability, on the part of the student and inst ructor, may not actually meet levels of competency.Muse (2003) conducted a similar study that looked at reasons for dropping an online class. They study found that the students that had difficulties with managing the software (Blackboard, Moodle) fell behind in their assignments, therefore, making them feel anxious and frustrated. Feelings of Alienation In order for online students to succeed, they need to feel as if they are part of a larger school community (Galusha, 1997, p. 4). This is indicative of the lack of communication that may exist in distance education, more specifically to the lack of interaction among staff, students, materials and services.In a study, Meyer (2001) observed that the student and teacher lack interaction as the Internet does not allow for it, which commonly occurs in the classroom. The feeling of alienation may give students even more reasons to drop out of the online course. Administrators conveyed that students identified that one problem in taking an online course is lack of personal interaction which they desire, but do not receive with online instruction (Carr, 2000). One student quoted by Carr, you dont have direct contact on a regular basis with your instructor, (p.A39) and in order to succeed, the student must possess a level of confidence that does not require immediate feedback. Galusha (1997) also reported the lack of confidence that is required when there is a lack of immediate feedback. This is troublesome for the student, and the lack of contact was specifically identified as an area that affected the success of online students. Rovai and Wighting (2005) addressed the issue alienation and low sense of community (p. 101) and the relationship of student attrition in their research with a sample of graduate students at a private university in Virginia.They felt that the study yielded a valid predictive and explanatory tool for researchers concerned with the welfare and persistence of students in higher education program s (p. 108). Rovai and Wighting stated that, the high quality experiences that students receive in the classroom improve student retention, therefore, these findings should be considered when developing an online class. Rovai and Wighting advised that there needs to be surplus research to identify how to foster community in an online classroom in order to lower attrition, particularly among diverse cultures. CHAPTER 3CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The literature review summarized that online students have a great number of deterrents to completing an online course (Carr, 2000 Galusha, 1997 Kerka1995). Some of these deterrents include family, employment, finances, technology, instructor communication, feelings of isolation, and procrastination (Kerka, 1995). Instruction is an identifiable problem that can affect the performance of a student. There may be a problem of communication between instructor and fellow students, as well as technological difficulties on the part of th e student and instructor.Rovai (2003) states that early interposition with reference to the identifiable problems stated above will better meet the needs of the students. Students performance suffers when there is a lack of personal contact among the instructor and fellow students. Therefore, there is a crack-up in communication that must be enhanced when students are taking an online class. How does one enhance communication? There can be exchanges between the student/instructor through emails, virtual office hours, message boards as well as telephone communication.There is an importance among student and instructor services for online classes. Floyd and Casey-Powell (2004) recommended five student areas that are in need of development for online learner. Orientation, development, support, transition, and evaluation are areas that the instructor and or university must provide. Orientation should be given at the beginning of the online class. The instructor should develop those sk ills with the students through making assignments, and requiring students to log on to the course a number of times during the week. Colleges, such as John A.Logan College offer an orientation class to their students at the beginning of each semester. They also provide support for online students. There needs to be a gradual transition into the online course, as well as mid-term evaluation and an end of semester evaluation so that the instructors can learn from those evaluations. The curricular design of the online class can provide the instruction in a meaningful manner. The course welcome or introduction should include an overview of the course establishing boundaries for the course. This would also be the time that the instructor establishes a learning community.Findings What similarities and differences, in terms of demographics (age, gender, ethnicity), are present in non-traditional (online) students attrition rate? According to Allen and Seamans report, online students may no t share the same demographics as traditional higher education students, thus, instructors need to understand the challenges of distance learning when designing and creating an online learning experience (Allen & Seaman, 2010). Universities want to improve graduation rates and attract non-traditional students by increasing online offerings (Allen & Seaman, 2007 2010).The shift towards offering more online courses will continue to affect higher education institutions in ways that are not yet understood. The benefits (e. g. , convenience for institutions, instructors, and students) and the challenges (e. g. , student retention) need to be balanced to ensure that students outcomes of online courses are comparable with those in traditional face-to-face courses (Allen & Seaman, 2010). Using the demographic data that Dutton, Dutton & Perry (2002) gathered from the student records, it appeared that the gender played little role in the choice format.However, it is clear that older, non-tradi tional students prefer the online class. The average age of an online students age compared to a lecture student was more than five years greater. Nearly two-thirds of the lecture class was less than 22 years old while the same proportion of online section was older than 22. The study also determined that full-time students preferred the lecture course and the part-time students preferred the online. On average the study determined that the online students had greater outside responsibilities and that they live arther from campus. We need to close the age gap, and encourage young students to take online classes. advertising is the key to promoting online classes. Full-time students should be encouraged during advisement to take online classes. However, at the same time, advisors must screen potential online students in order to provide proper placement of each individual student. It may be best to first introduce the traditional learning through hybrid classes. This gives them the best of both worlds. What affect do best practices have on non-traditional (online) students?One method is determining what may contribute or detract from a students success in an online course is to take a customer/business approach to the question. First of all, a determination of what is being done correctly, and what is not. This approach would lead researchers to look at central themes of investigation in determining the factors that contribute to or detract from student success. Secondly, the researcher must determine what aspects students perceive are important to producing success in online learning.In the customer/business approach, it is a given that a satisfied customer is the end-point from which one works backwards to build a successful business. The literature indicates that student perceptions, attitudes, and satisfaction (Biggs, 2006 Clayton, 2004 Valasidou & Makridiou-Bolusiou, 2006) are almost certainly key in the development and instruction of online courses. Acco rding to Pearson and Trinidad (2005), hearing from students is essential to learning about what works and where improvements should be made in the future.It is the business/customer model applied to online education. There needs to be more communication between the instructor and student. An instructor might assign group work, which will allow the student to get to know their fellow students, which will enhance the learning experience for the online student. Secondly, the research should consider how educators are conducting their online courses. The scholarly literature reveals that researchers are finding several central factors related to student perceptions and the methods instructors are using to teach and design their courses.Palloff and Pratt (2003) concisely define these factors as (a) instructor support, (b) a sense of community, and (c) an appropriate use of technology in the online setting. However, there continues to be instructor support as well as a sense of community in the traditional classroom as well. Instructor Support In an online environment, students have come to expect instructor/technical support. educational institutions should provide online support through orientation, and staff support. A Sense of Community The student needs a sense of community. This is established through a good rapport with the instructor.The instructor needs to establish assignments that will bring the fellow students together through projects, discussion board assignments, and creating an environment where as the students may share their knowledge. Developing community will most likely require concerted design and effort on the part of the instructor. Use of Appropriate Technology The two primary forms of technology that have emerged within online courses are asynchronous and synchronous interaction (Hines & Pearl, 2004). Synchronous, or real time, interaction can occur through vi