Many tertiary students, including many first generation tertiary students, are now choosing to study at a distance. However, they face significant problems, particularly when they have minimal experience of tertiary study and less understanding of the expectations of the university. The result has been unacceptably high failure and withdrawal rates. This paper describes an online course designed for distance students who were having difficulty adapting to the expectations of the university culture. It describes how the physical structure of the university was used as a metaphor to contextualise the online delivery. Emphasis was placed on developing peer support mechanisms through the assessed as well as the less formal aspects of the unit. This approach reduced the geographic and temporal aspects of physical isolation, as well as the psychological isolation from peers and academic staff.
The stress reduction during acculturation has been linked to four factors (Berry et al. 1992 pp.284-290). Firstly, time is a factor with the greatest stress during initial contact with the new culture. Secondly, individuals need to integrate their previous experiences. Thirdly, a network of social groups is needed within the new culture. Finally, the individual should be able to accurately appraise their situation and control the direction of their acculturation. However, for many distance students feedback from the university is limited, and interaction with other students and staff may be non-existent. This paper describes an attempt to overcome the isolation of distance education students through an online unit.
As with most universities (Peters, 1992), external students in our institution have the highest risk for withdrawal from studies of any group with an astounding 43% drop out rate in the first year at the university. Since 1 659 of the university's 10 967 students are enrolled fully externally, this is an issue of considerable economic as well as social concern. On-campus students who are on the verge of withdrawal have had the opportunity to enroll in A120, Introduction to University Learning. This unit has been particularly successful in increasing institutional fit as described by Tinto (1975) and Peters (1992), and reducing isolation among students (Lake 1996). It seemed likely that the same variables were likely to be qualitatively similar to, but quantitatively more important for external students, so an external version might address the isolation causing withdrawal of distance students (Tinto 1975; Peters 1992; Rogers 1990; Okun, Benin, & Brandt-Williams 1996; Hipp 1997).
While mail-based systems were clearly unsuited for the interactive aspects of the unit, they were used to create atmosphere (using videotapes to let students to see the activities and interactions, or lack of them (Ward & Bodner, 1993) that occur during lectures). Hard copy readers were supplied to improve readability. Students were permitted to return assignments through the mail. However, by the end of semester, all students were submitting assignments online.
Online communication opened up several new possibilities to providing opportunities for non-threatening interactions with other students and academic staff. So communication was directed through a web-site constructed using the metaphor of the university, and using a range of simply implemented but powerful online capabilities: email, html pages, forms and discussion groups. One-way communication took place in the 'Lecture Theatre' web pages, while structured, two-way discussions took place in the 'Tutorial Room', and unstructured, private chat was encouraged in the 'Cafeteria'.
Simplest in concept and delivery was the html-mediated, one-way communication for the 'Lecture Theatre' space. The 'Lecture Theatre' space also included a weekly 'Announcements' page allowing the tutor to respond to common queries, and make general social chat, vitally important for distance learners (Stevenson, Sander & Naylor 1996). It also enabled coordination and communication with the on-campus tutorial groups removing the perception of a neglected underclass that is common among external students.
Email allowed students to communicate privately with each other, or with the tutor, as they would in his or her office. A virtual 'Cafeteria' page listed the names of the students in the tutorial, and the tutor. The students' first task in the unit was to email the tutor a brief paragraph about themselves that they wished to share with the other students. The 'Cafeteria' allowed students to access this paragraph, the students' email addresses, and, to email them by a click of a mouse button.
The discussion group format allowed students to interact simultaneously with all other members of the tutorial, and respond to specific questions posed by the tutor, as would normally occur in tutorials. A 'General Discussion Group' was created in the online unit for students to raise any issue they. Content discussion groups focused on the readings, while skills discussions centred on different academic-related skills such as essay structuring. Each week students responded to a new, open-ended question drawing on student experiences and related to the reading topics. Students were encouraged to respond (constructively) to the comments of others, and assessment for the unit took into account their involvement. A 'Glossary' discussion group allowed students to clarify the meanings of jargon they encountered during their reading. The thread structure had an additional bonus by organising questions and responses into an indented hierarchy of ideas that was used when discussing essay structure.
The off-campus student also faces a problem when it comes to the weekly tasks favoured by many unit coordinators. On-campus students hand them in during tutorials obtaining timely feedback. By comparison, the off campus student typically submits tasks in batches, receiving feedback only after it can make a difference. To alleviate this, a 'Study Cubicle' set of pages was incorporated into the online unit. Each week the students completed a text-based task ranging from a critical numeracy task to an essay-structuring task. Each task contained instructions with associated text boxes for students to enter responses. A cgi-script provided a simple method to email the responses to the tutor at the press of a button. Most exercises were designed to cause a copy of the student's submission to appear on their screen together with some suggested responses from the tutor attached to each response following submission. Submissions were filtered into a separate directory using Eudora so the tutor could monitor the time management of students and provide rapid feedback.
To encourage students to experiment with different approaches, an open resubmission policy for assignments was promoted. Students were encouraged to read feedback from the three essays, learning skills activities, and reflective tasks, then re-edit and resubmit papers as many times as they wished until they achieved results they were satisfied with, provided it was submitted prior to end of semester. At the same time it shifted the locus of control from the tutor to the student (Shapiro, 1988; Killen, 1994). Students were encouraged (but not forced) to exchange essay drafts, and compare the comments made on their submitted work. The tutor was not overwhelmed with work since the students were required to do three essays of increasing complexity, and a number of other activities in the space of ten weeks. The tutor made a copy of the essay, attaching comments to the body and in an appended criteria sheet permitting the student and the tutor to track development of the work. The criteria sheet highlighted both structural and content based features of the essay, providing space for individual feedback for each aspect, and giving context-specific evaluations.
The assignment content was also used to encourage and enhance communication between students, particularly in the first weeks of the unit. The three phases of collaborative learning (see for example Jaques, 1991) were built into assessable tasks. The first stage, where individuals worry about what they can contribute to the team, was dealt with by having each student write an autobiographical paragraph for the 'Cafeteria' web page. Stage two of the team building process requires students to interact with each other so a 'Study Cubicle' activity required each student to email every other student in the tutorial in order to discover two things they had in common (other than items related to their university studies). The completed list was then sent back as a form to the tutor. The third stage of collaborative work where individual capabilities and group interactions can be exerted to problem solve a task effectively was incorporated into a structured essay where students compared and contrasted their construction of 'self' with that of another group member. After this assignment students began using the direct email facility of the 'Cafeteria' extensively.
The pilot group of five students satisfied all requirements for our target group. It was the first semester of university for all students, and four of the five had gained access to the university through alternate entry programmes. Two had full-time employment commitments during the day, and two others lived several hundred kilometres from the campus. Neither of these latter students was in paid employment, but both had young children. The final student, the only school-leaver of the group, attended on-campus for her other subjects, but her timetable prohibited her from attending the lecture, or any of the eight, three hour on-campus tutorial groups. English was a second language for two students. All were female, none of the students had studied online before, and all but one were computing novices. All five students completed the course. Gratifyingly, all reported that the online delivery not only allowed them to feel in control of their study, but also to feel a part of the university community.
It similarly reflects the summations of research relating to retention amongst on-campus students. Shapiro (1988 p.602) concludes that: "[m]ost importantly, the contingencies for performance, both during and after academic responding must be clearly articulated and constantly applied. Finally goal setting and ongoing monitoring of academic progress is essential" and Rogers (1990 pp.318-319) stressed: "the academic and social integration of the individual into the institution and the student's interaction with the social and academic systems as the primary determinants of student retention and attrition. It is sometimes important to remind ourselves as educators, and more particularly the educational administrators who can become obsessed with the technology and economics of online delivery, that the needs of distance students are the same as other students - but more so.
Blaxter, L., Dodd, K. and Tight, M. (1996). 'Mature student markets: an institutional case study.' Higher Education, 31:187-203.
Dudley, J. and Vidovich, L. (1995). The politics of education. Melbourne, ACER.
Goodnow, J.J. (1976). 'The nature of intelligent behaviour: questions raised by cross-cultural studies.' in Resnick, L.B. (ed.), The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale,N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hipp, H. (1997). 'Women studying at a distance: what do they need to succeed?' Open Learning, 20: 22-30.
Jaques, (1991). Learning in Groups. 2nd edn. Kogan Page, London.
Killen, R. (1994). 'Differences between students' and lecturers' perceptions of factors influencing students' academic success at university.' Higher Education Research and Development, 13: 199-211.
Lake, D.C. (1996). Quantitative approaches to the Piagetian analysis of temporal concepts held by Papua New Guinean trainee teachers. PhD. thesis, James Cook University, Townsville.
Morrison, K. (1996). 'Developing reflective practice in higher degree students through a learning journal.' Studies in Higher Education, 21: 317-332.
Okun, M.A., Benin, M. and Brandt-Williams, A. (1996). 'Staying in college: moderators of the relation between intention and institutional departure. J. Higher Education, 67: 577-596.
Peters, O. (1992). 'Some observations on dropping out in distance education.' Distance Education, 13: 234-269.
Richardson, J.T.E. (1994). 'Mature students in higher education: I. A literature survey on approaches to studying.' Studies in Higher Education, 19: 309-325.
Rogers, P.H. (1990). 'Student retention and attrition in college.' In Hashway, R.M. (ed.), Handbook of developmental education. N.Y., Praeger. pp.305-327.
Shapiro, E.S. (1988). 'Preventing academic failure.' School Psychology Review, 17: 601-613.
Stevenson, K., Sander, P. and Naylor, P. (1996). 'Student perceptions of the tutor's role in distance learning.' Open Learning, 20:41-49.
Tinto, V. (1975). 'Dropout from higher education. A theoretical synthesis of recent research.' Review of Educational Research, 45: 89-125.
Ward, R.J. and Bodner, G.M. (1993). 'How lecture can undermine the motivation of our students.' J. Chemical Education, 70:198-199.
West, L. and Hore, T. (1989). 'The impact of higher education on adult students in Australia.' Higher Education, 18: 341-352.
Wober, M. (1974). 'Towards an understanding of the Kiganda concept of intelligence.' In Berry, J.W. and Dasen, P.R. (eds.), Culture and cognition. London, Methuen, pp.261-280.
|Please cite as: Lake, D. (1999). Reducing isolation for distance students: An online initiative. In K. Martin, N. Stanley and N. Davison (Eds), Teaching in the Disciplines/ Learning in Context, 210-214. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The University of Western Australia, February 1999. Perth: UWA. http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1999/lake.html|