My article this week focuses on the lost “face-to-face” contact in a distance education setting and its affects on the retention of students. The article states that while the retention rates of students in brick-and-mortar establishments has risen, the retention rate of distance students is significantly lower. The authors postulate that there is a correlation between the retention rate and communication between instructor and student. Specifically, the article argues that reaching out to students will help foster a community setting as opposed to the individualized “classroom at home by yourself” atmosphere many distance learners take on. As the authors write, “Distance education is more convenient, but that does not mean that it takes less effort.” They outline measures to systematically reach out to students and keep them involved in the course while establishing personal relationships with each student to emulate the type of cohesiveness a physical classroom setting would have.
The article contains many valid observations and consequential actions; however, I must make clear that 1) I am critical of some of their implementations 2) their research is in its infancy and does not account for many factors that may have an influence 3) the study only focuses on the retention rate of students, not their success rate. The first observation is that it in a physical classroom session it is much easier to identify disengaged students. By evaluating their attention, effort, and body language you can go far in differentiating between a disengaged and reserved student; in an online environment the two seem identical. The reactive protocol is for the instructor to proactively contact the student(s) and pull them into the class instead of waiting for the student to take the first step. I firmly agree with this position. Especially in the context of a new class, the instructor knows what the students are getting in to, but it is rarely the opposite way with the students fully understanding what they are getting in to. Thus it is the instructor’s responsibility (not only as a professional but as the more knowledgeable) to take the first step.
This leads into the first phase of the reach out process that takes place in the first weeks of the course. If a student has not been active within the first days of the class an email should be set attempting to establish communication with the student. Here, while I agree with the idea, I am critical both of their timeline and their sample email. The timeline they offer is extremely tight, contact by day 3, if they do not respond within one day, phone contact should be made. To me it seems like borderline harassment and also a not giving the student the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps an email to the entire course reminding them that you are available on an individual basis and welcoming them would be more appropriate. As for the sample email, it sounds extremely formulaic and in my opinion while the attempt at communication is commendable the tone of the email hurts the effort. In fact this is a criticism I have across the board with this study.
The rest of the paper focuses on four categories of students to whom the instructor should be reaching out to: students not participating, students participating but not understanding the material, students who are passing but performed poorly on the most recent assignment, and students who are high achievers and are succeeding in the class. Again I am in favor of reaching out to students and establishing communication with them; however, I feel that this structure fails to treat students as adults and also shifts too much of the burden on the instructor and not enough on the student. Granted the paper comes from the position of each student being an opportunity cost for the University and thus a lost student is a lost investment, a certain amount of responsibility must be placed on the student because if they are not reciprocating the effort than it is in vain and a fruitless time sink.
Lastly, the paper suggests actively involving a student’s advisor in all email conversations. Attacking a problem from multiple angles can be advantageous and using the advisor as a resource can be helpful, but I feel like this is over doing the communication and putting myself in the position of an academic advisor I would not appreciate constant emails from instructors about my disengaged students. Updates are important, when the advisor needs to step in it is important to be on the same page, but that can be accomplished in a manner that is not as frequent as weekly communication.
The guidelines in the article I think could be revised; however, that does not detract from the merit of the authors’ argument. Instructors need to be invested in the well-being of their students and students are the lifeblood of any University. Having the administration take the first step to form learning communities rather than individual study through communication is necessary and something I will keep in mind as I teach in the future.
Achilles, Wendy, Kimberly Byrd, Jaclyn Felder-Strauss, Paul Franklin, and Joan Janowich. “Engaging Students through Communication and Contact: Outreach Can Positively Impact Your Students and You!.” MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 7.1 (2011): 128-133. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Web. 18 Apr. 2011.
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no1/byrd_0311.pdf