Title Factors in the persistence of distance higher education students

Abstract

Why some students successfully complete study through distance education
 and others do not is becoming an increasingly important question as distance
 education moves from a marginal to an integral role in the provision of
 tertiary education. The aims and purpose of this research were to: (1) compare
 and contrast the principal causes of attrition in distance higher education with
 a similar study conducted in 1986, (2) better characterise the contemporary
 experience of studying at a distance as a higher education student,
 particularly with consideration of online learning and (3) develop and test an
 updated model of student progress in distance education.
 A new model of student progress in distance education was developed by
 critically analysing models from the literature and reviewing the origins of
 these models. Common elements of the earlier models were identified and the
 applicability of each element was assessed by critically analysing its currently
 accepted significance in recent research. This resulted in the development of a
 hybrid model consisting of elements of the models that emphasised the
 inherent characteristics of students and those that emphasised elements
 related to the learning process. The resultant model drew substantially on the
 model of Kember (1995), though components were added to take account of
 the emergence of online learning and others were removed, such as grade
 point average and Kember’s concept of a ‘recycling loop’.
 The suitability of the new model was tested by surveying a group of 210
 distance students at the University of Tasmania. The survey looked at study
 outcome (whether a student withdrew or continued/completed) and
 correlated this with the factors comprising the model. The data were
 interrogated through statistical analysis (SPSS). It was found that the majority
 of the factors within the model showed some correlation to outcome. The
 analysis also indicated that the model had reasonable predictive value.
 However, the research did find that some factors did not fit well. In
 particular, ‘motivation type’ (whether the subjects intrinsically or extrinsically
 motivated) did not conform to the assumption in the model that students who
 are intrinsically motivated were more likely to continue. It appears from the
 findings that the type of motivation is irrelevant ‐ rather it appeared that it is
 the degree of motivation that is important.
 The collected data were subjected to factor analysis. This resulted in the
 identification to seven factors quite distinct from those used in the hybrid
 model developed for the study. Using this information, together with further
 analysis of the qualitative data collected for the study, an alternative new
 model was proposed and described.
 In addition, the study also found that the main reasons for student attrition in
 distance education have changed little in 20 years despite new technologies
 becoming available. Indeed while online learning has solved many of the
 problems surrounding communication and isolation felt by most students it
 has caused new problems. In this study, the technology appeared to alienate
 a small number of students. The technology also has the potential to create
 unrealistic expectations about the availability of academic staff.
 The qualitative part of the study indicated that poor institutional interaction
 (that is a student’s communications, transactions and relations with university
 staff, systems and services) seemed to have a multiplier effect on the other
 factors, in that a student’s negative institutional experience can exacerbate any
 existing adverse circumstances and cause students to withdraw. The
 implication of this finding was that even small improvements in students’
 institutional interaction could reduce attrition significantly.