DEMP 609 Distance Education Systems

An introduction to frameworks for analyzing the nature of distance education from a functionalist, interpretive or emancipatory systems approach. Appropriate diagramming techniques are used as a means to examine the organization and management of distance education systems.
Course Attendance:             Spring Semester 2009 (January - May)
Professor:                                Nicholas Allen  & Anne Foster

Final Grade:                             A
Personal Papers:            
      World View of Distance Education
                                                   Impact of flexible course schedule on the DE System
Group Papers:                       Student Retention is Multifaceted

World View of Distance Education                                                        March 29th 2009

Introduction
Jackson (2000) quotes C.W. Churchman as stating that “the systems approach begins when first you see the world through the eyes of another” (p.222). This paper presents my personal worldview of distance education. The approach taken is to chart my evolution in systems thinking through my personal influences, as student, in my career, and family, to my current position in academia. In addition, the paper provides my perspective of  the evolution of the distance education. The intersection of these perspectives, experiences, and philosophies creates my worldview of distance education. 


Personal Influences
Jackson (2000) discussion of Churchman’s shift from functionalist systems thinking to towards a more interpretive, holistic philosophy appears to reflect an earlier parallel of my personal shift from a very functional to a more interpretive, holistic philosophy. This shift is a reflection of my maturity, growth, and personal reflection founded my academic background, career and family experiences.


Reflections of my Academic Journey
My education from primary school to achieving an engineering undergraduate school was in Britain. The British educational system, at least during my tenure, had a strong basis towards a “transmission perspective……A transmission approach emphasizes the importance of the content and suggests that instructors are subject matter experts who transfer their knowledge to their student” (Gabriel, 2007, p.177).  The system also used a behaviorism approach to elicit effective student learning; good behavior was rewarded with gold stars and other very visible student ranking techniques. The system was very functional in nature, the purpose being to efficiently and effectively pass knowledge from the teacher into the student’s head,


However when I left the educational system and started my career as an electronics engineer, I realized that while I knew a lot of facts, I hadn’t learnt to think. This realization was many years before Morrison (2007) and other educators argued that the education system needs to “move away from surface or shallow approaches to learning – emphasis on memorization, simple recall of facts – to a form of deep learning where learners construct and integrate complex representation of knowledge into patters that are personally meaningful”(p.106).

The next experience with an educational system was in Canada doing an MBA. The educational philosophy was a combination of transmission and critical thinking perspectives. As well as lectures, the instructors tended “to look for student understanding and ability to reason using new knowledge constructed through active learning” (Gabriel 2007, p.178); this was achieved by “using case studies and real life examples”(p.179). This teaching philosophy was a positive experience as it combined my experience in the transmission educational system with a pragmatic deeper thinking approach.

My next experience with an educational system was twenty-five years later at UMUC doing a Doctor of Management, in both a face-to-face and for the first time an online environment. In the face-to-face classes the teaching philosophy that was generally used was what Kirshner et al. (2004) term social construction of shared perspectives where “concepts are developed through fine tuning involving interaction with others” (p.7); the philosophy being that class interaction “exposes the learner to multiple perspectives about a theme” (p.7).  I was frustrated in this educational environment as my expectation in going to a classroom is to learn from an expert and not listen to the opinions of my fellow students who were as equally ignorant of the subject matter as me.

While I found the online experience more challenging than face-to-face, I also found it to be more rewarding and enjoyable.  This was largely due to the different roles of the instructor and student in the online environment supporting Collins & Berge (1996) assertion that there is “a radical shift in the power and interaction structures in the classroom as the students must accept the responsibility for their own knowledge creation, and the instructor must relinquish a certain amount of control over the process” (p.6). Taking ownership of my own knowledge creation meant that I increased my interaction with the course material and learning activities. My expectation of the instructor also shifted from the expert to developer of assignments and activities that stimulated my active learning of the subject matter. I found that taking charge of my knowledge construction both refreshing and rewarding.

Professional
My early career, first as a digital hardware designer and later as a software designer, required a very functional approach. Computing design requires the appropriate sequencing of machine steps to provide a consistent outcome in an effective manner, thus the design approach is very structured, orderly and logical. First level engineering managers, often follow the same consistent organizational approach in their management techniques utilizing quantitative systems philosophies such as Deming’s Total Quality Management. More enlightened management philosophies would recognize that “organizations have to take into account of human needs, but not at the expense of everything else” (Jackson, 2000, p.62).


This led me to a more holistic, yet functional, contingency theory perspective. “Contingency theory postulates that the effective performance of an organization is contingent upon the subsystem of the organization [goals, human, technical and managerial] being designed in accordance with each other and the demands of the environment with which they interact” (Jackson, 2000, p.116).  While I would agree with the critics that viewing organizations as system exhibits management bias and the resulting changes and improvements are often vague and untested, I found that the process of thinking about the organization as an interaction of its components proved to be a useful process.

Two characteristics of the hi-tech industry are that it is fast changing, and that the lower levels of the organization (the engineers and product marketers) are highly educated, innovative, and know more about technology than their superiors. In recognizing these characteristics I furthered my management approach by instituting a process that was similar to Ackoff’s interactive planning approach to get participation from all stakeholders and to get “buy-in” from those who are involved [“process of planning is more important than the plan (Jackson, 2000, p. 235)].  While I would agree this approach is an attempt to get a consensus worldview, I would disagree with Ackoff’s critics that this approach does not allow for the emancipatory perspective. In fact I would argue that management should encourage views which oppose the norm and promote radical thinking. As business history has witnessed many large incumbent market leaders stumble and fall due to the creation of radical shifts in the marketplace by smaller innovative companies. However at some point the debate and discussion has to finish and the company has to make a decision and move on; this is the role of the management team.

The general philosophy of an interpretive, holistic approach with a dash of emancipatory perspective is one which now forms my general management worldview.

Family & Cultural
My parents like many in their generation left school at fourteen. While they had limited secondary education, they recognized the value of education and were strongly supportive of both my sister and I receiving a university education. As such, my sister was the first person in our extended family to go to university and I followed in her footsteps a few years later. This experience gives me an appreciation of the challenges faced by first generation university educated students.


Growing up in Britain, especially in a seaside resort which attracts many European students studying English, developed my comfort in being in a multicultural environment. This comfort was furthered through extensive travel throughout Europe extensively in youth; these experiences developed an appreciation of different cultures, and different ideas.

This multicultural appreciation was further extended when I married a French Canadian. Being a white Anglo-Saxon male I have always being a member of the majority and rarely had to experience any kind of discrimination. Through my wife, I learnt to appreciate the continuous frustrations of being a part of a minority, and also as she held increasing higher management positions I gained some insight into the challenges that women face in a male-dominated man management structure. In addition we adopted two boys, one of whom is Sri Lankan, from him I learnt some of the unseen (to me not him) challenges of living in a white society. This privilege of being able to see the world through the eyes of others has made me much more sensitive to the challenges of minorities and the desire to help break barriers.    

Distance Education Evolution
In keeping with the concept of looking through the eyes of others, a worldview must consider the different stakeholders. In this section I will look at the evolution of distance education from the perspective of students and the competitive educational institutions.


Historical Perspective from a student’s perspective
Distance education (DE) enables millions of students (full-time employees, home/child carers, student in rural communities and in developing countries) access to an education which would not be possible without this medium. The flexibility and ease of access to learn anytime and anywhere provides enormous potential for “individual enlightenment and emancipation” (Atthill, 2001, p.86).


Sumner (2000) describes the history of DE through three generations: correspondence courses (1800s through to today), multimedia distance education (starting with radio & television broadcast in the 1930s) and computing-mediated distance education (starting in the 1990s). Sumner (2000) argues that the one-way technologies of the first two generations (mail, text books, radio/television broadcasts, audio/video cassettes) “simply make the education transaction more efficient by enhancing individualized learning” (p.272) and preserved the power of the educator by the emphasis of “one-way, top-down, authoritarian communication” (p. 270). What Sumner (2000) misses is that the role of the instructor in DE shifts from a teacher to a facilitator (Moore & Kearsley, 2005) and thus the top-down authoritarian role is dimensioned. Secondly, what is the problem with “enhancing individualized learning”? I would argue enhancing individualized learning is the strength of DE allowing students to explore the subject matter at their own pace and in the level of depth they desire. I totally agree with Atthill (2001) who argues that reflection, critical thinking, cognitive development and problem solving have “always be there in asynchronous written communication (books, letters, learner’s written work, tutor’s written feedback) and are reasons why some people prefer book and pen to discussion groups” (p.86).

While I agree that the two-way asynchronous communication technologies which facilitated computer mediated distance education has helped to bridge the loneliness factor and significantly increase student support through enhancing teacher-student, student-student interaction, I support Peters (2001) view that the challenge for distance educators is to find the “correct dosage” (p.28) of transactional distance (Moore, 2006) for specific learning needs through the manipulation of three key variables: the course structure, the amount of constructive dialogue that is valued by all parties, and level of learner autonomy.

The key point is that each shift in technology has caused educators and learners “to design teaching and learning anew and implement it in new ways under new circumstances “(Peters, 2004, p. 26). I view this continuous transformation of the education as positive from a student’s perspective.

Distance education competitive forces In North America, distance education is dominated by for-profit institutions. I admire these companies in recognizing the needs of adult learners and quickly adapting their business models to serve them. However, a concern is whether the priorities of the for-profit companies are profit, or providing a high quality education to students. While accreditation agencies ensure a minimum level of education quality, the concern about the profit/quality tradeoff, results in a lowering of the (perceived) value of distance education.

Rumble (2004) maintains that Distance Teaching Universities (DTUs) “were set up in a competitor-less environment” (p. 84) serving a market segment that the Campus-based Universities (CBUs) were not interested in: the part-time adult learners market. However Rumble (2004) argues that shifts in the demographic, social, and economic environments have created a much stronger interest in this market and have resulted in a growth of Dual Mode Universities (DMU).  In my view the interest in distance education by the traditional campus based schools is very positive from multiple perspectives: (1) the establishment of DE as an equal partner in education; (2) students have a greater choices in select the appropriate education institution to meet their needs; (3) business history has shown that increased competition results in increases in both product functionality and product quality. All of these factors bode well for DE and students.

Personal shift to academia
My career shift to academia in many ways is a reflection of my shift from a functional, goal- oriented perspective, to a more interpretive holistic philosophy:


1.      I became much more interested in learning for learning sake, as oppose to the acquisition of knowledge solely for passing an examination or for a specific work-related purpose.

2.      As I reached higher management my role become much more of a "transformational" leader; being a coach to motivate and encourage employees, and in doing so creating an innovative and productive environment.

3.      The interesting in coaching extended in my family and personal life to helping my sons through their high school/ university education and in coaching soccer. In both cases I found that I enjoyed “giving back” my knowledge to help others, and that the skills that I had developed in a work environment made me a much more effective coach.

When I initially transitioned to academia, other than some exposure to correspondence courses, I was quite ignorant of distance education. However once I discovered DE at UMUC, my technical background, my comfort with communicating over multiple forms of technologies and my enjoyment of individualized learning, made DE a natural fit. I have now experienced DE from three perspectives: as a student, instructor and program administrator.

As a DE instructor, I strongly recognize the need to shift from expert to facilitator and use the nurturing teaching philosophy. I feel my role as an online teacher is to guide the learning process, stimulate interest in creating student relevant critical thinking assignments, and providing positive ‘real-time’ support. In this context, I strongly adhere to Collins & Berg (1996) framework of instructional roles required in successful online instruction – pedagogical, social, managerial and technical which involves a mixture of functional, interpretative and emancipatory approaches.

I am now the Academic Director of three undergraduate programs: Global Business & Public Policy, Marketing, and Business Supply Chain Management. In all these programs serve over 5000 students enrollments per academic year and are taught by over 100 faculty. I really enjoy this position as it enables me to touch the lives of so many highly talented, yet in many way under-served adult students.

Summary of Distance Education Worldview
My personal experiences have allowed me to gain insight into multiple aspects of distance education which has enabled me to develop a holistic “worldview” perspective. The key aspects of my worldview perspective are as follows:


1.      Distance education expands the opportunities for everyone to gain access to affordable high quality education. In doing so it provides tremendous opportunity for individual enlightenment and emancipation.

2.      Technological advancement will only increase the opportunities and capabilities of distance education.

3.      The increasing competitive pressures in Distance Education will serve to enhance the quality of the education and academic choices for students.

4.      Shifts in technology will cause educators and learners to continuous transform the education process in a positive direction.

5.      The steady adoption of distance education in all educational sectors, the ever increasing demand for education from global citizens, and the continuous advancement in technology makes distance education a tremendously exciting sector in academia.

In a personal context, my evolving systems thinking philosophy from a very functional thinker to an interpretive, holistic approach (with a dash of emancipatory perspective) allows me to utilize my skills and experience in help others to achieve their dreams; it couldn’t be any better than that.

Reference:
Atthill, C. (2001, February). Towards ethical distance education. Open Learning, 16(1), 85-87
Collins, M. & Berge, Z. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated online courses. Available at: http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/flcc.html

Gabriel, M. (2007). Toward Effective Instruction in E-learning Environments. In M. Bullen,& D. Janes, Making the transition to E-learning. Information Science Publishing.
Jackson,M.C. (2000). Systems approaches to management. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Kirschner, P.A., Martens, R.L., & Strijbos, J.W. (2004). CSCL in higher education? a framework for designing multiple collaborative environments. In What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education, (pp. 3-30). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 
Moore, M., Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A system view 2nd ed. CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Moore, M. G. (2006). Evolution of theory of transactional distance. Presentation at the Fourth EDEN Research Workshop, 25-28 October, 2006, Castelldefels , Spain
Morrison, D. (2007). E-learning in higher education: The need for a new pedagogy. In Bullen, M and Janes, D. Making the transition to E-learning. Information Science Publishing.
Peters, O. (2001). Learning and teaching in distance education - Analyses and interpretations from an international perspective (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page. 
Peters, O. (2004). Distance education in transition - New trends and challenges (4th ed.). Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg
Rumble, G. (2004). The Competitive Vulnerabilities of Distance Teaching Universities . In G. Rumble (Ed.), Papers and debates on the costs and economics of distance education and online learning (Vol. 7, pp. 67-88). Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssytem der Universitat Oldenburg.
Sumner, J. (2000). Serving the system: A critical history of distance education. Open Learning, 15(3), 267-285.

Impact of a flexible course system on the DE systems       19th April 2009

 Introduction
Distance Education is becoming increasing competitive; traditional “bricks and mortar” universities are starting to offer distance education courses, and incumbent DE universities are continuously seeking different ways to increase, or at least maintain, their market share.


At the same time, adult learners who are the primary clients of the DE universities are demanding a greater degree of flexibility in course times and shorter course lengths.

    Faced with these mounting competitive pressures and student demands, DE universities are increasing moving to flexible course semesters and timetables to meet their “customer needs”. These changes however create a significant vexing problem to the university organization infrastructure, the teaching & learning process, faculty, student support groups and to students themselves. This paper seeks to:

1)      Review the current distance education environment that is instigating the need for change.

2)      Examine the vexing problem from a number of perspectives: teaching & learning process, support organization challenges, and the shifts roles, requirements and responsibilities of both faculty, & students.

3)      Review and analyze different functionalist and interpretive approaches as effective vehicle in resolving the vexing problem.
Distance Education Environment
The distance education environment is highly competitive based upon the relative ease of entry into this marketplace. This section will provide a holistic analysis of the competitive environment, the needs of the distant education student, and the implication of flexible course length and timing.


Distance Education Competitive Forces

            “Most students in distance education are adults” (Moore & Kearsley, 2005: p.185).  Adult students now have a broad range of options in determining the best fit for their educational needs (Figure 1). Until a few years ago adult education was limited to part-time study at the student’s local university, vocational training at the local college or taking correspondence courses. However, in the 1960s and 70s, Distance Teaching Universities were established throughout the world. “Although there are differences, these institutions share important similarities: they are single mode distance teaching institutions, dedicated solely to this approach of teaching and learning, employing teams of specialists to design courses, and enjoying economies of scale through large enrollments” (Moore & Kearsley, 2005, p.36). The arrival of personal computers and the Internet in the 1990s further revolutionized the distance education environment by facilitating an anytime anyplace environment, with a high level of interaction between students and the instructor. This online education environment spurred significant growth in public and “for-profit” Distance Teaching Universities. However, Rumble (2004) maintains that Distance Teaching Universities (DTUs) “were set up in a competitor-less environment” (p. 84) serving a market segment that the Campus-based Universities (CBUs) were not interested in: the part-time adult learners market. Rumble (2004a) argues that shifts in the demographic, social, and economic environments have created a much stronger interest in this market and have resulted in a growth of Dual Mode Universities (DMU).  “DMU’s , unlike DTUs and CBUs, have a mandate to teach both on- and off-campus (external or distance) students” (Rumble, 2004a, p.71). By Fall 2007, 3.94 million students which is over a fifth of all higher education U.S. students took at least one online course in over 3,000 educational institutions (Allen & Seaman, 2008).

The ability for online students to access their virtual classroom at any time from any part of the world creates an enormous student potential for Distance Education Teaching institutions, but it also creates a tremendously competitive environment for all educational institutions. To be successful in this fiercely competitive environment, educational institutions must achieve a competitive advantage by matching their competencies with the needs of their students. The reason being that the competitive nature of education has resulted in the “student in ODL being constructed as the customer” (Tait, 2000, p. 288). The student, as a consumer of education, has now started to question the return of investment for their education dollars (Nalewaja, Van Vorhiss & Falkner, 2004) demanding a high quality of education and support services, at an affordable price. A student centric educational environment supports Tait’s (2003) assertion that ODL should be set within a framework of a service industry, where student needs are the primary objective.

Student Needs           
There are a broad range of student categories each requiring different needs. However for the purpose of the paper students are classified as traditional, foreign, and non-traditional. To date traditional students and foreign students generally attend Campus Based Universities although online distance education has significantly opened up the foreign student market

In an analysis of university (CBU) choice by parents and traditional students, Mansfield & Warwick (2005) found that the selection was based upon a number of factors. These factors included functional (academics, degree program, professor qualification), social (friends, social activities, athletics, religious atmosphere), psychological (reputation of the school and the degree), physical (security/safety, size, location, weather), and financial (tuition, scholarships, financial aid). Foreign students study in United States universities primarily for the perceived high quality of education, their selection criteria is based upon information from friends, relatives, and government and private information agencies (Zikopoulos & Barber, 1986). These students are less concerned with social activities, athletics, safety issues and specific locations but many have financial constraints.

Non-traditional students or adult students “differ in several ways from the norm of those attending a campus-based university” (Peters, 2001, p.13). These differences include age and experience, higher education, a strong motivation to reach a higher socio-economic status, a greater overall motivation and attitude towards study, but a higher level of extracurricular concerns such as family and employment demands. These attributes make adult students significantly more demanding in selecting their educational partner. In a study of adult student enrollment in higher education, Mancuso (2001) distilled her findings into one overarching theme: “Adult learner centered institutions have a culture in which flexibility, individuation, and adult-centered learning drive institutional practice” (p.165). This pervasive student-centered focus includes designing the curriculum to meet the needs of adult learners, and making classroom activities and student services easily accessible and convenient to adult learners through many venues (Mancuso, 2001). In fact, in a study of the adult learner’s decision-making process, Eduventures (2009) found that “61% of adult learners report that they are willing to pay more for an accelerated course or program, and 35-50% would pay more for curriculum specialization, hybrid/blended formatting, and weekend only, or fully online formats” (p.8).

Student Time Flexibility
Adult student have a number of competing demands on their time: family, work and community (Peters, 2001). The key reason for adult student to seek further education is to improve their work prospects (Mancuso, 2001), as such work demands are typically the highest priority for these students. The competing pressures for the student’s time, place significant constraints on the student’s ability to successfully partake in an educational program. These time constraints have a number of dimensions: (1) the time in the day in which students can attend a course or study; (2) the number of hours in a week in which a student can devote to study; (3) the time in the year in which a student can participate in a course.

Campus-Based educational institutions attempted to address the time in the day constraint through providing evening and weekend courses. However, the anytime, anyplace advantages of online learning has significantly resolved this constraint for online learner.

The other two time constraints for adult students have really not been address by educational institutions in any significant way. The variable of the number of hours in the week available for study is currently addressed by the student in the establishment of their overall time allocation priorities, selecting the number of classes they take in a given semester, and in their overall effort within each class. The calendar for course commencement throughout the year is currently generally established based upon the traditional campus based calendar: Fall, Spring and a light Summer term. Students are expected to adapt to this schedule, and in fact many financial aid programs (federal, state, scholarship and employer) are geared to this schedule.

Intensive Courses
In an attempt to attract the working and part-time students by better accommodating their busy schedules, some colleges and universities have offered intensive courses (Scott ,1995). However,  “traditional scholars have heavily criticized these non-traditional schools for stressing convenience over substance and rigor” (Wlodkowski & Westover, 1999, p. 3).  “They have been condemned for sacrificing breath, short-shrifting academic standards to accommodate time constraints, and obliging students to cram information at the expense of genuine learning and development” (Scott, 1995, p.207). However multiple research studies have found that (1) students have the same or higher success level in intensive courses; (2) students have the same or higher average grade in intensive courses; (3) Students withdraw less from intensive courses (Geltner & Logan, 2001; Wlodkowski & Westover, 1999; Van Scyoc & Gleason, 1993).

These studies were based upon accelerated face-to-face classes, and until recently there has been no similar study in the distance education environment. However in a recent evaluation of academic quality over different term lengths within an online distance education environment, Abdul-Hamid (2009) found that “the short term length did not contribute negatively to student learning and success as measured by common final exams and the final grades” (p.4). Furthermore he found that “the overwhelming majority of students and about seventy percent of faculty thought that the 10 week term contributed positively to student’s grasp of the subject matter”(p.4).

Critics argue that these results are due to the fact that intensive classes are self-selected, that is only students with the abilities and aptitude to be successful in an intensive course will sign up for these classes. In fact there may be some merit in this argument as Wlodkowski & Westover (1999) found that student that enrolled in accelerated courses were fifteen years older and had fifteen years more work experience than those students who were in the traditional classes. In fact some educators argue that while intensive courses maybe appropriate for good students, “struggling students need considerable time to digest information and incorporate it into their knowledge base” (Geltner & Logan, 2001, p. 8)

Do Distance Education students want intensive courses?           
All the research on intensive or accelerated courses indicates that this format is a response to the preferences of adult learner. However there has been little research on this premise. In a response to a questionnaire to students on whether courses should be run on a fixed calendar or self-paced, Flower (2001) found that the responses were evenly split. He further noted that “educational providers should be cognizant of the diverse preference for learners (Flowers, 2001, p.24).

            The diverse preference for learners is further illustrated by University of Maryland University College students in their selection of Business & Marketing courses in the Fall 2008 and Spring 2009. For each of these courses, students had the ability to select a term length of 17 weeks, 14 weeks, 12 weeks or 10 weeks. The course content, objectives, final examination and credits were the same for all term lengths, thus the selection variable for students was the start time and course pacing. As illustrated in Table 1, out of over four thousand four hundred students, there was a significant enrollment in all term lengths and a slight preference for the longer semester lengths; 29% and 31% respectively for the 17 week and 14 week classes, compared to 17% and 24% respectively for the 12 week and 10 week classes.

Semester versus Annual Calendar
Adult students would like to take the classes when they are ready to study and not wait for the start of the next semester. Furthermore many students look to complete their overall program studies in the shortest amount of time (Flower, 2001). In addressing the first point, a number of universities are starting to offer a staggered start-finish course sessions within each of the three semesters. However, as illustrated in figure 4, this has no impact on students being able to complete their overall program in the shortest amount of time. Students taking the 10 week intensive classes still have to wait until the next semester, as such they are in the ‘hurry up and wait’ scenario. These students have no advantage over those students taking 13 or even 17 week course length sessions in completing their overall program at a faster pace. In fact one can argue that students taking the 10 week intensive class sessions are at a disadvantage with those taking the slower paced courses, as the students in the slower paced courses should be able to take a greater course load per semester.

The ability to complete the program fast can only be address by discarding the traditional three semesters per year scenarios. Figure 4 illustrates that by offering 10 or 13 week sessions starting every four weeks, students have the capability to start another course immediately they finish another. Thus enabling students to take four sessions per year compared to three in the traditional scenario.

SummaryThe distance education industry is highly competitive with a multitude of public and private (non-profit & for-profit) educational institutions vying to serve DE students. This competitive situation has created an environment in which the DE student is king, and thus understanding their needs is critical to ongoing success. However while the technological advantages of online distance education has given students the flexibility of studying at any time during the day from any place, little has been done to provide the students with the flexibility of selecting the pace of their course or the start time. Flowers (2001) in a study of student online learning needs found the one of the barriers to online education was time requirements; courses were either too intense or too slow, or not available when the student was ready to start learning. This offers an opportunity for innovative online distance education institution to achieve a competitive advantage through providing flexibility in course length, and by discarding the traditional three semesters per year calendar and creating a multiple start-finish course calendar throughout the year.

Implication of course length and timing to Distance Education InstitutionsWhile the variability in course length and timing has advantages for students, it has a significant impact on instructors and the university administration.

 Collins & Berg (1996) suggest that successful online instruction requires the instructor to be skilled in four dimensions: pedagogical, social, managerial and technical.  The variability in course length has little impact on the technical consideration but has a strong impact on the other three dimensions.

Instructors who do not utilize systems thinking will simply modify their existing 15 week course curriculum by compressing it into 10 weeks, leaving the student to figure out how to handle the 50% increase in workload per week. Instructors who employ a functionalist approach will analyze their courses from an efficiency perspective. Areas under consideration in this approach are:
1.            Ensuring that there is a tight link between the course objectives and course content; eliminating the ‘extraneous material’ and stressing the core concepts.
2.            Creating a highly level of intensity with highly focused, in-depth discussions.
3.            Ensuring that the online classroom is highly organized so that students have a clear idea of their requirements and what is expected of them throughout the course.
4.            Fast feedback to all assignments and exams.
5.            Ensuring consistent pacing throughout the semester.
However while all of these areas are an excellent first step, Scott (1996) would suggest that these attributes are not enough to ensure a high quality session. She would suggest that a more interpretive approach is needed:
  1. Strong interpersonal, social skills and student orientation:
    1.  Enthusiasm, even passion, about the subject.
    2. Excellent communication skills.
    3. Willingness to learn from and consult with students.
  2. Experiential and applied learning and assessment.
  3. Friendly relaxed atmosphere.
  4. “Smaller assignments” that can be readily accomplished within a shorter time frame.
  5. Essay based exams that reflect knowledge understanding as oppose to objective exams that encourage cramming.
 
The combination of both a functional and interpretive systems thinking approach will lead to the good teaching practices for high intensive courses as highlighted in figure 5. It should be noted that these practices are not only effective for intensive course but the learning should be applied back to longer semester classes.

Administration
Shifting to a multiple course lengths or even fixed length but staggered start-finish course times throughout the year will have a significant impact on the administration of a distance education institution. In the traditional fixed length three semester calendar, all departments will have established a particular operating cycle: planning for the new semester, operating within the semester, resolving ongoing issues etc. Moving to a flexible course calendar will mean that the established operating cycle will be replaced with a constantly iterative mode. This may have some advantages in that the peaks are less, however there will be also be less downtime and a more constant pressure. Some of the administrative areas affected include:


  • Student services: Admissions, registration, advising, transfer credits, student schedule adjustment, grade posting.
  • Course Scheduling:  Class rosters, go/no go decisions on courses
  • Finance: Student billing, financial aid, paying adjunct faculty
  • Library: ability to provide student with requested books in a timely manner
  • Text books: Course text book decisions, getting course text to faculty, ensuring text books are available for students
  • Faculty administration: staffing faculty at different start times, administrating teaching load, hiring adjunct faculty.
  • Final examination administration: reduced economies of scale in proctored exam, difficult in administrating a common final exam.
  • Course administration: monitoring and evaluating online classrooms.
The conversion from the traditional fixed calendar to a flexible course calendar will require a significant amount of analysis and effort from all areas of the university. This will translate into a considerable amount of conversion cost; as such the university leadership will need to assess:
  1. The financial benefits of shifting to a flexible student-focused course scheduling structure
  2. The cost of conversion including an allocation for potential hiccups in the conversion
  3. The faculty and employee sign-up (or resistance) to the conversion.
 However the methodology by which the university leadership will determine the most appropriate conversion strategy will have a profound impact on both the cost of conversion, and the enthusiasm (or resistance) of the faculty and implementing the change.

Analysis of the approaches to implement change           
Jackson (2000) argues that “complex problems involve richly interconnected set of parts and the relationships between the parts can be more important than the nature of the parts themselves” (p.1). He further asserts that systems thinkers advocate using holism to appreciate the problem at hand through the different perspectives of its nature, and to encourage possible resolution. Jackson (2000) maintains that there are four types of system thinking approaches: functionalist, interpretive, emancipatory, and postmodern. However as the flexible course scheduling problem is geared to the sociology of regulation, as oppose to the sociology of radical change, only the functionalist and interpretive approaches will be explored.

Functionalist systems approach The goal of the functionalist systems approach is to achieve organizational efficiency and effectiveness. This is achieved by using a scientific/technical strategy to evaluate and monitor the health of the system, and make the appropriate corrective action when inefficiency or disorder is detected (Jackson, 2000). The organizational benefit is control, consistency and expertise.

In the conversion from the traditional fixed calendar to a flexible course calendar using the functionalist systems approach the Systems Analysis approach seems to be the most appropriate. According to Jackson (2000), Quade defined systems analysis as an “analysis to suggest a course of action by systematically examining costs, effectiveness and the risk of alternative policies or strategies – and designing additional ones if those ones are found wanting” (p.130). The analysis consists of:

1.      Formulating the problem.
2.      Research
     a.       Identifying, designing, and screening the alternatives.
     b.      Building and using models for predicting the consequences.
3.      Evaluating and presentation
    a.       Comparing and ranking alternatives.
    b.      Evaluating the analysis.
4.      Decision and Implementation.
5.      Evaluating the outcome.

This is a very rigorous step-by-step methodology which requires a careful analysis in setting out the objectives, searching for alternative ways of reaching those objectives, and evaluating based upon a specific performance metric. A further positive characteristic of this approach is the emphasis placed on meeting the interest and needs of its clients (adult students).

Critics of this hard system thinking approach argue that it fails to give appropriate attention to the human factor. “People are treated as components to be engineered just like other mechanical components in the system” (Jackson, 2000, p. 137). The lack of respect for people will impact overall employee morale which in turn impacts their enthusiasm to change, and their innovative idea generation. The emphasis on meeting the needs of the client could shift from the needs of the students to the needs of the most powerful stakeholders.

Interpretive systems approach           
“The interpretive systems approach is frequently referred to as soft system thinking because it gives pride of place to people rather than to technology, structure or organization…… ….its primary area of concern is perceptions, values, beliefs and interests” (Jackson, 2000, p.211). This framework is consistent with Tait’s (2003) assertion that in order for ODL to be effective in the educational service industry it must utilize good business practices in creating management processes to deliver effective and useful services to students. He indicates that the core of good business practices is the management of staff, and the management of systems.


Leadership is essential to this process.
Beaudoin (2007)  argues that “the future of distance education is ultimately not so much about enhancing technology or improving pedagogy, but rather about managing change” (p.92). The change to a student centric service environment requires leaders who are transformational and “provide clear energizing visions and define or redefine the core values and goals of their organization” (Latchem and Hanna, 2001, p.57). This transformational leadership style is especially important in distance education where the staff are the point of contact with the customers (students).

            In the application of defining, developing & implementing an effective course scheduling system to meet the needs of students, Ackoff’s interactive planning methodology seems the most appropriate. This methodology is underpinned by three key principles:

  1. The participative principle: all stakeholders should participate in the various stages of the planning process.
  2. The principle of continuity: the values of the organization’s stakeholders will change over time, and the organization environment may change, so plans should be constantly revised.
  3. The holistic principle: we should plan simultaneously and interdependently for as many parts and levels of the system as possible.
With these principles in mind, Ackoff’s interactive methodology has five phases:

  1. Formulating the mess: analyzing the problem prospects, threats and opportunities facing the organization.
  2. Ends planning: specifying the ends to be perused in terms of ideals, objectives and goals.
  3. Means planning
  4. Resource planning
  5. Design of the implementation and control.
The key participants in Ackoff’s interactive planning process as identified in the DE university systems map (Figure 6). 

  • Key Faculty: changes in course terms will have a profound effect on their teaching pedagogy and their course workload.
  • Student services: front-line contact with students.
 
  • Academic Administrators: front-line on the program curriculum, and faculty training & development.
 
  • Finances: critical in the university and student financial viability.
 
  • Marketing: critical to student recruitment.
 
  • Human Resources: key in staffing and training for job transition requirements.
 
  • Exams & testing: critical to the current proctored final exam process.
 
  • Current & prospective students: essential in providing feedback on their needs and expectation.
 
  • Accreditation: Review changes to ensure it meets accreditation requirements.
 
  • Course Developers: needed to provide inputs into the feasibility of creating and updating courseware in flexible term scenarios.
 
  • Library: needed to ensure the needs of the library are represented in a flexible term scenarios.
Utilizing the above multi-discipline team should provide a holistic solution to the vexing problem of providing students with the flexibility of taking courses at their convenience, not at the convenience of the organization. Equally important, the process will facilitate “buy-in” by respective team members which will in turn generate enthusiasm to implement the solution, and facilitate an innovate environment.

Conclusion – solution to the vexing problem.
The environmental analysis indicates that distance education is operating in a competitive environment should be utilizing service industry practices in which the customer (student) is king. Distance education students have multiple constraints on their time and need maximum flexibility in all time dimensions. While the technological advantages of online distance education has given students the flexibility of studying at any time during the day from any place, little has been done to provide the students with the flexibility of selecting the pace of their course or the start time. This offers an opportunity for innovative online distance education institution to achieve a competitive advantage..


However providing maximum flexibility in course lengths and start times creates significant complexities and inefficiencies within all aspects of the distance education operations. As such a balance needs to be developed to maximize the ability for the student to take courses at his or her convenience, while minimizing the organizational complexities and inefficiencies.
           The proposed new course scheduling as shown in figure 7 is the compromise solution. Students can take courses starting on the first of any month, as such their maximum wait time is one month. They can also take up to four sessions per year and thus enabling students to quickly move though the program. At the same time the fixed thirteen week course time, and the regularity of starting on monthly intervals, will allow the Distance Education Institution to establish operational efficiencies. The utilization of Ackoff’s interactive planning methodology will enable these efficiencies to be understood and operationalized.

Reference:
Abdul-Hamid (2009). Evaluation of Academic quality in different term lengths. University of Maryland University College internal report.  
Allen, I.E., Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Sloan Consortium.
Beaudoin, M. (2007). DE Leadership - Appraising Theory & Advancing Practice, In M Beaudoin, Reflections on Research in Distance Education (pp. 91-101). Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg. 
Collins, M. & Berge, Z. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated onlinecourses. Available at: http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/flcc.html  
Daniel, E. L. (2000). A review of time-shortened courses across disciplines. College Student Journal, 34(2), 298-309.
Eduventures (2009). Deepening our understanding of the adult learner’s decision-making process. Eduventures Catalog No 27CPECR0309
Flowers, J. (2001). Online learning needs in technology education. Journal of Technology Education, Vol. 13 (1), p.17-30.
Geltner, P., Logan, R. (2001). The influence of term length on student success. Research report Santa Monica College California.
Jackson (2005). Systems Approaches to Management. Springer.
Latchem, C., Hanna, D.E. (2001). Leadership for 21st century learning. London: Kogan Page.
Mancuso, S. (2001). Adult-Centered Practices: Benchmarking study in higher education. Innovative Higher Education. Vol. 25 (3), p.165-181.
Mansfield, P.M., Warwick, J. (2005). Gender differences in students’ and Parents’ evaluation criteria when selecting a college. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. Vol. 15 (2) p.47-80.
Moore, M.G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: a systems view. London: Croom Helm
Nalewaja Van Vorhiss, S., Falkner, T.M. (2004). Transformation of Student Services: The process and challenge of change. In J. E. Brindley, C. Walti, & O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.),Learner support in open, distance and online learning environments205-217). Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.  (pp.
Peters, O. (2001). Learning and teaching in distance education - Analyses and interpretations from an international perspective (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page. 
Rumble, G. (2006). Systems thinking and its application to distance education.Unpublished document found in University of Maryland University College OMDE609 Course developed reading found in Course Content.
Rumble, G., & Latchem, C. (2004). Organisational models for open and distance learning. In H. Perraton & H. Lentell (Eds.), Policy for open and distance learning: World review of distance education and open learning: Volume 4 (pp. 117-140). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Rumble, G. (2004). The Competitive Vulnerabilities of Distance Teaching Universities . In G. Rumble (Ed.), Papers and debates on the costs and economics of distance education and online learning (Vol. 7, pp. 67-88). Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssytem der Universitat Oldenburg.
Scott, P. A. (1996). Attributes of high-quality intensive course learning experiences: student voices and experiences. College Student Journal,30(1), 69-77.
Scott, P. A. (1995). Learning experience in intensive and semester-length classes: Student voices and experience. College Student Journal,29(1), 207-213.
Seamon, M. (2004, April). Short and long term differences in instructional effectiveness between intensive and semester length courses. Teachers College Record, 108(4), 852-874.
Tait, A. (2003). Management of services to students. In S. Panda (Ed.), Planning and management in distance education (pp. 155-169). London: Kogan Page.
Tait, A. (2000). Planning Student Support for Open and Distance Education. Open Learning, Vol. 15 (3), 287-299.
Van Scyoc, L., Gleason, J. (1993). Traditional or intensive course learning experiences: student voices and experience. Journal of Economics Education Vol. 24, p.15-22).
Wlodkowski, R. & Westover, J. (1999). Accelerated course as a learning format for adults. Canadian Journal for the study of Adult Education, Vol. 13 (1), p.1-20.
Zikopoulos, M., Barber, E.G. (1986) Choosing schools from afar. The selection of colleges and universities in the United States by Foreign Students.Institute of International Education, New York.
 

 

Student Retention is Multifaceted
Scott Bailey, Ingah Davis-Crawford, Rebecca Muller, Robert Tipple                                                
March 15th 2009

Abstract

This paper analyzes and recommends a multifaceted solution to a college struggling with high attrition rates. The paper assessment is that the high attrition level is due to a lack of sufficient student support capabilities and a lack of student engagement, and proposes a comprehensive retention plan which focuses on “at risk” students. The retention plan has been established from a literature review and coupled with suggestions, advice, and critiques from the Spring 2009 DEPM 609 Distance Education Systems class at University of Maryland University college (DEPM 609, 2009)

Background

The college under study has an enrollment of about 12,000 students: 3500 full-time students and 8,500 part-time or distance students. Many students bringing with them credits from other institutions, and are often first time degree earners in their families. This special challenge places many at a disadvantage from the start, as they learn to negotiate the academic environment without family or peer support.

According to Steinman (2007), feeling isolated is one of the precursors to giving up/dropping out. It is also important to note that many of these students are also challenged by a lacking k-12 education, leaving them unprepared to meet college level expectations.  Liu, Gomez, Khan, and Yen (2007), note that psychological, technological and social issues are all factors in student attrition. Therefore, the majority of the students attending this college are at risk in potentially all three areas.

These factors led the chief academic officer to be concerned about retention, and the head of student affairs recommends doubling the “investment in student support, remediation, and counseling programs”.

Figure 1 provides a multifaceted student support plan to address the challenges faced by “at risk” students which was established from a literature review and coupled with suggestions, advice and critique from the Spring 2009 DEPM 609 Distance Education Systems class at University of Maryland University college (DEPM 609, 2009).

 The plan is based upon the recommendations of the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (2008) to address student retention. The key components being:

      -   Set clear goals
      -   Focus on the Front Door”
      -   Provide developmental education
      -    Use engaging instructional approaches
      -    Make engagement inescapable

Setting clear goals is important from the outset/”front door”.  These goals can be made attainable for everyone by assisting those who are not yet able to perform at the college level. In the initial enrollment process, students in need can be given help in improving their skills in the academic foundations: writing, mathematics, literature research and the use of technology. This assistance/support will help boost not only student skills with subject areas/technological skills, but also confidence (CCSSE, 2008).

In recognition that student unpreparedness is a major reason for early university drop-out, the DEMP 609 debate highlighted the need for more focus within the high school curriculum to ensure that students entering colleges & universities have the necessary study and life skills to be successful (DEPM 609, 2009). However it was identified that there are a number of challenges in doing this: lack of national standards for high school curricula, the ability of a university to influence more than a hand-full of high schools, the importance of high school students taking the “College Preparatory Track”, exit interviews.

As highlighted by the DEPM 609 debate on student retention, financial aid is also a critical element of a learner retention program (DEPM 609, 2009). The debate referenced the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) Higher Education report which stated that “students with unmet financial need often must make extraordinary efforts to persist in their programs, attending part-time and intermittently, living off campus, working long hours and going into debt. Their probability of persistence and degree completion declines as a result of such patterns” (Lee & Gladieux, 2003, p.14). As such it is recommended that the college offers a number of financial support programs: helping students lever federal & state financial aid programs, scholarships, and offer student focused payment plans.

Once students have the required college skills and are financially viable, the teaching and learning process is fundamental to student’s academic motivation and retention.  Engle &Tinto (2008) maintain that students must be engaged in their learning experience. “Both the provision of knowledge and the attainment of that knowledge must be interactive and relevant to the student’s life. Interaction and engagement can take many forms, such as group work, debates, and field research; no two teachers need to use the same techniques” (p.20). Hughes (2007), DiRamio & Wolverton (2006), and Fisher & Baird (2005) stipulate that courses that heavily favor blended learning, learning community concepts, collaborative learning and social networking opportunities are very effective with respect to retention.  Instructors need to be vigilant in identifying “at risk” students early in the semester, such that he or she can reach out to support these students either personally, or through the appropriate college support team. As noted in the DEPM 609 debate, the challenge is to provide that appropriate balance between supporting the “at risk students” and not burdening the autonomous well prepared student (DEPM 609, 2009). In addition all students need to have access to support services such as tutors, library assistance, and writing support (Brindly, Walti, Zawacki-Richter, 2004).

Conclusion

Student retention requires a strong multifaceted student support approach providing a strong focus on “the front door” and engaging students throughout their learning experience.

The proposed retention plan is very comprehensive and, as identified in the DEMP 609 debate, an analysis of the most urgent student support needs should be conducted by the college prior to implementation (DEPM 609, 2009). This will facilitate an appropriate prioritization of the support programs based on a cost/benefit analysis. However this paper argues that a comprehensive student retention program is good business, as an investment into student retention programs saves lost revenue from students dropping out, and increases revenue through the school developing a reputation of excellent.
 
References
Brindly, J.E.,Walti, C., Zawacki-Richter, O. (2004). Learner support in Open, Distance and Online Learning. Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.

The Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE). (2008). High expectations, high support: Essential elements of engagement. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

DiRamio, D., & Wolverton, M. (2006). Integrating Learning Communities and Distance Education: Possibility or Pipedream?. Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 99-113. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ747610) Retrieved March 4, 2009, from ERIC database.

DEPM 609 Distance Education Systems (2009). M3C4D Conference 4 Debate on a Retention Program.  Retrieved from the University of Maryland 0902DEPM6099040  Webtycho classrooms on March 15th 2009 at  http://tychousa3.umuc.edu/DEPM609/0902/9040/class.nsf/Menu?OpenFrameSet&Login 

Engle, J. and Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: college success for low-income, first generation students. The Pell Institute. Fisher, M., & Baird, D. (2005). Online Learning Design that Fosters Student Support, Self-Regulation, and Retention. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 22(2), 88-107. Retrieved March 4, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database.

Hughes, G. (2007). Using Blended Learning to Increase Learner Support and Improve Retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 349-363. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ763564) Retrieved March 4, 2009, from ERIC database.

Lee, J.B., & Gladieux, L.E. (2003). Student's persistence in college:  more than counting caps and gowns.  Retrieved March 14th , 2009 from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/higher_ed/student_persistence.pdf 

Liu, S., Gomez, J., Khan, B., & Yen, C. (2007). Toward a Learner-Oriented Community College Online Course Dropout Framework. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(4), 519-542. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ771827) Retrieved March 4, 2009, from ERIC database.

Steinman, D. (2007). Educational Experiences and the Online Student. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 51(5), 46-52. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ798784) Retrieved March 4, 2009, from ERIC database.