Profiles in Retention Part 1: Design Characteristics of a Graduate Synchronous Online Program.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This paper is a case study of a Master of Library and Information Studies degree program online option that has been unusually successful in retaining and graduating students. Design characteristics of this program that has maintained a retention rate of over 90 percent over five years are described and mapped to the literature on distance education published after its implementation. The paper reports that characteristics identified in the practical and theoretical literatures are the same as, or closely related to, the characteristics of the program described. Student transcripts were used to track retention and time-to-completion. Topics for continuing study are identified and described. This is the first of two papers on retention in distance learning programs. The present paper (Part 1) addresses program design and implementation; Part 2 focuses on student responses to the online program option as they relate to student learning styles and outcomes.Keywords: LIS education, online learning, online education, distance education, student retention, enrollment attrition, program administration, student support services, case studyIntroductionThis is the first of two papers, a descriptive case study and a survey, that investigate the design characteristics of the synchronous online MLIS program option at the University of Alabama School of Library and Information Studies (UA SLIS) and its unusual success in retaining students to completion of degree program. As shown below, it has been reported for more than a dozen years that retention rates for distance education programs are lower than for programs in which instruction is delivered face-to-face. The UA Master of Library and Information Studies (MLIS) online program option is a 36-hour cohort-based option, drawing students from across North America, that has maintained a student retention rate after one year of greater than 90 percent and an overall graduation rate of greater than 90 percent over its first five successive entering classes.This paper is structured as follows. After reviewing the relevant literature, we provide a general description of the design characteristics of the UA MLIS online degree program option. In the Methods section, we describe the rationale for the methods employed and the steps for collecting retention data from the transcripts of 216 students who enrolled between 2005 and 2009. We determined retention rates at the half-way point for completion (after one year) and at the graduation point (after 2 years) for the first five years of the program's existence. In the final sections, we present findings and compare characteristics of the UA MLIS program with characteristics that the research literature identifies as related to high retention rates. Finally, we provide a preview of Part 2 of the study and suggest questions that remain to be explored.Review of Existing ResearchRetention of students in online educational programs has been the subject of numerous reports since the first online classes were taught in the early 1990s. There appears to be no clear retention or attrition rate for all programs, and the statistics are confounded by the number and types of programs studied (Perry, Boman, Care, Edwards, & Park, 2008). It has been established, through studies at several colleges, that attrition rates have been 10 to 30 percent higher for courses delivered online than for those delivered face-to-face (Carr, 2000).Throughout the decade from 2000 to 2010, dropout rates for online classes and programs were reported to range between 20 and 70 percent in secondary, undergraduate, continuing professional, and graduate courses in a wide range of disciplines (Angelo, Williams, & Natvig, 2007; Carr, 2000; Long, 2009; Tyler-Smith 2006). It must be recognized, of course, that attrition occurs among both online and face-to-face student populations: the Canadian Association of Graduate Schools (2004), for example, reported attrition rates for graduate degree programs (masters and doctoral levels) to range between 19 and 46 percent regardless of how instruction was delivered. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,022 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».