Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Sociodemographic Diversity and Distance Education: Who Drops Out from Academic Programs and Why?

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Current higher education is characterized by a proliferation of distance education programs and by an increasing inclusion of nontraditional students. In this study we investigated whether and to what extent nontraditional students are particularly at risk for attrition (vs. graduating) from distance education programs. We conducted a secondary analysis of cross-sectional institutional surveys deployed in the context of a public German distance teaching university among university graduates and dropouts (N = 4,599). Using binary-logistic multiple regression analyses, we predicted the likelihood of program attrition by students’ membership in sociodemographic groups, their goal orientations, and the corresponding interactions. Results revealed higher risks to drop out from university for female, migrant, and fully-employed students, but lower risks for older and parent students. A higher importance of career development or personal development goals related to a lower risk for attrition. Moreover, data also provide evidence that among some student groups the likelihood to graduate (or to drop out) significantly depends on students’ goal orientations. Results were robust across different academic faculties and were complemented by an analysis of dropout reasons. The practical implications of our findings are discussed with regard to designing equitable distance learning environments that value human diversity and quality of opportunity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States. Needham: Sloan Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berge, Z. L., & Huang, Y.-P. (2004). A model for sustainable student retention: A holistic perspective on the student dropout problem with special attention to e-learning. DEOSNEWS, 13(5), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berge, Z. L., & Mrozowski, S. (2001). Review of research in distance education, 1990 to 1999. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(3), 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bothma, F., & Monteith, J. L. (2004). Self-regulated learning as a prerequisite for successful distance learning. South African Journal of Education, 24(2), 141–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, F., Kwon, J., Ross, C., & Simpson, O. (2010). Student–student mentoring for retention and engagement in distance education. Open Learning, 25(2), 115–130. doi:10.1080/02680511003787370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnoy, M., Rabling, B., Castano-Munoz, J., Duart Montoliu, J., & Sancho-Vinuesa, T. (2012). Who attends and completes virtual universities: The case of the open University of Catalonia (UOC). Higher Education, 63(1), 53–82. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9424-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(23), A39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chartrand, J. M. (1992). An empirical test of a model of nontraditional student adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39(2), 193–202. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.39.2.193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chetwynd, F., & Dobbyn, C. (2011). Assessment, feedback and marking guides in distance education. Open Learning, 26(1), 67–78. doi:10.1080/02680513.2011.538565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choy, S. (2002). Nontraditional undergraduates. Findings from the condition of education 2002 (Vol. NCES 2002-012). Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

  • Cook, C., Heath, F. M., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821–836. doi:10.1177/00131640021970934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2009). The Bologna process in higher education in Europe. Key indicators on the social dimension and mobility. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairchild, E. E. (2003). Multiple roles of adult learners. New Directions for Student Services, 102, 11–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finch, D., & Jacobs, K. (2012). Online education: Best practices to promote learning. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56, 546–550. doi:10.1177/1071181312561114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guri-Rosenblit, S. (1999). Distance and campus universities: Tensions and interactions. A comparative study of five countries. Issues in higher education series. Paris: International Association of Universities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). ‘Distance education’ and ‘e-learning’: Not the same thing. Higher Education, 49(4), 467–493. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-0040-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1), 19–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, K. A. S., Carlstrom, A. H., Katz, A. D., Chew, A. Y., Ray, G. C., Laine, L., et al. (2011). Career aspirations of youth: Untangling race/ethnicity, SES, and gender. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 98–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, G. (2007). Using blended learning to increase learner support and improve retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 349–363. doi:10.1080/13562510701278690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hülsmann, T. (2004). Guest editorial: Low cost distance education strategies: The use of appropriate information and communication technologies. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 5(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, I. (2003). Issues of cost-effectiveness in open and distance learning. Distance Education in China, 196, 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 94–101. doi:10.1093/poq/nfh006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, M. S., Rynearson, K., & Kerr, M. C. (2006). Student characteristics for online learning success. Internet and Higher Education, 9(2), 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Kwon, Y., & Cho, D. (2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1512–1520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, J. V. (2006). Public investment in university distance learning programs: Some performance-based evidence. Atlantic Economic Journal, 34, 23–32. doi:10.1007/s11293-006-6117-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler Giancola, J., Grawitch, M. J., & Borchert, D. (2009). Dealing with the stress of college: A model for adult students. Adult Education Quarterly: A Journal of Research and Theory, 59(3), 246–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2011). A review of online course dropout research: Implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 593–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mau, W.-C., & Bikos, L. H. (2000). Educational and vocational aspirations of minority and female students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78(2), 186–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mello, Z. R. (2008). Racial/ethnic group and socioeconomic status variation in educational and occupational expectations from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(4), 494–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, J., & Robinson, O. (2013). Intrinsic aspirations and personal meaning across adulthood: Conceptual interrelations and age/sex differences. Developmental Psychology, 49(5), 999–1010. doi:10.1037/a0029237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Learning at a distance. Undergraduate enrollment in distance education courses and degree programs.

  • Nilsson, J. E., Berkel, L. A., Flores, L. Y., & Lucas, M. S. (2004). Utilization rate and presenting concerns of international students at a university counseling center: Implications for outreach programming. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 19(2), 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ojokheta, K. O. (2010). A path-analytic study of some correlates predicting persistence and student’s success in distance education in Nigeria. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 181–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oyserman, D., & Destin, M. (2010). Identity-based motivation: Implications for intervention. Counseling Psychologist, 38(7), 1001–1043.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oyserman, D., Gant, L., & Ager, J. (1995). A socially contextualized model of African American identity: Possible selves and school persistence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1216–1232. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, C.-Y. J., So, T.-S. H., Stage, F. K., & St. John, E. P. (2002). The use and interpretation of logistic regression in higher education journals: 1988–1999. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 259–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poellhuber, B., & Anderson, T. (2011). Distance students’ readiness for social media and collaboration. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(6), 102–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, R., Conway, C., & Ross, L. (1990). Effects of student predisposing characteristics on student success. The Journal of Distance Education, 5(1), 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quimby, J. L., & O’Brien, K. M. (2004). Predictors of student and career decision-making self-efficacy among nontraditional college women. Career Development Quarterly, 52(4), 323–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J., Thomson, G., & Rosenthal, D. (2008). International student use of university health and counselling services. Higher Education, 56(1), 59–75. doi:10.1007/s10734-007-9089-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siem, B., & Stürmer, S. (2012). Cross-cultural volunteerism: Examining the effects of intercultural (dis)similarities on volunteers’ motivations to support international students. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34(6), 544–557. doi:10.1080/01973533.2012.727316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, O. (2004). The impact on retention of interventions to support distance learning students. Open Learning, 19(1), 79–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slagter van Tryon, P. J., & Bishop, M. J. (2009). Theoretical foundations for enhancing social connectedness in online learning environments. Distance Education, 30(3), 291–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stürmer, S., Fisseler, B., Stoessel, K., Ihme, T. A., & Barbarino, M.-L. (2014). Unpublished data from a longitudinal evaluation of virtual study-buddy program. Hagen: FernUniversität in Hagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tait, J. (2004). The tutor/facilitator role in student retention. Open Learning, 19(1), 97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taniguchi, H., & Kaufman, G. (2007). Belated entry: Gender differences and similarities in the pattern of nontraditional college enrollment. Social Science Research, 36(2), 550–568. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (2002). Open and distance learning. Trends, policy and strategy considerations.

  • UNESCO. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution.

  • Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2009). Factors that influence students’ decision to dropout of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 115–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yasmin, D. (2013). Application of the classification tree model in predicting learner dropout behaviour in open and distance learning. Distance Education, 34(2), 218–231. doi:10.1080/01587919.2013.793642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was made possible by a grant from the Ministry of Innovation, Science, Research and Technology of North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) to the FernUniversität in Hagen (Principal investigator: Stefan Stürmer). We are grateful to Heide Schmidtmann, Jana Darnstädt and Julia Kreimeyer from the Institutional Research and Quality Monitoring Office of the FernUniversität for their assistance in carrying out this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katharina Stoessel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stoessel, K., Ihme, T.A., Barbarino, ML. et al. Sociodemographic Diversity and Distance Education: Who Drops Out from Academic Programs and Why?. Res High Educ 56, 228–246 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-014-9343-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-014-9343-x

Keywords

Navigation