Despite its imposingly academic title (“Four Families of Multi-variant Issues in Graduate-level Asynchronous Online Courses”) this article provides an accessible and pragmatic breakdown of problems confronting the development and evaulation of higher ed distance learning programs. There are too many good insights in the article to list here, so I’ll just give one as a sample:
In ABCD 888, several individuals withdrew from the course throughout the semester. Of the original students who enrolled in the elective online course two took incompletes and five individuals (one female, four males) withdrew. One cited that he felt that the course required too much time and effort while others cited personal reasons. Interestingly, still others cited that they used a strategy of enrolling in “extra” elective course and then later withdrawing from one or more of the courses as part of their online degree-seeking strategy to enhance their academic success possibilities. This enrollment/withdrawal strategy allowed them to ensure adequate number of semester hours as well as enabled them to due a risk analysis regarding the convenience, academic demands of a course, and potential benefits for the student’s overall degree plans. This strategy was most often cited in elective course offerings and was seen as a benefits rather than being considered by those who withdrew as being particularly problematic. Unfortunately, this strategy can also send the wrong message to administrators seeking to fill online classes and question the completion and retention numbers. Interestingly, convenience and time saving educational options are both marketing terms and phrases intended to attract the distance education consumer, but at the same time call into question the issues of institutional credibility, academic rigor, standards, and accreditation. Yet, retention and student satisfaction as a merit standard for course and faculty excellence continues to be employed throughout academia.
In other words, the ease with which students can add, sample, and drop courses without rearranging their day schedules means that there will tend to be much more churn in distance learning classes. This isn’t a problem per se unless you are evaluating class success based on retention rates, in which case the increased use of the “try before you buy” strategy that distance learning affords to students can be misread as a strong negative reflection on the quality of the courses being offered. Which, in turn, tempts the institution to make the courses more “fun” at the expense of academic rigor. I wouldn’t go quite as far as the authors seem to go in terms of rejecting student retention and satisfaction as valid measures of course success, but the cautions that they offer are well worth noting.
Overall, this article is a must-read for people putting together higher-ed programs.
