In research that I conducted initially for my doctoral dissertation and then later in a paper with my colleagues Phil Ice and Angela Gibson, I identified several factors as significant variables leading to student disenrollment from an online program.  These variables include no transfer credit received, student’s last grade of F, student’s last grade of W, and low number of courses completed by the student in a 12-month period.

Over the past year and a half, my colleagues and I have continued to examine the student disenrollment patterns at the American Public University System (APUS) and have discussed those patterns with colleagues at a number of other institutions offering online programs.  More and more, I have come to believe that the persistence of students who complete three or more undergraduate courses at APUS and the tendency of students who complete fewer than three courses at APUS to eventually disenroll are much more correlated to adult student behaviors previously identified by researchers using data from traditional institutions.

During the past decade, a major increase in enrollments has occurred  with the number of adults attending online programs versus face-to-face programs.  The reasons are obvious:  working adults are able to attend online programs from any location at any time.  Those with jobs that frequently take them out of town no longer have to juggle schedules to meet the requirement of taking a face-to-face class, but can log in from another city or country; the only requirement is a computer and an internet connection.  Additionally, adult students with a family can come home from work and log in to their classroom after dinner and after the children go to bed.  Those adults whose jobs require them to work non-traditional evening or night shifts can log in during times that suit them and not worry about losing sleep to attend face-to-face courses at a local college or university.

One of the earlier studies regarding persistence rates of adult students was published by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).  In this study, researchers Laura Horn and Mark Premo identified seven risk factors that were associated with the likelihood that a student would not graduate from college.  These risk factors were:  being independent, attending college part-time, working full-time while enrolled, having dependents, being a single parent, delaying entry to college, and not having a traditional high school diploma.  Working adults attempting to complete an associates’ or bachelor’s degree are likely to have at least three of these risk factors and those with children may have five or six.

Other studies of persistence relating to adult students provide explanations and characteristics of transfer students.  Noting that my own research indicated that students who had transferred credits were  more likely to graduate than those who did not transfer credit, I reviewed some of the literature about transfer students and student attendance patterns.  Wright and de los Santos wrote about this phenomenon in “Maricopa’s Swirling Students: Earning One-Third of Arizona State’s Bachelor’s Degrees” in 1990.  Later, director of Indiana University’s National Survey of Student Engagement, Alex McCormick, wrote a research article titled “Swirling and Double-Dipping: New Patterns of Student Attendance and Their Implications for Higher Education,” outlining the various patterns of student attendance and their implications.  In his article, McCormick attributes the likelihood of students to attend multiple institutions to the standardization of credits and the ability to transfer credits from one institution to another rather easily.  McCormick outlines eight different patterns of attendance for swirling students.  These are: 
• Trial enrollment – Students experimenting with another institution before formally transferring
• Special program enrollment – Students completing most of their coursework at their home institution but completing a special program (e.g., semester abroad) elsewhere
• Supplemental enrollment – Students enrolling at another institution for one or more terms to supplement or accelerate their program (examples include summer programs or taking a course at another institution because it’s unavailable at the home institution)
• Rebounding enrollment – Students alternating enrollment at two or more institutions
• Concurrent enrollment – Students taking courses at two institutions simultaneously
• Consolidated enrollment – Students who satisfy their home institution’s residency requirements but a substantial number of their credits come from at least two other institutions
• Serial transfer – Students who make one or more intermediate transfers sequentially in order to complete a degree
• Independent enrollment – Students pursue work unrelated to their degree program and no credits are transferred

McCormick notes that several longitudinal studies exist and while they provide descriptions of attendance patterns, they fail to provide explanations for those patterns.  He cites Clifford Adelman’s 1999 study that examined the longitudinal data of the 1982 high school graduates’ cohort and identified that students who attended multiple institutions accounted for approximately 60 percent of all students who began at four year institutions.  Approximately 37 percent of all students from the 1982 cohort attended two institutions and 22 percent attended three institutions.  Confirming some of the classifications outlined by McCormick was Adelman’s finding that three in five of the 1982 graduates who attended two institutions returned to their first college, as did half of the 1982 graduates who attended three colleges.  It’s important to note that Adelman’s longitudinal study over 16 years examined college attendance data over a much longer period than the NCES data required to be reported by institutions participating in the Federal Student Aid program.

The studies mentioned by McCormick and Adelman are excellent starting points for discussions about why more research is necessary to determine the explanations of student swirling.  Is it possible that adult students might attend even more institutions today because the availability and popularity of online courses and programs has increased substantially over the past decade?  The Sloan Consortium’s most recent publication, Going the Distance:  Online Education in the United States 2011, has identified that nearly one third of all college students completed at least one online course in 2010-2011.  At the recent Council of College and Military Educators (CCME) Conference, the Department of Defense reported that 75 percent of all military tuition assistance payments were for students attending online programs.  While the military may be more mobile than most working professionals, the data otherwise supports the increasing trend of adult students enrolled in online courses/programs.  As noted earlier, the risk factors for college completion are compounded for working adult students and may lead to explanations of some institutions’ student transfers.

More and more, I am convinced that the United States needs a national database that tracks the progress of college students as they attend multiple institutions.  The Predictive Analytics Reporting (PAR) Framework funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and managed by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) Cooperative for Education Technologies has a database with 640,000 student records from students attending online programs at six different institutions.  That’s approximately 10 percent of the students who took online courses last year according to the Sloan survey mentioned earlier.  The National Student Clearinghouse provides data as it is contributed by participating institutions, but institutions are not required to belong to the consortium and only recently has the Clearinghouse been able to accept student data from institutions with non-traditional financial aid enrollment periods.  In addition, that data does not aggregate by institutional profile in a more granular format (adult serving, commuter college, online, etc.). 

During the last reauthorization of the Higher Education Opportunity Act in 2008, Congress inserted a provision prohibiting the Department of Education from creating such a database.  To quote McCormick, “if educators, policymakers, and researchers are to assess institutional impact, they will need better information about [an] institution’s attendance profile, if not detailed information about the source of credits at the student level.”  As Adelman and others have identified, there are multiple types of institutional profiles as well as profiles of students who attend those institutions.  Before a policymaker or pundit makes a disparaging remark about student persistence rates at a particular institution or group of institutions, they need to have data far beyond that related to first-time, full-time students that has been the baseline for institutional reporting to the Integrated Post-secondary Education Data System (IPEDS).  Institutions and researchers should collaborate to provide more insights to explanations for adult student drop out beyond “life happens.”  More research on adult student swirling needs to be conducted, particularly for those students attending online programs or institutions.

The “myths” that AMU or APU are diploma mills or unaccredited are invalid.  In most cases, the myths are more than likely disseminated by individuals who do not care for online colleges and universities.  Faculty and staff members of accredited institutions that operate partially online or totally online have heard the negative perceptions about online education for years and have worked hard to demonstrate the evidence that supports learning in online programs.  A May 2009 study published by the U.S. Department of Education entitled Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning:  A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies stated that students learn better in online programs than in face-to-face programs .  The researchers examined over 1,000 published research papers involving online and face-to-face learners.

The FACTS about AMU’s existence and accreditation are irrefutable.  AMU is one of two universities that form the American Public University System (APUS).  APUS is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association (NCA), one of eight regional accrediting bodies in the United States and the largest regional accrediting body in terms of the number of colleges that it accredits.  You can find our name, accreditation status, and other pertinent information listed on its website at:   http://hlcommission.org/component/option,com_directory/Action,ShowBasic/Itemid,184/instid,2853/lang,en/.     Among the 1,000 plus colleges and universities accredited by NCA are the University of Chicago, the University of Notre Dame, and Northwestern University.  The accreditation process is lengthy and complex and includes many visits by very well educated academics.  A diploma mill would not survive such a review process.  The American Public University System has also been accredited by the Accrediting Commission of the Distance Education and Training Council since 1995.  The link for AMU is at this address:  http://detc.org/school_details.php?id=169.  APUS is licensed in West Virginia and Virginia which are the two states where we have offices with our administrative and academics leadership and staff.  We have over 60,000 students and over 10,000 alumni.  Two-thirds of our students are active duty military personnel.  The Department of Defense requires all colleges and universities that participate in its tuition assistance program to be accredited and licensed by a recognized accrediting body.

Additionally, APUS has over 1200 faculty members whose names and credentials are listed on our website.  These professionals would not stake their reputation by working for a diploma mill or unaccredited institution.  Our faculty and staff present at many conferences each year and proudly list their affiliation.  Most, if not all, of these conferences would not accept presenters from unaccredited institutions. 

Lastly, whenever anyone has a concern about a statement that is made about our accreditation, please do not hesitate to contact our Office of Institutional Advancement at accreditation@apus.edu.  They will be glad to help you set the record straight.

Meanwhile, students, alumni, and friends who are members of the Coast Guard, please accept my apologies.  Please also accept my sincere thanks for the many efforts that you engage in daily to keep our nation’s ports and waterways safe for all.

According to a May 2009 report published by the Brookings Institute, enrollments in community colleges increased between 2000-2001 and 2005-2006 by 2.3 million students.  In total, community colleges enroll approximately 45 percent of the nation’s college students.  Community college populations represent far greater diversity than is found on traditional four-year campuses.  According to the Brookings Institute, in 2004, 67 percent of Latino and 47 percent of African-American students entering college were enrolling in community colleges.  Given the large volume of community colleges in the nation, they provide affordable and convenient options for many groups otherwise underrepresented in other higher education institutions.  Community colleges are also appealing for non-traditional-aged college students, many of whom are juggling families and full time jobs. 

Federal, state, and local funding for community colleges has been abysmal when compared to funding for public four-year colleges and universities.  By one estimate, four-year public colleges receive greater than three times the amount provided to community colleges per full time student.  According to the Brookings Institute report cited above, “from 2003 to 2008, state budgets for all public services – Medicaid, transportation, corrections, public assistance, and other expenditures – grew at an average rate of nearly 6 percent, but growth in state support for higher education lagged 1.5 percentage points behind.”  This translated into substantially less funding for community colleges leading to additional problems including significant cuts in amount spent per student at these schools, lack of resources for effective faculty training, and neglected maintenance projects on community college campuses. 

A recent article from Time Magazine noted that “these institutions are our nation’s trade schools, training 59% of our new nurses as well as cranking out wind-farm technicians and video-game designers – jobs that, despite the ballooning unemployment overall, abound for adequately skilled workers.”  An article on CNN.com quoted the President as saying, “’jobs requiring at least an associate degree are projected to grow twice as fast as jobs requiring no college experience.’”  Community colleges are quite appealing to many students who seek associates degrees.  The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that many community colleges are facing such overwhelming enrollment increases that some students are being turned away, unable to enroll at all. 

While visiting Macomb Community College in Warren, Michigan, President Obama outlined the specific elements that would come with the American Graduation Initiative.  Telling the crowd that “Time and again, when we placed our bet for the future on education, we have prospered as a result,” he likened the significance of the program to that of President Lincoln’s innovative land-grant program that established numerous colleges around the country and President Roosevelt’s signing of the GI Bill.  According to the president, the American Graduation Initiative “will reform and strengthen community colleges…so they get the resources that students and schools need – and the results workers and businesses demand.  Through this plan, we seek to help an additional 5 million Americans earn degrees and certificates in the next decade.”  For those perhaps concerned about the program’s impact on an already unprecedented federal deficit, President Obama added, “And let me be clear: We pay for this plan – this isn’t adding to the deficit; we’re paying for this plan – by ending the wasteful subsidies we currently provide to banks and private lenders for student loans.” 

A White House “fact sheet” on the program outlines several specific actions to be taken under the American Graduation Initiative.  To address the low completion rates found in many community colleges (the Brookings Institute notes that only one-third of community college students obtain a degree of any kind within six years of enrollment), President Obama’s plan will provide funds for community colleges that develop innovative strategies for addressing low completion rates among their students.  Additionally, funds will be earmarked for maintenance and renovation of out-dated buildings as well as for updating equipment and resources in labs and other “hands on” disciplines. 

Interesting for those in the online education community is President Obama’s plan to establish an “Online Skills Laboratory.”  “Teams of experts in content knowledge, pedagogy, and technology” will develop the courses and the Departments of Defense, Education, and Labor will work together to provide the courses online for free through one or more community colleges as well as the Defense Department’s learning network.  There has been little doubt that the Obama Administration understands the benefits of online learning; the Department of Education recently released a report that highlighted the effective and beneficial nature of online education (see my recent blog article on this topic). 

Many are touting the significance of the American Graduation Initiative.  A recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education quotes David S. Baime, vice president for government relations at the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), as saying, “’There’s never been a federal program anywhere close to this size targeted specifically at community colleges.’”  In an email to member presidents, Molly Corbett Broad, President of the American Council on Education (ACE), wrote, “The president should be applauded for his effort to enhance the good work being done at our nation’s community colleges.  This investment will go a long way toward meeting our nation’s work force needs at this critical time when the economy is struggling to rebound.” 

There is no doubt that America’s community colleges provide access to higher education for millions of American students and they will play an integral part in the president’s overall higher education agenda.  I have one concern regarding this program.  To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing that prohibits states from shifting money away from two year colleges to four year colleges.  If other initiatives relating to the Stimulus Act are any indication, I am concerned that this money will not prove to be incremental funding to community colleges, but instead will be a back-end subsidy of other programs inside the states most strapped for money.

The term she referenced originated with Marc Parensky, founder of Games2train and considered to be one of the world’s foremost experts on the relationship between games and gaming technology and the learning experiences of today’s young people.  Parensky holds Masters degrees from Yale, Middlebury and the Harvard School of Business and has been an advocate for the use of technology in classrooms for years.  Parensky has even worked with the Department of Defense to establish an educational program that embraces the use of games as positive educational tools.

The lesson I learned from observing my daughters at play was that children who have access to technology are able to utilize it and to think, act, and learn in ways that are vastly different than the way we learned years ago.

Today’s issue of Inside Higher Ed features an interview with John Palfrey and Urs Gasser, authors of Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives, which focuses significantly on data collected at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, where both work.  The two explore the digital context in which today’s young people are learning and analyze the impact of their digital environment on their learning experiences.

Digital Natives seem to have an advantage in today’s world (and, according to the Berkman Center, not all youths are digital natives; it is a label that depends on the individual’s access to and frequency of use of digital technologies).  Technologies are expanding and shrinking our world simultaneously, opening doors to means of communication and commerce that 100 years ago were not conceivable.   At the same time, technology brings far off international neighbors directly into our homes via emails and webcams.  Today’s students have access to a wealth of information (including a growing number of primary documents which, as technologies improve, have been provided as images on many websites, including the Library of Congress) that their parents did not.  Even with such remarkable educational opportunities available via the Internet and other technologies, there are problems associated with the use of such technologies which require serious consideration.

Advocates of the use of the Internet and other technologies in classrooms, Palfrey and Urs state that given the omnipresence of digital technology in a student’s world, teachers must become fluent in the issues associated with copyrights and discerning between legitimate Internet sources and those that lack academic legitimacy.  The authors note that many of the young people with whom they spoke did not know that Wikipedia entries can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection.  Only a minority of the students, according to Palfrey and Urs, realized the problems that the Wikipedia system posed to the site’s credibility.  They also discuss the academic challenges associated with a rising “cut-and-paste” culture among digital natives and conclude that parents and educators must proactively inform digital natives about the ethical and unethical use of other people’s work. 

While there are obvious dangers in the prevalence of digital technology in the classroom, the benefits, I believe, are worth the risk, a risk which can largely be avoided by a systemized curriculum which integrates the use of technology with frequent lessons on the responsibilities associated with using it.  Of course, not every course lends itself to the use of technology and academia must remain mindful of this as they define the balance between appropriate uses of technology and inappropriate uses of technology in the classroom.  As an online university, APUS is obviously a strong advocate of the use of technology in the classroom.  In fact, it is online technology that forms the cornerstone of our classrooms!  We have the distinct advantage of being able to use the Internet to provide quality educational opportunities to our students while using our Discussion Boards as a means of providing the typical Socratic method of dialogue between students and teachers, a mix that allows students to benefit from both.

When I cast an eye on the broader K-20 educational platform, it is imperative that we provide our students with not only the access to the technology but also access to teachers who have been trained in the appropriate pedagogies to provide learning experiences that inform and enrich the student and prepare them for the challenges of an ever shrinking or “flattening” world.