• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.79.4.245-253

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2017

Membagikan "Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.79.4.245-253"

Copied!
11
0
0

Teks penuh

(1)

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Retaining the Online Learner: Profile of Students

in an Online MBA Program and Implications for

Teaching Them

Joe Bocchi , Jacqueline K. Eastman & Cathy Owens Swift

To cite this article: Joe Bocchi , Jacqueline K. Eastman & Cathy Owens Swift (2004) Retaining the Online Learner: Profile of Students in an Online MBA Program and Implications

for Teaching Them, Journal of Education for Business, 79:4, 245-253, DOI: 10.3200/ JOEB.79.4.245-253

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.79.4.245-253

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 213

View related articles

(2)

nline learning is growing, with enrollments increasing 33% per year (Pethokoukis, 2002) as part of an estimated $2 billion business (Thomas, 2001). The overall market was estimat-ed at 2.3 million students in 2002 (Katz-Stone, 2000). There are approximately 17,000 courses available online, with more than 50% of Western universities offering some type of online course (Lowe, 2000). Currently almost 200 in-stitutions offer online graduate degrees (Pethokoukis, 2002).

Lankford (2001), in referring to

Peterson’s Annual Guide to Distance Learning Programs, noted that online MBA courses are among the fastest-growing fields of study in education. Mangan (2001) remarked that although there is a definite market for online MBAs (which currently compose 2.5% of the total MBA market), such pro-grams will need more time to develop than originally thought. Many schools jumped into offering online MBA pro-grams without much planning. Schools that have had trouble in the online MBA market typically underestimated the costs and overestimated the initial demand (Mangan, 2001). However, Smith (2001) suggested that although the number of traditional MBA students significantly exceeds the number of online MBA students, there is signifi-cant growth in the online market

because students working full time are the fastest growing segment of the stu-dent population and they bring corpo-rate tuition dollars with them.

The literature suggests that the growth in online courses is based on at-tracting a new and different base of stu-dents rather than cannibalizing current on-campus programs (Mangan, 2001; Thomas, 2001). It is estimated that five

of six online students are employed and would not be able to attend traditional classes (Thomas, 2001). With the current economic situation in the United States, there are many managers who cannot afford to leave their current jobs for a full-time or on-campus program (Mangan, 2001). Furthermore, the rapid pace of technological changes makes it necessary for adults to continuously upgrade their knowledge and skills to stay competitive in the job market (Devi, 2002). Finally, rural areas or even other countries may offer limited options for students interest-ed in earning an MBA (Smith, 2001). Thus, the online market has the potential to create a much larger geographic mar-ket for students, particularly for smaller universities (Smith, 2001).

Although some researchers have found that the effectiveness of online learning equals or exceeds that of class-room learning (Rice, 2000; Rosenbaum, 2001), the quality of online programs is still being debated (Hongmei, 2002). In general, quality has improved since the days when distance learning programs were known for being easy courses with no team interaction (Lankford, 2001). Rigor is just as possible online, because students are judged by their ability to communicate electronically and must demonstrate understanding of the course material on assignments other than closed-book tests (Smith, 2001).

Retaining the Online Learner:

Profile of Students in an Online

MBA Program and Implications

for Teaching Them

O

ABSTRACT.Research regarding stu-dent cohorts entering the Georgia WebMBA®program (an online MBA

program in the University System of Georgia) shows consistent demo-graphic characteristics as well as stu-dents’ reasons for joining the program, experience with online learning, and perceptions of teamwork. The pro-gram has a high retention rate, and in this article the authors focus on retain-ing online learners. They discuss the profile of program students and the teaching approaches that have been successful in addressing potential attrition issues with these learners. To retain virtual learners, the program provides a cohort- and team-based learning experience with extensive faculty feedback and interaction to address isolation concerns, provide application-based content and activi-ties, and help students meet expecta-tions for personal and professional growth. The authors also stress the need to offer a well-managed program and faculty members who are both interested and competent in teaching in the online learning environment. JOE BOCCHI

Kennesaw State University Kennesaw, Georgia

JACQUELINE K. EASTMAN Valdosta State University

Valdosta, Georgia

CATHY OWENS SWIFT Georgia Southern University

Statesboro, Georgia

CYBER DIMENSIONS

(3)

Some researchers have suggested, how-ever, that a degree obtained online will not result in the types of job offers that come with traditional MBAs because most of the programs are run by for-profit universities that do not have a track record (Dash, 2000). Aron (1999) suggested that the ease of access, low cost, and initial evidence of superior educational effectiveness are persuad-ing business firms to provide more of their corporate training online. Thus, although online education is a growing market, there are ongoing concerns that need to be addressed.

A major concern for institutions is the cost of online education, because it is expensive to prepare and teach each course (Ross, 2001). Furthermore, most of this cost is incurred up front (in tech-nology, course design, and course release) because faculty members need training to develop and teach online courses (Smith, 2001).

Additional costs come from the high-er drop rate for online courses compared with traditional courses (Carr, 2000). Diaz (2000) reported a drop rate of 13.5% for online students versus 7.2% for traditional students. There are a vari-ety of reasons for this higher attrition rate, including students’ feelings of iso-lation (Dyrud, 2000), difficulty adjust-ing to a self-directed approach (Svetcov, 2000), and their finding that such cours-es are more rigorous than anticipated and that faculty members and students lack experience with online learning (Terry, 2001). Therefore, although the online student can be a significant mar-ket, it is an expensive one to serve. To successfully reach that market, adminis-trators and faculty members need to understand its identity clearly.

According to Terry (2001), few arti-cles have focused on characteristics of the online student and how to manage enrollment and retention effectively. Specific research is needed to profile online MBA students and their needs. Findings can lead to implications for faculty members and institutions seek-ing to develop online MBA courses and programs. In this article, we first discuss the literature regarding online students’ needs, concerns, and characteristics. Then we present the profile of the asso-ciates in the Georgia WebMBA®

pro-gram to illustrate who the online MBA students are. Additionally, we discuss retaining the online learner and the implications for faculty members inter-ested in teaching online courses.

Literature Review

In examining the literature on online students, Lewis and Orton (2000) sug-gested that a problem with determining online students’ needs, concerns, and characteristics is that students them-selves may not have enough of an under-standing about online education to deter-mine which attributes are salient to them and what their preferences are. Although the literature may not be able to identify all the salient issues, we discuss several significant ones in detail.

Online Student Needs and Concerns

According to Smith (2001), Internet-based MBA programs are growing pri-marily because of improvements in delivery technology and students’ needs for flexibility. The major needs of online students are convenience, access, flexi-bility, availaflexi-bility, and anytime/any-where learning (Devi, 2001; Ryan, 2001). Moskal and Dziuban (2001) found that the top three reasons students enrolled in online courses were flexibil-ity, curiosity about or desire to try online courses, and scheduling conflicts with traditional classes. McEwen (2001) additionally noted a major concern with time management, because students are juggling classes, work, family, and trav-el commitments.

The quality of the online program is a concern, as students want their degree to be credible both to their employers and to other universities. Having an accredit-ed program may help institutions deal with worries about the prestige of the program (Dash, 2000). Students are con-cerned about the quality of the adminis-tration of online courses and programs, functions that include ordering textbooks and registering for classes. The ease of technology used in the course is also important to potential students. Although administrative glitches are always incon-venient, they can be especially onerous for online learners who are physically isolated from others. Finally, students are

concerned about the teaching approaches used by the faculty members. Professors need to be proactive, encourage feed-back, and make adjustments as needed. Thus, for online learning to be success-ful, schools need to address not only con-tent and technology, but also student sup-port mechanisms and the learning process (McBain, 2001, p. 20).

To prevent students from feeling iso-lated, online courses must provide stu-dents with opportunities for interaction with faculty members, other students, and course content. Faculty members need to provide a constructive learning environment in which everyone learns from each other. Successful courses have a high level of faculty involvement (Hongmei, 2002). Online courses may be even more interactive than traditional ones (Mangan, 2001; Rosenbaum, 2001), because they may make it easier for shy students or those who need more response time to participate (Smith, 2001). Online courses need to give stu-dents the opportunity both for team building with their classmates and for community building (Ramos, 2001).

Online Student Characteristics

Although online courses offer major advantages such as flexibility, they are not for everyone (Devi, 2001; Kearsley, 2002). Students need to understand their own learning styles and the level of interaction that they need to sustain their interest in a class (Devi, 2001). Those who thrive on the social aspects of the traditional classroom or who enjoy face-to-face lectures may have difficulties with online learning (Jana, 1999; Ramos, 2001).

There are four major categories of online courses: (a) self-paced indepen-dent study, (b) asynchronous interactive learning, (c) synchronous learning, and (d) a combination of online and in-person learning (Devi, 2001; Ryan, 2001). With synchronous classes, stu-dents typically are required to attend online chats and stick to a framework of specific deadlines (Jana, 1999). The more asynchronous a course is, the more self-motivated a student needs to be (Ryan, 2001). A benefit of asynchronous approaches is that there may be more sig-nificant participation by all students than

(4)

would occur in a classroom, which is constrained by time (Cassiani, 2001).

To be successful as an online learner, one needs to have the self-discipline, ini-tiative, motivation, commitment, time management skills, and organization skills to work independently and to finish the job without need of prompting (Devi, 2001; Jana, 1999; Kearsley, 2002). Self-motivated and self-disciplined students are most likely to succeed in online learning (Hongmei, 2002, p. 37). Al-though an online course saves students the time of commuting and sitting in class, they still must spend approximate-ly 10 to 12 hours per week on an online graduate course. It is a misconception to think that a student can learn the online course material in less time than would be required in a traditional class (Ryan, 2001) or that online classes are less intel-lectually demanding than traditional classes (Jana, 1999). Finally, students must be willing to participate in the online class (Ramos, 2001).

To succeed in an online class, stu-dents must be able to express them-selves clearly and succinctly in written form and have a basic competency with computer technology (Devi, 2001; Ryan, 2001). Students also must be comfortable reading a large portion of the materials, such as discussion posts, onscreen. Ramos (2001) encourages the use of printed materials, instead of digi-tal texts, to reduce eye strain. Specific technical requirements include comput-er access, a fast Intcomput-ernet connection speed, sound, and some software; fire-walls may interfere with accessing an online course (Kearsley, 2002; Ryan, 2001). Finally, a student must have a quiet study space (Ryan, 2001).

In terms of personal characteristics, Kader (2001) noted that online learning may be more suited to men, because they are more likely to use the Internet; however, women’s use of online ing may increase because online learn-ing requires logic and detail, areas in which women may have an advantage. Moskal and Dziuban (2001) found that more female students were enrolled in online courses than men (at a ratio of 3:1) and that the online student was typ-ically older (a mean age of 30 years, compared with 24 years for the student attending face-to-face classes). They

also learned that online students tended to be working students who lived farther away from campus and that 92% of online students had taken other online courses (Moskal & Dziuban, 2001).

MacGregor (2000) found that online students were more serious, more accept-ing, more worried, more conservative, more introverted, more self-controlling, and more accommodating than tradition-al students. The same study tradition-also showed that online students perceived their class-es as having a higher workload. They anticipated lower grades than traditional students but reported similar levels of satisfaction.

In fact, satisfaction has been linked to experience with online learning: The more experience students have with on-line learning, the more satisfied they are with online course delivery (Arbaugh & Duray, 2002). Moskal and Dziuban (2001) found a higher satisfaction rate with online courses (85%) than with courses that combined online with face-to-face learning (77%). They also deter-mined that 89% of online students would take another online course. Arbaugh and Duray (2002), however, noted that larger class sizes decreased online course satisfaction.

Retaining the Online Learner

A study at the University of Central Florida found that women were 8% more likely than men to succeed in online courses by completing the course with a grade of C or better (Moskal & Dziuban, 2001). Additionally, consistently fewer females withdrew from online courses. However, online courses had higher withdrawal rates than face-to-face or combination courses—about 8% of men and 6% of women withdrew (Moskal & Dziuban, 2001).

Kearsley (2002) noted the importance of offering well-designed courses and providing feedback to students to retain them. Course design can be problematic when faculty members have little experi-ence or support in developing online courses. Miles (2001) suggested that instructors need to maintain flexibility, address isolation concerns, include ele-ments of asynchronous learning, devel-op learning objectives that relate to the students’ business goals, and use

low-bandwidth materials that any student can access. Hipwell (2000) noted the need for basic marketing techniques to attract and retain online learners as administra-tors introduce and promote the program, register initial users, and develop ways to maintain and increase usage. Finally, effective management of online pro-grams is needed to retain students (Kearsley, 2002).

The Georgia WebMBA® Online Student and Program

The Georgia WebMBA®program, a

lock-step online MBA offered by five regional AACSB-accredited universi-ties in the University System of Geor-gia, consists of 10 courses and admits up to 35 students per cohort. Each uni-versity staffs two courses and accepts seven students per cohort. Under the operating structure, individual students apply to and are admitted through one of the five home institutions: Georgia College and State University, Georgia Southern University, Kennesaw State University, State University of West Georgia, and Valdosta State University. Each institution has its own admis-sions criteria based on its traditional MBA program.

The Georgia WebMBA® has

main-tained an average retention rate of 89% for all three of its cohorts begun prior to fall 2003. The fourth cohort was launched in August 2003. To date, 100% of the students in the first two cohorts have graduated. The third cohort is expected to graduate in summer 2004.

Establishing an accurate profile of associates who are most likely to enroll in the WebMBA®program, function

suc-cessfully, and graduate on schedule helps target applicants. Additionally, under-standing the associates’ perceptions of teaming and learning assists us in struc-turing the learning experience. Research has examined associates’

• characteristics, such as age, years of business experience, and time spent traveling;

• reasons for joining the program; • expectations for the program; • levels of experience in working with online learning media;

• frequency of serving on various types of on-the-job teams; and

(5)

• views on team-based learning and on factors contributing to work team success.

The profile of the typical WebMBA®

stu-dent will help other schools that are offering online graduate programs.

Method

The Georgia WebMBA® has begun

four cohorts since its implementation in January 2001. All associates must attend a 2-day orientation to be eligible to enroll in program courses. Although limited profile information was collect-ed from the first cohort, the program ini-tiated a pre-orientation survey for the second cohort. Twenty-four of the 25 new students in that cohort, from all of the five participating schools, completed the survey and returned the completed instrument to the program director via e-mail attachment.

We later refined the survey instru-ment used with cohort 2 and delivered it to the third and fourth cohorts. Associ-ates in those cohorts used the “survey” function on the WebCT-based orienta-tion site to respond to the survey at the beginning of their respective orientation residencies, which were held on the campus of one of our universities. All new associates, from all five universi-ties, in cohort 3 (N= 35) and cohort 4 (N= 29) completed the survey.

It is important to note that responses from the limited number of associates who later withdrew from the program were not removed from the data sets. The program’s high retention rate suggests that the initial profiles are indicative of the typical online associate who remains with the WebMBA®program.

We present results from entrance sur-veys with cohort 3 (C3) and cohort 4 (C4), although we briefly address results from the first two cohorts when survey items are comparable with those in the instrument used for C3 and C4.

Results

Associate Profile

According to the survey data collected from the four cohorts, Georgia Web MBA®associates are on average 30 to 35

years old and typically have undergradu-ate degrees in business-relundergradu-ated fields.

Approximately one third are women. Minority representation has typically been low—less than 10% per cohort. All associates reported that they were employed at the time that they entered the program.

Although all associates in the first cohort lived in Georgia, subsequent cohorts reflected a more national home base for many associates. In C4, for example, one third of the associates lived outside of Georgia.

One program requirement is that associates have a minimum of 2 years of professional business experience. On average, they actually had more than 11 years of business experience, with 6 years of management experience. Across all cohorts, the largest percent-age of associates worked in manufac-turing (approximately 25%); the next largest percentages, in rank order, worked in utilities, finance, consulting and health services, and accounting and information systems. The associates had significant traveling requirements associated with their work: For exam-ple, C2, C3, and C4 associates traveled on average about 10 hours per week. (Travel requirements, however, varied widely by individual.)

In terms of age, business and manage-ment experience, and travel time, aver-ages across cohorts 2 through 4 remained relatively consistent, indicat-ing a stable profile among cohorts. How-ever, standard deviations for variables

within each cohort indicate a diverse population in each group (see Table 1).

Reasons for Enrolling

All four cohorts were asked their rea-sons for joining the WebMBA®program.

Associates across all four cohorts typ-ically reported the following key reasons: accreditation, accessibility, conven-ience, and fit with career and personal growth plans.

C3 and C4 associates completed a sur-vey that asked them to rate, on a five-point Likert-type scale, their degree of agreement or disagreement with each of 23 possible reasons why they joined the program. Clearly evident was their desire to join an accredited program: One hun-dred percent of both groups strongly agreed that attending an accredited pro-gram was their reason for enrolling in the WebMBA®program. C3 and C4

respon-dents also were consistent in rating these additional reasons for joining the pro-gram (see Table 2):

• “Fits my work schedule.” • “Fits my career growth plans.” • “I seek personal as well as profes-sional growth.”

• “It provides 24-7 access.”

Both groups’leastimportant reasons for deciding to enroll were identical (listed here beginning with the least important):

• “My employer recommended the

program.”

TABLE 1. Characteristics of WebMBA®Associates in Three Cohorts

Business Management Travel

experience experience per week

Age (years) (years) (years) (hours)

Cohort 2 (N= 25,n= 24)

M 33.90 11.80 6.20 8.13

SD 6.01 6.94 6.00 8.44

Cohort 3 (N= 35,n= 35)

M 32.37 10.00 5.76 14.19

SD 10.00 7.66 6.66 15.22

Cohort 4 (N= 29,n= 29)

M 33.40 10.78 5.17 9.21

SD 7.56 6.88 5.32 12.54

Note. SD= Standard deviation.

(6)

• “I workwithin an hour’s drive of my home school.”

• “I livewithin an hour’s drive of my home school.”

• “My employer considers an online MBA to be equivalent or better in quality compared with a campus-based program.”

• “My employer sees the online MBA as a more applied learning experience.”

High standard deviations suggest that some of the individual associates’ employers may have been more knowl-edgeable than others about the quality and application-based learning of online MBA programs. Furthermore, although the popular conception is that most online students choose such programs because of geographic distance from campus-based programs, many of the associates work or live within an hour’s drive of their admitting institution. These findings suggest that proximity is part of a more complex decision-mak-ing process that includes not only geo-graphic accessibility, but also travel requirements for work, fit with personal and professional goals, and employer perceptions of an online MBA’s quality. The implication for recruiting geo-graphically with target companies that

require extensive travel is evident. Given that about two thirds of the asso-ciates received either full or partial tuition reimbursement, we are hopeful that employer interest in online pro-grams will remain high.

A surprising result of the survey of C3 and C4 associates related to their view of learning in a team and in an online environment. We had expected that associates would choose an online program such as the WebMBA®because

they understood the value of learning in teams and they routinely used online learning as part of their jobs. However, as ranked by mean, three items relating to learning fell only within the middle range of importance of reasons for join-ing the program:

• “My learning style lends itself to online work.”

• “An online program learning expe-rience better matches the way I work and learn on the job.”

• “I learn better in teams.”

Professors who are teaching in online learning settings, especially in cohort-and team-based settings, should shape student expectations carefully and edu-cate students on the value of online learn-ing—in the “classroom” as well as in

corporate contexts. For example, the WebMBA®program uses its 2-day

face-to-face orientation course for team build-ing and for education on the benefits of and processes for virtual learning. We guide associates in assessing their learn-ing styles, personal profiles (DiSC), and team role profiles (Parker Team Player). Select faculty members “preview” their courses and discuss expectations of how associates should function within their teams and across the learning communi-ty. As associates actually move through the sequence of courses within their learning teams, they experience consis-tent interaction, responsiveness, and guidance on the part of the faculty mem-bers, who reinforce the value of online team-based learning.

Expectations for the Program

Respondents rated their expectations for the program on a five-point scale ranging from strongly agree tostrongly disagree.Students ranked “learning con-cepts that can be applied on the job” among the top expectations. Although C3 and C4 associates chose similar items for their top-rated expectations, the two groups diverged somewhat with regard to the importance of those items (see Table 3). For example, C3 respon-dents highly rated “ease of use of the program courseware” and “consistent faculty responsiveness and contact,” but C4 respondents expected more “learning relevant to my current or further posi-tion/industry” and “efficient/effective administration processes.” Differing re-sults on those and other expectation items (for example, “efficient/effective registration process”) may reflect the C4 associates’ recent frustrations during the application and admissions process at some of the affiliate schools. Ultimately, though, faculty responsiveness and applied learning were common expecta-tions for both groups, which points to the importance of aligning teaching approaches with associate expectations.

Of special note is that both groups rated the item “learning from other stu-dents” lower than most other items, sug-gesting the need for faculty members and administrators in team-based pro-grams to define realistic expectations, orient students to online learning teams,

TABLE 2. Highest- and Lowest-Ranked Reasons for Joining the WebMBA®Program: Cohorts 3 and 4

Cohort 3 Cohort 4

Reason for joining WebMBA® M SD M SD

Highest-ranked

I want to attend an accredited program. 5.00 0.00 5.00 0.00

It fits my work schedule. 4.83 0.45 4.86 0.44

I seek personal as well as professional growth. 4.83 0.51 4.66 0.61

It provides 24/7 access. 4.71 0.52 4.66 0.72

It fits my career growth plans. 4.66 0.54 4.90 0.31

It fits my family life demands. 4.40 0.85 4.45 0.69

Travel to a school for evening or weekend courses 4.40 0.95 4.34 0.77 is not an option for me.

I like controlling when I learn; I have no time for

physical boundaries. 4.26 0.92 4.59 0.73

Lowest-ranked

My employer sees the online MBA as a more 3.17 0.62 3.08 0.80 applied learning experience.

My employer considers an online MBA as 3.15 1.08 3.00 0.96 equivalent or better in quality compared with a

campus-based program.

I live within an hour’s drive of my home school. 3.06 1.85 2.48 1.79 I work within an hour’s drive of my home school. 2.91 1.85 2.29 1.67

My employer recommended the program. 2.03 1.10 2.21 1.15

(7)

and facilitate that learning environment consistently. These actions should entail providing associates with information on types of industries represented by students in the course—their job titles, the companies for which they work, their years of experience, and other characteristics—to position the course itself as a resource for learning and net-working. For example, as part of the WebMBA® orientation, associates post

a skills and experience “inventory,” along with their title, company, and other relevant information. This allows associates to begin to form effective teams that encompass the right mix of skills and experience.

As the literature shows, students entering online learning with misguid-ed perceptions of the environment and of their role as collaborative learners may become disenchanted and may

withdraw from courses. Although team learning combats isolation, it also raises issues related to student work and learning styles.

Experience With Technology-Based Learning Tools

Previous experience with technology is one predictor of student comfort in an online learning environment. To under-stand the technology-based experiences and skills that associates bring to the program, we included items on surveys taken by C2, C3, and C4 respondents and that addressed technological exper-tise and previous online learning experi-ence. C2 respondents were asked to report the types of online courses that they had taken before joining the pro-gram and their overall proficiency in using the Internet. C3 and C4

respon-dents were asked to rate their levels of experience (high, medium, low, or N/A) working with common types of online learning media.

Among C2 respondents, 67% were proficient in use of the Internet, 80% had taken at least one type of online or blended-media course, and 29% had taken three or more such courses. When asked about the specific types of online courses they had taken, 33% of C2 respondents reported using Web-based learning at least once, 29% said that they had used intranet-based learning, and 25% reported having taken courses that incorporated self-paced, asynchro-nous learning with specific assignment deadlines. Twenty-one percent of these respondents had taken a course com-pletely online.

The C3 and C4 associates were asked to indicate their levels of experience working with various online learning media. Associates in both groups had had the most experience learning through their company intranets; this medium was followed by CD-ROM, Web-based, asynchronous (self-paced with deadlines), and teleconferencing media. Both cohorts rated their experi-ences with those types of media with great consistency, although standard deviations indicate variations within each cohort. Overall, C4 associates seemed somewhat more savvy regard-ing online work than C3 associates (see Table 4).

Teaming Experiences and Critical Success Factors

C3 and C4 associates were asked to indicate the frequency with which they served on teams with varying team composition (for example, clients, co-workers, senior management) and with varying organizational or geographic locations (for example, within a work unit, internationally). We asked associ-ates to base their ratings on their profes-sional and work experience during the 3 years prior to their enrollment in the program. C3 and C4 associates reported that their on-the-job teams typically were located within the office, branch, or unit where they worked.

Associates most often teamed with others from their divisions or

depart-TABLE 3. Expectations of the WebMBA®: Cohorts 3 and 4

Cohort 3 Cohort 4

Top expectations of the program M SD M SD

Arranged by C3 ratings

Ease of use of courseware 4.80 0.41 4.52 0.87

Consistent faculty responsiveness and contact 4.69 0.53 4.62 0.56 Learning concepts that can be applied on the job 4.66 0.48 4.86 0.44 Access to support materials to help with learning

concepts 4.63 0.55 4.48 0.74

Effective and available technical support 4.62 0.55 4.31 0.85 Faculty intervention to help me understand

concepts 4.57 0.61 4.45 0.63

Learning relevant to my current or future

position/industry 4.49 0.82 4.69 0.54

Efficient/effective application process 4.46 0.70 4.48 0.74 Efficient/effective administration processes 4.43 0.65 4.66 0.55

Learning from other students 4.43 0.81 4.17 0.71

Working with faculty members experienced in

working in companies or as consultants 4.23 0.77 4.31 0.89 Efficient/effective registration process 4.23 0.88 4.52 0.74 Arranged by C4 ratings

Learning concepts that can be applied on the job 4.86 0.44 4.66 0.48 Learning relevant to my current or future

position/industry 4.69 0.54 4.49 0.82

Efficient/effective administration processes 4.66 0.55 4.43 0.65 Efficient/effective registration process 4.52 0.74 4.23 0.88

Ease of use of courseware 4.52 0.87 4.80 0.41

Access to support materials to help with learning

concepts 4.48 0.74 4.63 0.55

Efficient/effective application process 4.48 0.74 4.46 0.70 Faculty intervention to help me understand

concepts 4.45 0.63 4.57 0.61

Effective and available technical support 4.31 0.85 4.62 0.55 Working with faculty members experienced in

working in companies or as consultants 4.31 0.89 4.23 0.77

Learning from other students 4.17 0.71 4.43 0.81

(8)

ments. Working on international teams with co-workers, clients, and compa-nies was the least indicated category. In essence, most of their team experi-ences were with others who were geo-graphically close to the respondents. This result suggests that virtual teams also may have been infrequent, although further study is needed to determine the relationship between team location and actual communica-tion medium and method (for example, online and asynchronous).

C3 and C4 associates were also asked: “What were the main reasons, in your opinion, that teams you were on suc-ceeded? Indicate the level of influence of those key items as they contributed to the team succeeding at accomplishing its mission.” Respondents indicated that “having a clear direction/goal” and “good communication” were the top success factors. Rated lowest for both groups were the following:

• “Having the right mix of members and work styles.”

• “Establishing long-term business relationships.”

• “Setting team ground rules for interacting.”

That last item is of particular interest to us, given the high degree of interaction required for the WebMBA®online teams.

The need to lead associates through team-building activities that produce clear ground rules for interacting is espe-cially important, both at the beginning of their program experience and throughout their work in the program. Few of our teams experience the kind of conflict that results in attrition, although even moder-ate levels of interpersonal conflict and ambiguity of ground rules create high

stress, poor performance, and dissatisfac-tion with other elements of the program.

Implications for Faculty Members

Online education is not for all stu-dents. Nor is it for all faculty members. Online learning requires professors to learn a new tool and to spend signifi-cantly more time on organization, preparation, and teaching and monitor-ing the class compared with traditional classes (McEwen, 2001). Faculty mem-bers may spend more time planning the course, as all of its aspects need to be prepared before it is launched (McEwen, 2001). They also spend more time during the class on fewer students (Rosenbaum, 2001). Faculty members must be willing to put in the time and effort necessary to make the course suc-cessful. If faculty members are not excited about teaching online, this indif-ference will be evident to students (Kearsley, 2002). Additionally, although cohort profiles for the WebMBA® are

consistent between groups of students, we have found that there is no one pro-totypical online student. Thus, faculty members need to be able to work with a diverse range of students while targeting the cohort norm.

Kearsley (2002) and Smith (2001) rec-ommended having no more than 20 stu-dents in an online course. Additionally, online courses require significant institu-tional support to be successful (Mohamad & Ismail, 2001). Thus, online classes are not used best as volume revenue produc-ers (Hongmei, 2002), but they may offer an opportunity to charge a premium price (Arbaugh & Duray, 2002).

Although low course enrollments are recommended, the WebMBA®has

main-tained a high retention rate with an aver-age of 30 students per course. We at-tribute this retention rate to the team- and cohort-based approach, as well as to ex-tensive faculty interaction (during orien-tation, online, and even by phone) with associates. The Georgia program is not a volume revenue producer—it limits itself to one new cohort per year—but it does charge a premium tuition price that is competitive with the majority of other online programs nationwide. Affiliate schools experience a modest return but see their mission as providing a viable alternative to brick-and-mortar programs. Smith (2001) noted that at the outset, the costs of an online program—includ-ing time and frustration—may outweigh the benefits for faculty members. Profes-sors must learn new technologies and be conversant with their frequent upgrades, not only to help themselves but also to assist with troubleshooting for students, as we have found that the ease of use of the online course is an important ele-ment in the course’s success. The Uni-versity System of Georgia has been instrumental in supporting faculty mem-bers with training and design services, licensing and hosting our courseware, and providing technical support services to students and faculty members.

Extensive preparation is required for faculty members the first time that they teach an online course (often while jug-gling full course loads), and much sub-sequent work is necessary to revise the course. During the actual course, pro-fessors devote significant time to grad-ing and writgrad-ing detailed comments to guide students, which often affects the faculty members’ ability to do research. Finally, ensuring home Internet access, paying for second phone lines or cable modems, and updating hardware and software so professors can teach their online courses from home on evenings and weekends can constitute a financial burden (Smith, 2001). All these factors can affect students’ perceptions of the responsiveness of faculty members and the level of interaction in the course.

Professors need to describe clearly the class requirements and standards for grading (Ramos, 2001). Given the time and space separation between faculty members and students, this clarification is even more important in

distance-TABLE 4. Levels of Experience With Online Learning: Cohorts 3 and 4

Cohort 3 Cohort 4

Learning modes M SD M SD

Company intranet 3.26 0.98 3.72 0.53

CD-ROM 3.06 0.87 3.41 0.78

Web-based course 2.80 1.08 3.24 0.99

Asynchronous, self-based course 2.80 0.99 2.89 1.13

Teleconferencing 2.74 0.85 3.00 0.80

Completely virtual learning 2.54 1.09 2.82 1.02

(9)

learning courses than in traditional classrooms. Smith (2001) noted that reading instructions is not a priority for students and that professors must repeat instructions and ideally place them in several locations in the online course. Having faculty members present at the

WebMBA® orientation—and walking

associates through their courses—helps build the confidence that associates need. Additionally, we invite associates from the ongoing cohorts to meet with the new cohort to candidly discuss best practices and expectations.

We have found that consistent faculty contact is a vital element for successful online courses. Faculty members need to make a connection with students, either by attending orientation to meet the students or by calling or e-mailing them at the beginning of the term. Addi-tionally, as online MBA students tend to be working managers, the coursework must be relevant and integrated into everyday business practices (Rosen-baum, 2001), because we found that applicability of concepts is a key ele-ment for online students. Finally, pro-fessors must be flexible and willing to make changes, if needed, that do not detract from course quality. For exam-ple, many WebMBA®faculty members

routinely solicit associate feedback throughout the semester, not merely at the end of the courses.

In the long run, most faculty mem-bers probably will not receive enough additional resources or be released from enough regular courses to address their time concerns, but there are potential benefits to teaching online, particularly at the MBA level. First, we have encountered higher-quality students with diverse, professional backgrounds. They are not students who returned to school because they were unable to find a job; rather, they tend to be working managers. Second, the quality of dent output tends to be higher, as stu-dents have to formulate their thoughts in writing and review their comments before they are posted (Cassiani, 2001). Third, professors both teach and learn from students. In an online course, the professor is transformed from the source of all knowledge for his or her students to something more like a coach or facilitator. Fourth, online teaching

facilitates more one-to-one contact with students, and faculty members may become more familiar with and under-stand their students better (Jana, 1999). Fifth, the online learning environment may provide a more diverse group of students, as there may be students from many geographic locations and back-grounds (Cassiani, 2001). Finally, stu-dents embrace the online format and appreciate the faculty members provid-ing it. Because they recognize that they would be unable to attend classes in a traditional setting, students are there to learn (Svetcov, 2000).

Conclusion

Universities that want to reach experi-enced, motivated students who choose not to attend face-to-face classes “will have to accommodate their needs with courses that are either primarily or com-pletely electronic” (Smith, 2001, p. 35). Online MBA programs may not have seen the “dotcom success” that was ini-tially envisioned, but the promise and demand for online management educa-tion has not diminished (Mangan, 2001).

A clear picture of which students are most likely to succeed in the virtual environment is emerging. In examining the associates in the WebMBA®

pro-gram, we found consistent characteris-tics in cohorts’ reasons for joining the program, their learning experiences online, and the types of on-the-job teams in which they had participated. Although individual associate responses varied, we are confident that we have identified key factors that must be con-sidered in addressing potential attrition. The consistency of cohort profiles pro-vides a sound basis for both the admin-istrative and teaching approaches.

MBA programs need to profile their students in an effort to retain online learners and to equip them better to work in virtual teams. Faculty members need to provide students with feedback and structured interaction to address isolation concerns, offer relevant con-tent and activities that help students meet their personal and professional goals, and structure applied learning experiences that effectively develop their skills. Faculty members play a central role in all facets of a successful

program, from shaping student expecta-tions as they enter the program to facil-itating the right kind of learning envi-ronment throughout it. Although the WebMBA® associates initially tend to

perceive learning from others in an online team as divorced from their actu-al work experience, the program and its faculty members reinforce the key com-petencies required of lifelong learners in business contexts.

Kearsley (2002) correctly suggested that online learning is not for everyone. Some students prefer the classroom experience and do not have the self-discipline or initiative to succeed in the online classroom; likewise, not all pro-fessors have a teaching style and per-sonality conducive to online teaching (Kearsley, 2002). A successful online program requires careful selection of both the students and the faculty mem-bers and significant administrative sup-port for the program’s proper design and management. Understanding the profile of students most apt to remain in the WebMBA® program has helped target

students with previous online learning experience and with adequate levels of professional experience.

Although this research provides a solid basis for recruiting, teaching, and retaining program associates, there is more work to be done. A viable follow-up study of the associates, used to deter-mine the possible impact the program has on associates’ perceptions of and practice with team-based learning, will include administering the survey at var-ious times throughout the associates’ stay with us and as they exit the pro-gram. We now have a strong working concept of key characteristics and per-ceptions of associates entering the pro-gram; the next step will be to define those characteristics and perceptions as they evolve over time. Such research will inform the structuring of the learn-ing experience and may help other schools as they plan and launch online MBA programs.

REFERENCES

Arbaugh, J. B., & Duray, R. (2002). Technological and structural characteristics, student learning and satisfaction with Web-based courses: An exploratory study of two online MBA pro-grams. Management Learning, 33(3), 331–347.

(10)

Aron, L. J. (1999). Online U: More companies and individuals are turning to virtual class-rooms for everything from training to getting an MBA. Across the Board, 36(8), 63–66. Carr, S. (2000, February 11). As distance education

comes of age, the challenge is keeping the stu-dents. Chronicle of Higher Education,23, A1. Cassiani, L. (2001, May 21). Student participation

thrives in online learning environments. Cana-dian HR Reporter, 14(10), 2.

Dash, E. (2000, October 2). The virtual MBA: A work in progress. Best B-schools report. Busi-ness Week, 3701, 96.

Devi, C. (2001, April 30). Qualities of a success-ful online learner. Computimes Malaysia,1. Devi, C. (2002, June 17). Online learning, tool for

the future. Computimes Malaysia,1.

Diaz, D. P. (2000). Comparison of student char-acteristics and evaluation of student success in an online health education course. Retrieved July 10, 2002, from http://home.earthlink.net /~davidpdiaz/LTS/pdf_docs/dissertn.pdf Dyrud, M. A. (2000). The third wave: A position

paper. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(3), 81–93.

Hipwell, W. (2000). Promoting your e-learning in-vestment. Training and Development, 54(9), 18. Hongmei, L. (2002, March). Distance education: Pros, cons, and the future. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western States Com-munication Association, Long Beach, CA. Jana, R. (1999, September 13). Getting the most

out of online learning. InfoWorld, 21(37), 119.

Kader, B. (2001, April 16). Gearing women towards embracing online learning. Com-putimes Malaysia,1.

Katz-Stone, A. (2000, January 21). Online learn-ing. Washington Business Journal, 18(38), 35. Kearsley, G. (2002, January/February). Is online

learning for everybody? Educational Technolo-gy, 42(1), 41–44.

Lankford, K. (2001). WebMBAs make the grade.

Kiplinger’s Personal Finance, 55(5), 84–88. Lewis, N. J., & Orton, P. (2000). The five attributes

of innovative e-learning. Training and Develop-ment, 54(6), 47–51.

Lowe, V. (2000, April 10). Reasons for universi-ties turning to online learning. Computimes Malaysia,1.

MacGregor, C. J. (2000). Does personality mat-ter? A comparison of student experiences in tra-ditional and online classrooms. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 1696A.

Mangan, K. S. (2001, October 5). Expectations evaporate for online MBA programs. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(6), A31.

McBain, R. (2001). E-learning: Towards a blend-ed approach. Manager Update, 13(1), 20–33. McEwen, B. C. (2001). Web-assisted and online

learning. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(2), 98–103.

Miles, L. (2001, February 1). Marketers warm to electronic learning. Marketing (UK),35. Mohamad, F. S., & Ismail, J. (2001, August 13).

To advance in online learning. Computimes Malaysia,1.

Moskal, P. D., & Dziuban, C. D. (2001). Present and future directions for assessing cybereduca-tion: The changing research paradigm. In L. R. Vandervert, L. V. Shavinina, & R. A. Cornell (Eds.),Cybereducation: The future of long-dis-tance learning(pp. 157–184). New York: Mary Ann Liebert.

Pethokoukis, J. M. (2002, June 24). E-learn and earn. U.S. News and World Report 132(22), 36. Ramos, G. P. (2001, October 8). E-learning not effective for everyone. Computerworld Philip-pines,1.

Rice, D. (2000). E-learning study has surprising results. IT Support News, 20(11), 22. Rosenbaum, D. B. (2001, May 28). E-learning

beckons busy professionals. ENR, 246(21), 38–42.

Ross, I. (2001). Trend toward online learning.

Northern Ontario Business, 21(10), 18. Ryan, S. (2001). Is online learning right for you?

American Agent and Broker, 73(6), 54–58. Smith, L. J. (2001). Content and delivery: A

com-parison and contrast of electronic and tradition-al MBA marketing planning courses. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 35.

Svetcov, D. (2000, September 11). Ask the stu-dents. Forbes, 50–54.

Terry, N. (2001). Assessing enrollment and attri-tion rates for the online MBA. THE Journal, 28(7), 64–68.

Thomas, K. Q. (2001). Local colleges providing online learning programs. Rochester Business Journal, 16(43), 28.

(11)

Arts Education Policy Review Bimonthly

$97 Institutions, $51 Individuals

(add $16 postage outside the U.S.)

Change The Magazine of Higher Learning Bimonthly

$112 Institutions, $55 Individuals

(add $16 postage outside the U.S.)

The Clearing House A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas

Bimonthly

$86 Institutions, $45 Individuals

(add $16 postage outside the U.S.)

College Teaching Quarterly

$93 Institutions, $47 Individuals

(add $14 postage outside the U.S.)

The Journal of Economic Education Quarterly

$111 Institutions, $57 Individuals

(add $14 postage outside the U.S.)

The Journal of Educational Research Bimonthly

$124 Institutions, $62 Individuals

(add $16 postage outside the U.S.)

Journal of Education for Business Quarterly

$87 Institutions, $51 Individuals

(add $16 postage outside the U.S.)

The Journal of Environmental Education Quarterly

$107 Institutions, $55 Individuals

(add $14 postage outside the U.S.)

The Journal of Experimental Education Quarterly

$102 Institutions, $52 Individuals

(add $14 postage outside the U.S.)

Preventing School Failure Quarterly

$101 Institutions, $49 Individuals

(add $14 postage outside the U.S.)

RE:view Rehabilitation and Education for Blindness and Visual Impairment

Quarterly

$94 Institutions, $28 Individuals

(add $13 postage outside the U.S.)

Science Activities Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas

Quarterly

$83 Institutions, $45 Individuals

(add $14 postage outside the U.S.)

The Social Studies Bimonthly

$85 Institutions, $49 Individuals

(add $16 postage outside the U.S.)

or more than 30 years, Heldref has published

award-winning journals and magazines for

elementary school through graduate level educators.

These publications provide new ideas and a means

to communicate for scholars, teachers, students, and

concerned citizens. Written and edited by teachers,

teacher educators, and scholars from throughout

the education community, Heldref ’s education

pub-lications offer a treasury of ideas. Whether you are

interested in projects for a fifth-grade science class,

trends on college campuses, articles on teaching,

economics, or ideas in arts education, Heldref has

an education publication for you.

F

Heldref Publications 1319 Eighteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-1802

(202) 296-6267 fax (202) 293-6130

Education

Education

PUBLICATION #1 COST

PUBLICATION #2 COST

TOTAL COST

ACCOUNT # (MasterCard/VISA)Please underline one EXP. DATE SIGNATURE

NAME/INSTITUTION

ADDRESS

CITY/STATE/ZIP COUNTRY

Please include appropriate international shipping costs.

THINKING

dedicated to learning

good

To place an order,

please copy this form and mail or fax; visit our Web site at www.heldref.org

or call customer service at

(800) 365-9753.

Heldref Publications

a division of the nonprofit Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation

Gambar

TABLE 1. Characteristics of WebMBA® Associates in Three Cohorts
TABLE 2. Highest- and Lowest-Ranked Reasons for Joining the WebMBA® Program: Cohorts 3 and 4
TABLE 3. Expectations of the WebMBA®: Cohorts 3 and 4
TABLE 4. Levels of Experience With Online Learning: Cohorts 3 and 4

Referensi

Dokumen terkait

48/VII Pelawan II pada Dinas Pendidikan Kabupaten Sarolangun Tahun Anggaran 2012 , dengan ini diumumkan bahwa

Mengingat sebuah organisasi nirlaba (OPZ) tanpa menghasilkan dana maka tidak ada sumber dana yang dihasilkan. Sehingga apabila sumber daya sudah tidak ada maka

Berdasarkan Surat Penetapan Pemenang Nomor : 44.i /POKJA /ESDM-SRL/2012 tanggal 15 Agustus 2012, dengan ini kami Pokja Konstruksi pada Dinas ESDM Kabupaten

[r]

RKB Ponpes Salapul Muhajirin Desa Bukit Murau pada Dinas Pendidikan Kabupaten Sarolangun Tahun Anggaran 2012, dengan ini diumumkan bahwa :.. CALON

Bertitik tolak dari latar belakang pemikiran tersebut di atas, maka masalah yang sangat pundamental diteliti dan dibahas dalam rangkaian kegiatan penelitian ini

[r]

Sastra kaitannya sebagai cermin dari masyarakat tetunya juga mengangkat permasalahn-permasalahan yang ada di masyarakat, baik mengenai nilai-nilai, moral, ideologi dan