The Efficaciousness of the Proposed Socio-Educational Student Support System - Research Paper Example

1 Introduction Online education has annihilated the spatial barriers which previously constrained the ability of many to access quality higher education. Online degree programmes, currently offered at all of the undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate levels, have, to an extent, functioned as an educational opportunities’ equaliser. As may be inferred from Phipps and Merisotis’ (1999) argument, online education is an opportunities’ equaliser to the extent that it offers prospective learners from the four corners of the globe the chance to study in and graduate from reputable universities of their choice, eliminating time and space constraints and challenges because it takes the educational environment to the learner and allows the former to design his/her educational programme around his/her time. Online education has the potential to be an education opportunities’ equaliser but, in practical terms, it has not realised that potential yet. This statement is borne out by Gilbert’s (2001) contention that available statistics indicate that the non-completion, drop-out and inactivity rates for online graduate learners is almost double that of traditional learners. In specific reference to Athabasca University (AU) , Crawford (2000) cites high non-completion and inactivity rates , noting that from 1994 to 2000, 85 of the 423 enrolled students have withdrawn from online programmes for various reasons. The implication here is clear, online learning has not reached its full potential. Following from the premise that online learning has not attained its potential, as evidenced in high withdrawal and non-completion rates, this research shall present a proposal for the establishment of a student support system as would positively contribute to higher student retention rates. Pending the contextualisation of the online learning environment to which this proposal is directed and a clarification of online delivery modes and models, the research will propose a tutoring and student support strategy whose primary objective is the reduction of inactivity and non completion rates, thereby contributing to e-learning’s eventual realisation of its potential to function as an educational opportunities’ equaliser. 2 Context The research will focus on the international e-learners, as in students who have enrolled in a university which is located in a country other than that of their residence or nationality. According to Gilbert (2001) increasing numbers of Third World learners are turning to the e-educational paradigm for their graduate and post-graduate studies, either because work, family or financial restrictions, among others, constrain their opportunities to travel to the university itself and reside in a foreign country for protracted periods of time. As Gilbert (2001), however, adds, a significant percentage of this group does not successfully complete its studies, as in earn their degree and, empirical studies indicated that the reason lies in that many felt at a loss within the virtual environment. Loss was not a consequence of limited technological skills, as are required to function within such an environment, nor of lack of access to the requisite technologies, those being a computer and internet connection but, because the institutions did not provide them with the guidance and support which they believe a necessary component of successful completion (Gilbert, 2001). The above stated represents the focal point of the proposal’s concern. Specifically stated, the concern is with the design and implementation of a support system which will offer e- and distance learners the guidance they require. 3 The Learning System The distance education enterprise, or online learning system, does not deviate from the traditional learning model, although some aspects of it are redefined. As Anderson (2004) explains, within the context of online learning, the learning occurs through the same teacher-student model. The teacher delivers the information, guides and instructs the student and the learner is expected to assimilate, reflect upon and learn the information in question. The primary difference between the two models, as may be inferred from both Ally (2004) and Anderson (2004) lies in delivery strategy and environment, rather than in the general theory regarding learning and teaching. In other words, online learning is not founded on an alternate learning theory but is grounded in the same one, or the same set of theories as is traditional learning, with the primary difference being in the format of student to student and student to instructor/tutor interaction. The below diagram, obtained from Anderson (2004, p. 46) depicts student-to-student interaction within the e-learning model: The figure below, also derived from Anderson (2004, p. 49) illustrates interaction between stakeholders and stakeholders and content within the e-learning paradigm: Both figures indicate that there is high levels of interaction in the e-learning system, whether between student and content, teacher and content, teacher and student and, to a lesser degree, student and student. This means that the e-learning paradigm is based on the traditional learning model although it unfolds within a different context and delivery strategy/environment. It is the difference in context and environment which gives e-learners the impression that they do not have the requisite support systems and which, accordingly, contribute to non-completion rates. 4 Proposed Support System For the proposal to be both realistic and implementable, it has to be solidly grounded in theoretical and empirical research on the characteristics of e-learners, the reasons for low retention rates and the more efficacious of the support strategies used to enhance e-learner confidence and satisfaction, thereby increasing retention rates. It is, thus, that a selection of the relevant literature shall be reviewed. 4.1 E-Student Characteristics Compared to traditional college students, e-students and/or distance learners are older, are more likely to be enrolled in an online degree programme rather than attend a college/university because of employment, are attending for a variety of reasons other than to obtain a degree, and have many external commitments in addition to college (Levine, 2005). Importantly, many are less likely to be college-ready and reside in countries other than that to which their e-college is affiliated. As such, their level of social involvement in their educational institution tends to be low and, indeed, their interaction with other online learners, as measured through participation in e-class discussion and chat sessions, and faculty members, tends towards the minimal (Levine, 2005). The implication here is that the social environment is not, necessarily, a predicator of retention. 4.2 Retention Variables Several studies have sought the identification of the variables which influence retention rates and, many of those found them to be directly related to the e-learner’s background, experiences and expectations. Chua and Lam (2007), Gaskell (2006) and Stover (2005) identify three categories of variables as integral predicators of retention. The first category of variables refers to that which the students bring with them to the online/distance education experience, as in their previous educational background, age, employment status, educational goals and level of commitment to the programme. The second category of variables focuses on academic ones such as degree of integration into the programme, the student’s study habits, the extent to which the student defines social interaction as integral to academic success, the presence or absence of academic advising and the availability of the courses the student wants to sit for. The third category of variables includes the student’s financial status, the degree to which he/she is encouraged by family and work in his/her pursuit of online education and work and family responsibilities (Stover, 2005; Gaskell, 2006; Chua and Lam, 2007). Taken together, all these variables impact upon distance and e- learners psychological state, at least within the context of his/her studies and, accordingly, determine satisfaction and hence, dropout and intent to leave decisions. Institutional support systems are important precisely because of the aforementioned. 4.3 Institutional Support Systems The rationale behind institutional support systems is that they offer such assistance to students as which offset negative experiences and enable them to successfully complete their studies. Given the importance of the aforementioned, it was hardly surprising that a search of the literature on institutional support systems revealed the extent to which this educational institutional factors was the focal point of concern and, hence of numerous researches and studies. As early as the late 1970s, institutional support systems as would contribute to higher student retention rates were researched. In one such study, Lenning (1980) reviewed literature on theory and research and suggested changing institutional practices to improve retention. Examples included improving faculty-student interactions, improving peer interactions, being responsive to student complaints and needs, presenting a meaningful and accurate picture of the institution, and improving instruction and academic programs. In a more recent study, Levine (2005) related retention and graduation rates to support activities. This research identified effective retention-related activities as faculty awareness and development activities that improve teaching skills and connections with students, peer connection programs, career assistance, learning support, orientations, and academic advising. As the mentioned study argued, information regarding how to contact faculty provided during orientation may affect the perceived connection between student and faculty that positively influences the social integration variable, with the assumption here being that e-learning and distance education institutions do offer orientation courses and programmes. Stronger social integration leads to a direct affect on the decision to persist and retention (Levine, 2005). Gilbert (2001) tends to affirm Levine’s findings, asserting that irrespective of the popularly held perception of e-learners as not interested in social integration and interaction, environmental variables affect retention decisions more than do academic ones. In other words, interaction is important and the student’s perception of their being a support system is a predicator of retention, with the implication here being that integration into the e-learner environment is important and, hence, should be facilitated by e-institutional support systems. On the basis of the above stated, one may determine that when academic and environmental variables are both favourable to the student's retention, the student remains enrolled. When both variables are unfavourable, the student is prone to drop out. When academic variables are positive but environmental variables are negative, the student is more likely to leave school. Positive academic variables, such as high grades, cannot overcome the negative effects of environmental variables, such as family and career responsibilities, compounded with an academic environment in which the student feels marginalised, without a support system and, at loss but when environmental support is high and academic variables are low, the student should remain enrolled (Gilbert, 2001; Levine, 2005; Gaskell, 2006). Research studies also indicated that positive psychological outcomes can overcome low grades if the student experiences overall satisfaction with the educational experience or goal commitment. However, a good academic outcome is unlikely to surmount the negative effects of high levels of stress, low satisfaction, sense of utility, or goal commitment (Gilbert, 2001; Levine 2005). In other words, the fact that they are not physically within their environment of learning does not mean that e-learners do not need to feel integrated within that environment. Indeed, integration within that environment positively contributes to such psychological outcomes which may offset the potentialities of initial academic difficulties functioning as a determinant of withdrawal and non-completion. The literature reviewed and the argument presented in the above, leads to the assertion that institutional support systems are an integral determinant of retention. The implication here is that support systems function to facilitate integration, ensure interaction when and should students require it and, importantly function to guide students through their e- and distance learning experience. It is on this basis that one can affirm the importance of support systems in ensuring retention and successful completion of studies. 4.4 A Socio-Educational Support System Interviewing approximately 900 international students who had withdrawn from the online graduate programmes they had registered in, Howard, Schenk and Dicenza (2003) arrived at a set of findings which evidence the imperative of adopting a socio-educational online counselling and advisory centre as a support system for online, international students. As their findings established, the greater majority of e-learners decided to withdraw from their programmes because they were beset with uncertainties regarding what was expected to them and were receiving no personal guidance from their tutors; felt that they were communicating with a machine, were being taught by a machine and hence, the experience was too impersonal and mechanised for their comfort; they did not know whether they were performing up to expectations or not; and felt lost in the system. While the majority of the respondents stated that they were not interested in the formation of social relationships with other e-learners and e-tutors they maintained that some degrees of interaction were essential. Indeed, the respondents, drawn from the databases of six online universities, argued that were an interactive and responsive socio-educational support system in place, they may have persisted in their studies. Traditional universities have socio-educational support systems, whether in the form of an assigned academic advisor, a student union body, or a councillor. Studies, such as the one which Wolfe (1993) carried out, have proven that the mentioned socio-educational system systems have function to offset non-completion and to keep retention rates high. Given that the online educational environment is supposed to replicate the traditional learning environment, at least as regards to the educational paradigm and educational support systems, it hardly makes sense that online universities do not establish socio-educational support systems. Within the context of the online environment, the socio-educational support system should assume three distinct and immediate forms. As regards the immediate forms, these should be a councillor, an e-learner student group/organisation, and an academic advisor. Each shall be dealt with separately. 4.4.1 Councillor As earlier noted, e-learners confront psychological difficulties, or discomfort as a direct outcome of their feelings of isolation within their e-learning institution. The fact that they are at a stage in their lives where they have not been in a formal educational environment for a substantial amount of time, compounded with the fact that the majority have rather time-consuming and demanding career and family commitments means that they can be easily repelled by what they perceive of as a mechanistic, impersonal and, non communicative environment. In the absence of a councillor with which to talk over their concerns, some e-learners decide to discontinue their studies. On the basis of the above stated, the proposal allows for the establishment of an e-councillor centre as would function much like a customer support service in an e-business. Students will access the e-councillor during office hours or, as an alterative, will sign up for an online appointment. This means that a form with available appointment slots will appear online and the student will input his/her student number in the selected time. The advantage of the inclusion of an e-councillor in the proposed socio-educational support system lies in that it will function in much the same way as in a traditional university setting, hereby allowing students the opportunity of non academic, as in socio-psychological advice ad guidance. 4.4.2 Academic Advisor This will function similar to the e-councillor system but will focus on the provision of academic advise and counselling. While the literature reviewed has suggested that the academic variable is not as important as the others mentioned in the retention and withdrawal decisions, it is significant. Ultimately adult students enrol in such programmes because they want a degree and the fulfilment of this goal, of course, is predicated on the adherence to a minimum academic performance standard. A noted, many e-learners have not been in a formal academic environment for some time and are definitely not accustomed to an e-learning environment, to e-programmes or e-courses. Some, therefore, will need the guidance of an academic advisor and, hence, an e-advisor office should be available and need be the responsibility of the various departments’ faculty members so that each department may address the concerns voiced by one of its own students. Added to that, it is recommended that students be obligated to chat with their e-advisor at least twice a semester, once when choosing courses n a second tie before finals, even if the e-learner does not feel the need. The reason is to follow-up on progress and to ensure that the student in question id on track with the academic aspects of the programme. 4.4.3 Student Body A chat group for students should be established so that they may discuss their concerns and function as social support systems for one another. Logging onto the group site is optional but it should be established nevertheless for those e-learners who feel that they need this type of student-to-student interaction and support. 5 Resource Allocation The implementation of the proposed socio-educational support system should not be problematic because it will not really require additional resources. Indeed, with the exception of the e-councilor, no additional personal will be required. The faculty is already present and advising is a standard part of their job description and, as for the e-student group, the students are already enrolled at the university. This means that the resources needed are limited to the hiring of e-councilor personal, if one were to suppose that the university in question does not already have a councilor unit which can also operate online and the creation of the requisite interactive e-councilor, e-student group and e-advisor websites. In other words, one of the proposed system’s strengths lies in that it is not resource consumptive, nor will it require substantial budgeting. It is, in other words, a practical proposal. 6 Conclusion: System Evaluation From a personal perspective, thereby accounting for possible subjectivity in the assessment of the proposed system, it appears to be a practical response to the variables which incite withdrawal, as opposed to retention. It addresses all of the social, psychological and academic concerns which e-learners have and which, in many cases, motivate e-learners to withdraw or simply to freeze their studies. That the system will probably achieve the expected positive results is evidenced through reference to the positive impact which the presence of such systems has had on student retention in conventional learning environments. Added to that, and as argued in the preceding section, the proposed system is practical from the resource and budgeting perspective. It is, thus, that this research concludes with an emphasis on the efficaciousness of the proposed socio-educational student support system. 7 Bibliography Anderson, T. and Elloumi, F. (2004) Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Canada: Athabasca University. Retrieved 2 April, 2007 from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/pdf/TPOL_book.pdf Chia, A. and Lam, W. (2007) Quality assurance in online education: The Universitas 21 Global approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 133-152. Crawford, G. (2001). Past, present and future: the early years in Athabasca University’s Master’s of Distance Education Program. On ICDE CD-ROM of Conference Proceedings, Dusseldorf, Germany, April 1-5. Retrieved 2 April, 2007 from http://cde.athabascau.ca/showcase/crawford2.pdf Gaskell, A. (2006) Rethinking access, success and student retention in Open and Distance Learning. Open Learning21(2), 95-98. Howard, C., Schenk, K. and Discenza, R. (2003) Distance Learning and University Effectiveness: Changing Educational Paradigms for Online Learning. Hershey PA: Information Science Publishing. Gilbert, S.D. (2001) How To Be A Successful Online Student. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lenning, O.T. (1980) Student Retention Strategies. Washington D.C.: National Institute of Education. Levine, J. (2005) Making Distance Education Work: Understanding Learning and Learners At a Distance. London: Lulu.com. Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999) What’s the Difference? A Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education. Washington D.C: Institute for Higher Education Policy. Stover, C. (2005) Measuring--and understanding--student retention. Distance Education Report, 9(16), 1-7. Wolfe, J. (1993) Institutional integration, academic success, and permission of first year commuter and residential students. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 321-326. Read More