2.6 STUDENT DROPOUT
2.6.1 T HE CONCEPT ‘ STUDENT DROPOUT '
Defining the construct ‘student dropout’ is by no means a simple exercise to embark on. Its descriptions tend to be commonly categorised by definitive rival terms, such as
‘individual’ and ‘school’ or ‘institutional’; ‘voluntary’ and ‘involuntary’; and ‘home environment’ and ‘school or ‘institutional environment’. The existing body of knowledge comprises varying perspectives upon how it can be viewed. Among other complicating grounds, as identified by Viadero (2001), are that it is usually defined as a ‘status’ or
‘event’ ratio. As a ‘status’, Viadero (2001) theorises that it refers to the percentage of 16-24 years old students who have failed to pass the highest high school grade and who, during specific time boundaries, are not registered in any of high school programmes. As an ‘event’, dropout is defined as the rate of students who left high school grade without having successfully finished it (Viadero, 2001). The current huge volume of literature indicates that the concept ‘student dropout’ has no clear or universal definition regardless of numerous existing studies, which were focused on courses offered in both distance education institutions and face-to-face learning environments (Levy, 2007, p. 185). Dropout occurs both in on-campus and distance education environments and has been evident across national terrains. Nonetheless, literature further reveals that student dropout descriptions are often grouped into either an individual perspective (voluntary dropout) or school or institutional perspective (involuntary dropout) (Tinto, 1975; Murray, 2014; Wood, Kiperman, Esch, Leroux and Truscott, 2016). In their study to determine factors that lead to student attrition in Vocational High School, Tas, Bora and Selvitopu and Demirkaya (2013, p. 1561) identified four categories into which attributions leading to student attrition can be categorised. Those are, in addition to individual and institutional variables, ‘family’ and
‘neighbourhood’. Thus, students’ families and neighbourhoods can cause attrition.
Some authors have argued that a concept can be defined from a theoretical (conceptual) or operational (empirical) point of view. Du Plooy (2002) is one such example.
Literature showed that dropout could be influenced by reasons that emanate from the students’ home contexts (which encompass individual, family and neighbourhood variables) and institutional contexts, which include, among other reasons, lack of support from instructors. In this study, the individual and institutional perspectives as well as voluntary and involuntary dropouts are explicated in detail in the ensuing discussion. This study discusses the construct ‘student support’ from conceptual and operational viewpoints.
2.6.1.1 Theoretical or conceptual definition
A range of forms, terms and meanings of the concept ‘dropout’ are classified and expounded in the related literature (Reisel and Brekke, 2009, p. 693), and existing views describe it as a confounding (Tinto, 1975) and an indefinable term (Astin, 1971).
Adding to the complexity inherent in any act of defining an aspect under investigation, Du Plooy (2002) posits that in any research, conceptual and empirical levels are imperative to consider. Conceptual (also known as theoretical) definition refers to the use of arguments that represent nonconcrete ideas (Du Plooy 2002) and it has to be well defined in terms of other concepts (Gobbens, Luijkx and Schols, 2010, p. 78). In Creswell and Poth’s (2017, p. 6), a conceptual definition is a particular component that help the researcher to, systematically, measure a scientifically defined construct.
The broad purpose of the definition is to gain insights into the precise gist of the term.
Attempts to find a universal definition of ‘dropout’ proved to be challenging and impossible, with many of them emphasising on an indefinability of the term. Historical accounts on the definition of the concept ‘dropout’ are attributable to the foundational writings of, among other ground-breaking pundits, Astin (1971), Tinto (1982) and Tinto (1993). Astin (1971) epitomises the camp of proponents who argue that the concept
‘dropout’ is an unclassifiable and a complex phenomenon that cannot be distinguished straightforwardly from non-dropouts if students are still alive. Despite being regarded as hard to formulate an all-encompassing definition, Tinto (1982) suggested two routes towards understanding the concept ‘dropout’ – namely, describing it from individual or an institutional viewpoint. Correspondingly, in the view of Reisel and Brekke (2009, p.
693), empirical research on student dropout rate and behaviour covers two classifications of dropout, that is – firstly, those which are centred on individual students continuing to study irrespective of having transferred programmes from one
academic institution to the other; and moreover, those that limit their focus of student dropout in one academic institution. Closely paralleled with Tinto’s (1982) and Reisel and Brekke’s (2009), Murray (2014) classified the student dropout into two categories – voluntary and involuntary dropout. Murray (2014, p. 1) refers to the concept ‘student dropout’ as follows:
Firstly, that voluntary dropout refers to students who transferred their studies into other higher education institutions to continue studying regardless of having achieved satisfactory academic results. Voluntary dropout also refers to student’s decision to cease studying prior to being excluded by the institution on the grounds of having academically performed below the required standard.
Secondly, that involuntary dropout means the termination of students’
registration on the ground of having not achieved satisfactory results or met the standard of the university.
Dropout definitions which are constructed from an individual standpoint are typified by Willging and Johnson’s (2004); Castles’s (2004); Levy’s (2007); Frydenberg’s (2007);
Tello’s (2007); Morris, Finnegan, and Wu’s (2005); and Dekker, Pechenizkiy and Vleeshouwers’s (2009) descriptions that accentuate official withdrawals from the course by students themselves. Dropout definitions, which resemble an institutional perspective, are descriptions that accentuate withdrawals of students by the academic institution following the mismatch between their performance competency and the stipulated institutional requirements (Pierrakeas, Xenos, Panagiotakopoulos and Vergidis, 2004). Defined at a course level, a ‘dropout’ is a student who officially (Finnegan, Morris and Lee, 2008) ceased studying without having passed the subject that was registered for (Dupin-Bryant, 2004; Castles, 2004). Definitions which were drawn and constructed from both an individual and institutional perspective define the concept ‘dropout’ as students who decided to cease their studies or have been cancelled by the institution from the educational programmes for which they were enrolled (Ivankova and Stick, 2007; Perry, 2008; Finnegan, Morris and Lee’s (2008).
In addition to the individual and institutional perspectives, Reisel and Brekke (2009, p.
693) defined dropout in three terms, namely, the ‘institutional dropout’ – the act of transferring an educational programme to study at another academic institution;
‘dropout’ – students who have stopped studying completely without having accomplished their educational programmes; and ‘stop-out’ – a temporal withdrawal
from studying for a period of least two years. Whereas many of definitions existing in the literature seem to be in accordance with each other, some take complete divergent positions. As a case in point, in the understanding held by the European Commission, as shared by Cabus (2015, p. 600), ‘dropouts’ are students aged between 18 and 24 years, who do not have higher secondary diplomas, and did not register for any educational or training programme at any academic institution.
2.6.1.2 Empirical or operational definition
It is important to contextualise the definition (Grau-Valldosera and Minguillon, 2014, p.
290) to suit the purpose for which the study is undertaken - operationalisation. From the perspective of LoBiondo-Wood, Haber, Cameron and Singh (2014), operationalisation is the process of translating the concepts of interest into observable and measurable phenomena. In the context of the research, operational definition (also known as empirical) refers to the manner in which significant concepts that underline the research are defined to achieve the purpose of the study (Parahoo, 2014, p. 155). Creswell and Poth (2017, p. 6) define operational definition as the technique, tool or a method that shows the way the construct is to be measured. It is also understood as a connotation (Walliman 2005) and it is defined in terms of the observable data and the applicable criteria in order to understand the degree to which the concept exists (Gobbens et al, 2010, p. 78). Although this study makes an inquiry about the reasons for student dropout in an open and distance learning institutions, it is also fundamental to reflect the understanding of student dropout in the framework of this research. Grau-Valldosera and Minguillon (2014, p. 290) avow that finding both the description of the concept dropout and its causes have equal status of significance in research, but (p.291) dropout must be defined prior to investigating factors that result in it.
The operational definition can be at various levels, such as the course level, the programme level, and the university level. In their study, Grau-Valldosera and Minguillon (2014, p. 292) defined ‘student dropout’ at a programme level as a dropout of students studying through online higher education institution without the mandatory enrolment and permanence requirements. At a course level, dropout refers to the learner’ discontinuity from a course without having accomplished it and it takes place
in more than one ways that incorporate leaving without having commenced; leave having attained some knowledge; conditional stoppage and real attrition (Grisolia and Oliveira, 2016).
This study investigated student dropout in open and distance learning environments and used the case module - [an advanced communication research (COM4809)] of the University of South Africa (Unisa) which is taught in the Department of Communication Sciences. As a result, the description of the concept ‘dropout’ which is operationalised in this study is at a course level with an advanced communication research (COM4809) serving as a case to explain dropout at lower-postgraduate level (honours). As this study deals with dropout to subsequently develop a support framework to explain the problem for lower-postgraduate students who are dropping or have dropped from the course, criticism that crush defining dropout from only a course exist in the literature. Bean and Metzner (1985) objected such a definition, arguing that students who only wanted to register for one module and completed it but did not also complete the whole programme for which such an enrolled module is part cannot be labelled ‘dropouts’. In their postulations, Bean and Metzner (1985, p. 489) argued that the suitable definition of dropout for the purpose of generating a framework should describe ‘dropouts’ as all students who did not complete their educational programmes because even though they enrolled in the preceding semester, they failed to enrol the following semester. Bean and Metzner (1985, p. 489) pointed out two disadvantages of the dropout definition – firstly, largely, it is defined from an institutional perspective and less so from a national perspective and secondly, the transitional timeframe (semester to semester) that is used to determine dropout is short. However, in a robust academic debate, no assertion prevails without its detractors. Adding to Bean and Metzner’s (1985) criticism, it is also evident in Parahoo’s (2006; 2014, p. 155) contestation that clear and proper definitions of core concepts are dependent upon the context and the purpose of the research and Coughlan (2007, p. 661) added that it is inevitably vital to enable the reader to understand their meanings. Within the demarcation of open and distance education which this study focuses upon, Lee and Choi (2011, p. 603) suggest that future research on student dropout from an online course should be based on a standardised definition. Lee and Choi’s (2011) call for standardised definition supports other positions that describe student dropout as a complex and vague phenomenon. Owing
to the heterogeneity of descriptions of ‘student dropout’, it is challenging to frame a profile of an emblematic student who dropped out of studies. For this reason, in this study and in response to Lee and Choi’s (2011, p. 603) proposal of a definition attuned into a particular context in mind, the inclusion criteria for the sampling of participants are founded on the following measures of suitability for partaking into the study - that is, whether a student has…
deregistered (cancelled) the module for any reason;
failed to reregister the module the following year;
never wrote or submitted the examination portfolio;
changed the module (deregister and register for an alternative module);
changed the institution of learning to study at another higher education institution.
Constructed from the above criteria, the construct ‘dropout’ refers to the following:
a student who did not register a yearly module in the following year; or was absent from an examination; or never submitted an examination portfolio; or have deregistered the module for whatever reason; or have transferred studies to another higher education institution for any reason.