Instructional Interaction and Student Persistence in Online Education

1
Instructional Interaction and Student
Persistence in Online Education
Steven Tello, Ed. D.Associate Director of
Distance LearningUniversity of Massachusetts
Lowell Sloan-C Conference on ALNNovember 15,
2003
2
Objectives

• Why is Instructional Interaction important?
• Present research study findings, illustrating
  relationship between instructional interaction
  and student persistence
• Discuss the relationship between instructional
  interaction, student attitudes and student
  persistence
• Discuss how online faculty development online
  programs might be structured to support student
  persistence

3
What Is Instructional Interaction?

• Interaction
• Reciprocal communication events between at least
  two objects (Wagner, 1994)
• LearnerInstructor, LearnerStudent,
  LearnerContent, and Others (Moore, 1989,
  Anderson Garrison, 1998)
• Asynchronous Synchronous, with
  strengths/limits
• Instructional Interaction
• Communication between student instructor, or
  students, which discusses course content,
  assignments or student progress.(Kearsley, 1995
  Wagner, 1994)
• Facilitated, mediated, by technology in online
  education

4
Why is Instructional Interaction Important?

• Formal (academic) Informal (social) Interaction
  among FTF faculty students supports
  achievement, retention, degree completion. (Kuh
  Hu, 2001 Pascarell Terenzini, 1976 Tinto,
  1987)
• Seven Principles of Good Practice emphasize
  communication interaction (Chickering
  Gamson, 1987 Chickering Ehrmann, 1996)
• High Positive Correlation between Student
  Perceptions of Interaction, Teacher Presence,
  Student Satisfaction and Perceived Learning in
  online education(Shea, Frederickson, Pickett
  Pelz, 2002 Piccione, 2003)

5
Research Study

• Examined the relationship between Instructional
  Interaction Student Persistence in online
  university program
• Population
• 1620 students/76 online courses
• 4 graduate courses, 72 undergraduate courses
• Non-experimental, correlational study using a
  survey research methodology
• Persister Survey - online survey instrument
• Non-persister Survey - telephone or mail survey
• Persistence data - Per course measure of students
  who completed online course

6
Research Questions

• Is there a relationship between frequency of
  instructional interaction and levels of student
  persistence in online courses?
• Is there a relationship between method of
  instructional interaction and student persistence
  in online courses?
• Do the reasons students provide for failure to
  persist in online courses differ based on the
  frequency or method of instructional interaction?
• Do other variables emerge as correlates of
  persistence among students in online courses?

7
Demographic Situational Data

• Persister Response Rate
• 70 by course (N74), 64 by student
  (N1122)
• Non-persister Response Rate
• 45 by student (N102) RQ3
• Persisters Non-persisters similarly distributed
  in
• Age, Gender, Children at Home, Primary Role, INET
• Persister Non-persister differences included
• Greater of Non-persisters worked over 40
  hrs/week (66 NP, 53 P).
• Significantly greater of Persisters were
  enrolled in a program of study (72 P, 57 NP).
• Significantly greater of Persisters indicated
  Intent to Return (86 P, 58 NP)

8
Course Persistence Rates

• Persistence Rate Total Enrollment/Adjusted
  Course Enrollment

9
Question 1. Frequency Persistence?

• Strong Positive Correlation between Freq. of
  Instructor (to student) and Freq. of Student (to
  student) Interaction, r 50 .68, plt.001
• Instructor to Student Interaction occurs more
  frequently than Student to Student,t(51)9.13,
  p.000, mean difference .51
• No direct correlation between Frequency of
  Instructional Interaction and Persistence

10
Question 2. Method Persistence?

• Methods of Interaction included
• Synchronous, text-based chat
• Asynchronous discussion forum
• Asynchronous email lists
• Established reliability of student reported data
• Compared student reported interaction data in 10
  courses to chat discussion archive
• Student reported data reflected archive in 90
• In one course, archive was not available

11
Question 2. Findings

• Differences between Per Course Primary Method of
  Instructor Interaction Primary Method of
  Student Interaction
• Instructors (37) were 3X as likely as students
  (13) to use All Methods Equally
• Students (44) were 3X as likely as instructors
  (15) to use primarily Discussion Forum
• Instructors used chat and email lists more
  frequently than the average student in their
  courses.
• Chat t(51)12.77, p.000, mean difference .58
• Email lists t(51)15.16, p.003, mean difference
  .97

12
Question 2 Findings

• Frequency of Instructor use of a specific method
  was highly correlated to frequency of student use
  of the same method
• Chat Method r 50 .80, plt.001
• Discussion Method r 50 .87, plt.001
• Email Method r 50 .41, plt .01
• These correlations supported use of Method of
  Interaction Indexes. However, no direct
  correlation observed between Method of
  Interaction Indexes Persistence.

13
Question 3. Reasons?

• Why did non-persisters withdraw?
• Why persisters did not intend to take another
  online course?
• Why persisters indicated intent to return?
• Student level, rather than course level analysis.
• Frequencies, Percentages, Cross Tabs,
  Chi-Square.

14
Question 3. Findings

• Non-persister reasons for withdrawal
  (n46)Work Commitments 30Content
  Expectations 23Instructor Contact 11

• Persister reasons for not taking another online
  course (n62)Course Not Offered Online
  29Instructor Contact Not What Expected
  11Work Commitments 2

• Persister reasons for Intent to Return (n
  279) Time Convenience 45Complete Program 28

15
Question 4. Other Correlates

• Student Attitudes were positively related to
  Frequency of Instructor Interaction Use of
  Asynchronous Methods

16
Question 4. Findings

• Modest correlation between Student Attitude to
  Interaction Course Persistence Ratesr 50
  -.30, plt.05 (negative value reflects Transformed
  Persistence Rate)
• Moderate correlation between Student Perception
  of Discussion Contribution Course Persistence
  Rates r 50 -.41, plt.01 (negative value
  reflects Transformed Persistence Rate)
• Contribution of Method variables were positively
  related to Method of Interaction Indexes.
• Chat Method r 50 .70, plt.001
• Discussion Method r 50 .84, plt.001
• Email Method r 50 .57, plt .001

17
Question 4. Findings

• Emergence of Contribution of Method variables as
  correlates of Persistence Method of Interaction
  Indexes suggested need for further
  investigation.
• A linear regression equation was created
  combining the 3 Contribution of Method variables
  and the 3 Method of Interaction Indexes.
• 26 of the variance in Persistence Rate was
  accounted for by combination of Contribution of
  Discussion Method and Discussion Method Index
  scores.R2.26, F(2,48)8.57, plt.05

18
Conclusions

• Multiple factors support an indirect relationship
  between instructional interaction persistence.
• There is a positive relationship between use of
  asynchronous methods both student attitudes to
  interaction their online course experience.
• Student attitudes to discussion forum combined
  with instructor use of discussion forum are
  positively related to persistence.
• Situational Institutional Barriers also affect
  a students decision to persist within a course
  or program of study
• Work commitment is a primary reason for student
  withdrawal
• Time convenience is a primary reason for
  participation
• Matriculation into a program of study
  characteristic of persisters

19
Recommendations Questions

• Faculty Development
• Facilitate discussion regarding adult students
• Who are they? What motivates participation? What
  barriers do they confront?
• How can asynchronous interaction support student
  participation? How best to integrate asynchronous
  interaction into online course?
• Technology Development
• Why do students use particular methods?
• Will high-speed INET increase student access or
  limit adults to synchronous participation?
• Develop communications tools which support both
  synchronous asynchronous interaction.

20
Recommendations Questions

• Program Development
• Know your students
• Help students to know themselves, self-assessment
• Monitor student progress toward matriculation
• Review institutional matriculation policy
  practice
• Publicize accurate information regarding course
  content, timelines, expectations
• Conduct ongoing evaluation program
• Develop complete online programs with broad
  institutional support.

21
Instructional Interaction and Student
Persistence in Online Education
Steven Tello, Ed. D.Associate Director of
Distance LearningUniversity of Massachusetts
Lowell Sloan-C Conference on ALNNovember 15,
2003
22
Table 1Demographic Situational Similarities
23
Table 2Situational Differences
df 1, plt.05, plt.01, plt.001
24
Figure 1. Primary Method of Instructor
Student Interaction
N52
25
Table 3

• Intercorrelations of Frequency of Instructor
  Interaction by Method by Frequency of Student
  Interaction by Method.

26
Figure 2. Non-persister Reasons for Withdrawal

• (n 46)

27
Figure 3. Persister Reasons for not Returning
(n 62)
28
Figure 4. Persister Reasons for Returning
(n 279)
29
Table 4
Regression Analysis Summary for 3 Method of
Interaction Index 3 Contribution Scores
Predicting Transformed Persistence Rate