Reasons for student drop out at the OUHK

K S Yuen, S W Lee, Alex Wong, C K Yeung, Alan Au, Thomas Tang,

Anna Kwan, Wilson Chu, Eva Tsang, Henry Choi and Francis Fung

The Open University of Hong Kong

May 2008

Content

Executive Summary i

Purpose of the study i

Methodology for the first phase of the study i

Major findings ii

Conclusion v

Background 1

Why study drop out? 1

A research and development project at the OUHK 2

Contributions from relevant units to the project 3

Defining drop out for the study 4

Studies on student drop out 6

Previous studies on drop out at the OUHK and in Hong Kong 6

Studies on drop out in distance learning & part time programmes elsewhere 9

Methodology of the study 13

Selection of the sample for focus group interviews 14

The focus group interviews 15

The questionnaire survey 17

Analysis of data 18

Enrolment pattern of the OUHK’s two 2005 cohorts of students 18

Focus group interview results 20

Questionnaire survey results 25

Conclusion 33

About the methodology 33

Course enrollment and success in the study 33

Reasons for drop out suggested in focus group interviews and in the

questionnaire survey 34

Measures that the OUHK could use to help students continue with

their study 35

Analysis of findings 35

Limitation of the study 42

Work ahead 43

Before a student registers for a course 43

Just after registering for the first course 43

During the course 44

After examination 44

References 45

Appendices

Appendix I: Project plan 49

Appendix II: Standard remarks made by interviewer at 51

focus group meetings

Appendix III: Coding sheet for reasons for drop out and measures to 52

reduce drop out expressed in focus group interviews

Appendix IV: Reasons for drop out expressed by focus group interviewees 57

Appendix V: Measures to reduce drop out suggested by focus group

interviewees 60

Appendix VI: Survey questionnaire 63

Appendix VII: Importance of the reasons leading to drop out expressed by

respondents in the questionnaire survey 66

Appendix VIII: Measures to reduce drop out suggested by respondents

in the questionnaire survey 68

i

Executive summary

Purpose of the study

The current study on OUHK student drop out consists of three phases:

Identifying reasons or factors for student drop out at the OUHK;

Developing and pilot testing measures to reduce this drop out; and

Evaluating the effectiveness of the piloted measures from a ‘return of

investment’ financial perspective.

The study commenced in May 2007, with a planned completion date in two years’

time. This paper reports on the findings of the first phase of the study.

For the purpose of the study, a ‘drop out student’ is defined as one who does not

register for a new course for at least two semesters after completing his or her last

course. The population of the study includes all OUHK students who had their first

registration in April 2005, October 2005, April 2006, and October 2006 respectively,

but who then had no registration for two or more semesters. There were 2, 218 such

students.

Methodology for the first phase of the study

Past research findings on student drop out, including those carried out both within and

outside the OUHK, were reviewed. Enrolment patterns of the 2005 and 2006 cohorts

of students, with reference to students’ pass or failure in their studies, were analysed.

Focus group interviews were conducted with 85 recently enrolled OUHK students

who had dropped out. The reasons for drop out expressed by the interviewees, as well

as measures the interviewees suggested would help reduce drop out, were identified,

coded and categorized.

A questionnaire survey was then administered to all members of the population

sample in order to obtain a representative view of this group. The questionnaire was

created based on the reasons given for drop out and the suggested measures to reduce

drop out identified in the focus group interviews. Results from the questionnaire

ii

survey (n = 375, return rate = 16.91%) were analysed and compared with those

obtained from the focus group interviews.

Major findings

Enrolment patterns of OUHK’s 2005 and 2006 cohorts

Whether a student passed or failed his or her first course(s) had a crucial effect on

their re-registration. For the April cohort, students who passed their first course(s)

re-registered at a rate of 83.94% (71.34%), while those who failed their first course(s)

re-registered at a rate of 28.81% (27.17%); the difference is 55.13% (44.26%) [the

figures inside the brackets refer to the October 2005 cohort].

Success in a student’s first course(s) also affected their future success in their studies.

The likelihood of passing their next course(s) is higher if a student passes their first

course(s) than if they failed. For the April and October 2005 cohorts of students [again

the figures inside the brackets refer to October 2005’s cohort], the passing rate for

subsequent course(s) for students who have succeeded in their first course is 73.66%

(87.71%). The passing rate for subsequent course(s) for students who have failed their

first course is 24.39% (23.33%).

In addition, quite a high proportion of students pass their course(s), but still leave the

university (22.30%, 26.58% and 31.17% for the April 2005, October 2005 and April

2006 cohorts of students respectively). This kind of student forms a substantial

portion of ‘drop outs’.

Focus group interview results

Reasons for drop out. A total of 85 students participated in the focus group interviews,

and 48 different specific reasons for drop out were identified. In these interviews, the

most frequently mentioned reasons for drop out related to students’ careers (total = 35,

rank = 1): overtime work, shift duty and business trips, changing jobs or positions at a

student’s place of employment were major reasons for drop out. Another set of

frequently mentioned reasons for drop out related to students’ personal goals, interests

and motivations (total = 31, rank 2): loss of interest in the course, lack of

self-discipline in studying, dislike of the distance learning study mode, accomplishing

a personal interest, a change of personal goal, the lack of motivation to complete a

course/programme, and other personal reasons all contributed to the problem of drop

out. Problems with courses or programmes are also common reasons for drop out

iii

(total = 29, rank 3). These include: the length of time it takes to complete a

programme, lack of choice in a programme, the language used in a course, making the

wrong choice of programme, course, or language used in a course, among other

problems. Another major reason for drop out was due to enrolment in another

institution or another type of study (total = 21, rank 4). High course fees, poor tutoring

services and problems with specific OUHK procedures such as credit transfer,

deferment of examinations, changing tutorial time slots, and delays in exam schedules

and grades were each reasons given by 16 of the interviewees (rank = 5).

Other reasons for drop out mentioned in the interviews include: inadequate

pre-requisite skills in languages, mathematics, and computing (total = 12, rank = 6);

failure in the course (total =11, rank 7); too heavy a workload, the progress of the

course being too fast and the course being too difficult (total =9 for each reason, rank

= 8); not being able to afford the time for the course or programme (total =7, rank = 9);

family issues, such as the need to look after children/parents, lack of support from

family, and family members demanding more time from students (total =6 for each

reason, rank = 10); problems with the image of the OUHK: the OUHK not being

recognized by the public as a prestigious university, or by professional bodies (total =

5 for each reason, rank = 11); health problems and lack of financial support (total =3

for each reason, rank 12); the location of the OUHK (total =2, rank = 13); and a lack

of financial support from employer ( total =1, rank 14).

Measures to reduce drop out. Interviewees in the focus group were also asked to

suggest measures that could have been taken to help them continue with their study,

before they actually left the OUHK. A total of 117 suggestions (39 different measures)

were proposed. The most frequently suggested measures were: to offer more

courses/programmes of a wider variety and range (total = 15, rank = 1); to lower

course fees to be competitive with other institutions (total = 13, rank = 2); to provide

counselling services before the course/programme begins (total =11, rank = 3); to

simplify the ‘credit exemption’ procedures, reduce the time for results to be received;

to provide seminars to explain OUHK procedures (total = 10 for each measure, rank =

4); and to provide more tutorials sessions (total = 7, rank = 5). Assistance in

completing TMAs and answering exam questions, allowing students to change

tutorials slots upon request and providing more tutorial session choices were

mentioned by 4 interviewees respectively (rank = 6).

iv

Questionnaire results

Reasons for drop out. According to the questionnaire, the most common reason for

drop out was ‘Course fee too high compared to other institutions, or could not afford

the course fee’(score = 365, rank = 1). The other frequently reported reasons, in order

of frequency, are: ‘Too many credits required in a programme or it takes too long to

complete a programme’; ‘Could not afford the time to study’; ‘Issues related to

learner’s career (became unemployed, change of job/position, overtime work, on shift

duty, or on business trip)’; ‘Tutor support was inadequate’; ‘Too heavy a workload,

too many TMAs, or progress of course too fast’; ‘Counselling services were

inadequate before, during and after completion of the course’; ‘Change of personal

goal’; ‘Dislike of the DL study mode’; ‘Did not complete or failed TMA, or failed in

exam’; ‘Lack self-discipline or perseverance in study, or unmotivated to complete the

course/programme’; ‘Problems with institutional procedures (e.g. procedures too

complicated and time consuming in applying for credit exemption, deferment of-exam,

changing tutorial sessions)’; ‘Tutor’s attitude or teaching method was unsatisfactory’;

‘Employer did not support or employer did not provide (or stopped providing)

financial support’; ‘Lack of choices in programmes, courses, or language of the

course’; ‘OUHK was not as prestigious university as other universities’; ‘Did not have

basic skills in English language, mathematics, or computers’; ‘Family issues (family

did not support, demanded more time from learner, gave birth to a baby, or needed to

look after of children/parents)’; ‘Enrolled in a programme/course offer by another

institution’; ‘Loss or lack of interest in the course’; ‘Made wrong choices in

programmes, courses, or language of the course’; ‘Health problems (illness during the

course, deteriorating health)’; and ‘Failed in the application for bursary or

scholarship’.

Measures to reduce drop out. The most frequently suggested measure was to ‘Lower

course fees or provide cash rebates or discounts after course completion’ (rank = 1).

This suggestion, however, as well as those listed below, are measures the research

team considered inappropriate to implement: ‘Shorten the time to complete a course

and reduce the number of credits required’ (rank = 5); ‘Provide more face-to-face

components in DL courses’ (rank = 6) ; ‘Provide more bursaries and scholarships’

(rank = 7); ‘Ensure more courses be included in CEF or SME Fund’ (rank = 8);

‘Obtain recognition from professional bodies and offer courses in conjunction with

professional bodies or big companies’ (rank = 9); ‘Allow students to change tutorials

slots upon request’ (rank = 10); ‘Allow deferred payment of course fee or payment by

instalments’ (rank = 11); ‘Allow credits earned in one programme to be counted in

another programme’ (rank = 12, this measure is basically in existence at the OUHK);

v

‘Hold alternative tutorials on weekends’ (rank = 14); ‘Offer more courses/programmes

of a wider range and variety’ (rank = 15); ‘Simplify the procedures and shorten the

time to release the results of credit exemption, deferred examination, and change of

tutorial time slot’ (rank = 16); ‘Provide academic or financial awards as incentive for

course/programme completion’ (rank = 18); ‘‘Release examination results as soon as

possible after the exam’ (rank = 21); ‘Provide more elementary or foundation courses’

(rank = 23); ‘Publicize more cases of successful OUHK graduates and employers who

employ them’ (rank = 28); and ‘Provide workshops to students and their family

members on supporting each other’ (rank = 29).

Other suggested measures, presented here in their order of ranking, are concerned

with concrete student support services, and thus are possible measures the research

team could consider implementing in its pilot: ‘Videotape tutorial sessions and upload

them online for student access’ (rank = 2); ‘Simplify study materials, provide

summaries, and reduce study work load and TMAs’ (rank = 3); ‘Provide additional

tutorials to develop students’ skills in completing TMAs and answering exam

questions’ (rank = 4); ‘Provide workshops to improve students' language, mathematics,

and computer skills’ (rank = 13); ‘Help students to form study groups’ (rank = 17);

‘Improve tutors’ attitudes and teaching methods’ (rank = 19); ‘Provide workshops on

time management’ (rank = 20); ‘Provide counselling services before and after

registration, during and after course completion’ (rank = 22); ‘Provide e-mail alerts to

remind students about date of tutorials, submission of TMAs, examinations’ (rank =

24); ‘Provide workshops on developing self-discipline’ (rank = 25); ‘Extend Q&A

time during tutorials and allow students to ask questions’ (rank = 26); and ‘Provide

counselling on course/programme choice’ (rank = 27).

Conclusion

Student enrolment patterns show that if a student passes their courses in their first year,

from a statistical perspective, a significantly higher (about 50%) percentage enroll in a

new course. The implication is that if we can help a ‘failed’ student pass in their first

year of study, then we have increased their chance of enrolment in another course in

the next semester by 50%.

This leads us to conclude that if we provide additional support to students to help

them pass a course then this should enable higher retention. We also note that these

support functions should be implemented in the first year of a student’s study, or there

is a very high chance that these students will be gone forever.

vi

All the reasons given for drop out by the focus group interviewees and questionnaire

respondents provide a good reference for the design of a pilot set of measures to assist

students in continuing their study at the OUHK. The suggestions given by students in

the interviews and the questionnaires concerning measures to help them continue with

their study are also important for the team to consider.

The research team will proceed to the second phase of the study, which is to plan and

then try out measures we believe would reduce student drop out, and to evaluate the

effectiveness of these measures, once the senior management gives it approval.

1

Background

The total number of students enrolled in OUHK’s distance learning courses has been

decreasing since 2000. The Senior Marketing Officer of the PAU presented a paper:

‘A Strategic Marketing Plan for the OUHK’ at a Management Board meeting in

March 2007. The statistics in the paper revealed that the retention rates of new

enrolled students are 72.9%, 46.0% and 40.0% after the first, second and third

semesters of their studies. These figures were considered to be very low. Among the

marketing strategies proposed, one which was endorsed by the Board was ‘to focus on

improvement on student retention’.

It is believed that the OUHK has a fair knowledge of why distance education students

drop out from their studies (see OUHK studies below). However, we should note that

while it is necessary to identify reasons for student drop out, it is equally important to

identify measures which would help to increase the retention of students already in

our system. A study focusing on both of these elements would be of better use to the

OUHK.

Why study drop out?

Student attrition, or drop out, is often linked to the wastage of resources and is a

continuing concern in educational institutions, although some see it as an inevitable

part of the business. Drop out is also linked to the success of courses. Woodley (2004)

pointed out that universities’ funding levels were contingent upon their performance

against several criteria, one of which is drop out rate; therefore, many universities

have been undertaking internal studies of the phenomenon. Yorke (1999) described

national drop out surveys that have been administered. A recent UK report (Public

Accounts Committee, House of Commons, 2008) revealed that GBP 800 million have

been spent to cut the numbers of students dropping out of universities, although the

effect of all this funding was found to be small.

Drop out is of particular concern to distance education universities as they

traditionally have higher drop out rates compared to conventional universities.

Simpson (2002) reported that student retention in open and distance learning was

increasingly important due to issues of quality assessment, student assertiveness and

institutional funding. Student drop out leads to a reduction in total student enrolment

2

(another contributor is a reduction in new enrolment), and at the OUHK our student

numbers have been decreasing for the last decade. While recognizing that not all

factors for drop out can be addressed, for example factors such as age, gender and

socioeconomic status (see Cooke, Sims and Peyrefitt, 1995; Simpson, 2004), there are

potentially many ways both the learners and the institution itself are able to act to

prevent or reduce drop out (Burt, 1996; Simpson, 2002). Research findings on reasons

or factors contributing to student drop out can shed light on areas ripe for institution

intervention, such as improvement in course materials, course delivery and student

support. The OUHK has a keen interest in understanding why our students drop out –

and more importantly how we can respond in a cost effective manner to retain

students. Studies on student drop out also benefit students, because as the real

difficulties students face when they study are revealed, these problems can be more

appropriately taken care of.

A research and development project at the OUHK

While a thorough literature review on how other universities are attempting to combat

drop out may be useful for the OUHK’s consideration, there may be other reasons and

factors causing drop out that are unique to our university. Therefore, research on our

own students will be necessary. This also applies to the measures used to reduce drop

out in educational institutions. In April 2007, Head (ETP) cum Director (CRIDAL)

proposed a ‘research and development’ project focusing on student retention, which

includes the following phases (see Appendix I for the project plan):

1 Identification of the reasons for student drop out at the OUHK;

2 Development and pilot testing of measures to assist in addressing the factors

leading to drop out; and

3 Evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures piloted above.

It is hoped that the project findings will contribute to the concrete improvement of

student retention rates, from a ‘return of investment’ financial perspective. The

project’s primary deliverable will be a final report which will suggest measures for the

OUHK to implement to reduce student attrition, complete with resource implications,

which will be submitted to the Senate for consideration.

The project was supported and funded by the PACRD at the May 2007 meeting and

the first phase stage of the study, which included a literature review, a focus group

study and a questionnaire survey on the reasons for student drop out at the OUHK,

3

was completed in March 2008.

This paper reports on the findings of this first phase of the study.

Contributions from relevant units to the project

Two ETPU staff members (increased to three in January 2008), the Registrar, and

Head (PA) indicated interest in participating in the project. In order to ensure that the

findings are applicable and relevant to all courses, each of the four schools also

nominated a member to join the project team.

4

Defining drop out for the study

Drop out, student attrition, withdrawal, failure, wastage, non-completion,

discontinuation, and student mortality are terms used by universities to describe

students leaving an institution before the completion of a course (subject) or a

programme of study. However, it has been found that these terms mean quite different

things in different studies.

At the UK Open University (UKOU), various terms are used to describe different

types of drop out or student attrition, but all such terms are used for the

discontinuation of study within the duration of a course or a subject of study within a

programme. UKOU students are admitted to a course on a ‘trial’ registration basis

when a course starts, then three months into the course each student must decide

whether they will continue for a ‘final registration’. Failing to complete this ‘final

registration’ is defined as ‘non-completion of final registration’. ‘Withdrawal’ is

defined as when a student completes the ‘final registration’ for a course but does not

sit for the end-of-semester examination. ‘Failure’ is used to define the case when a

student obtains a fail grade in a course after he/she sits for the examination. The

UKOU uses the term ‘wastage’ to include both ‘withdrawal’ and ‘failure’ in a course.

They do not use the term ‘drop out’ even when a student fails to sit for the

examination, as a student may have achieved their learning goals without sitting for

the examination (Ashby, 2004).

At the Open University of Hong Kong, a study on drop out by Fan and Chan (1997)

also focused on students’ continuation of study within the duration of a course. For

the purpose of their study, Fan and Chan defined ‘drop out’ as when a student did not

sit for the examination in their course and ‘initial drop out’ as when a student did not

submit any of the assignments for their course.

Ashby (2004) proposed that, from an institutional view point, a simple definition of

student retention (the opposite of drop out) is the measure of the percentage of

students who gain a course credit or an award, based on the number of students who

registered for a course or award. From an institutional planning perspective, one may

be concerned with students’ completion of their study of a programme rather than of a

course. This is because when students drop out from a programme before enrolling in

all the required courses, this will in effect decrease the institution’s ‘expected’ income,

which is a major institutional concern, especially for self-financing universities.

5

However, in an open learning environment it is difficult to categorize students

according to whether they have actually dropped out from programmes. For

universities such as the OUHK, that practice open learning policies, students can take

a break of any length between the completion of one course and the re-registration of

another course, and they are not necessarily considered to have left the university

when they do not enrol in new courses. OUHK students are not required to inform the

university of their withdrawal, as they may wish to reserve the right to resume their

studies at a future date. In addition, OUHK students are not required to indicate their

programme of study, so it is difficult for the university to know if a student

discontinuing from further enrolment in courses is actually dropping out from their

study. From the students’ viewpoint, they may have planned to study for one or a few

courses and not a whole programme, and so their failure to register for new courses

does not, strictly speaking, cause them fall into the drop out category as they may

have achieved their individual learning goals. An OLI study by Hatchard et al

(Hatchard et al, 1993; Yuen et al, 1994) identified drop out based on programmes, as

they were ‘more concerned with the re-registration of new courses after the

completion of current courses.’ These studies defined a student who dropped out as

one who did not register for a new course after completing a course for three

semesters.

Our present study is more inclined to use a definition of drop out for a programme,

since the later part of the study is concerned with developing institutional measures to

reduce drop out during a programme. However, in reality some students do take a

break in their enrolment of new courses, so how long a break will this definition allow?

Data from our two 2005 cohorts of students indicate that a decreasing number of

students re-register after extending their break for two semesters (see Table 1 figures

below).

Table 1: Patterns of the April 2005 and October 2005 cohorts of OUHK students

continuously not re-registering for new courses

For 1 semester For 2 semesters For 3 semesters

April 2005 cohort 201 201 201

October 2005 cohort 745 716 716

Taking the information provided in Table 1 into consideration, for the purpose of this

study, a ‘drop out student’ is defined as one who does not register for a new course for

at least two semesters after completing their last course.

6

Studies on student drop out

Studies on drop out can be grouped into two categories: surveys asking the drop out

students the reasons why they dropped out, and studies that correlate the progress of a

study with predictive variables (Woodley, 2004). The first method of study assumes

that people are willing and able to explain the causes of their behaviour. Given that

drop out is equated with failure, people may rationalize their behaviour by not telling

the truth. Drop out is a complex issue and some people may not actually be able to

identify and explain the cause(s). The respondents may also find it difficult to recall

their reasons for dropping out due to the relatively long period of time between the

drop out decision and the survey. Woodley has suggested that if this survey method is

used, then an interview, where a person is probed, teased out and challenged would be

preferable to a questionnaire with simple tick boxes.

The second method of study looks for factors that predict drop out, usually using

statistical analysis. These factors are usually student characteristics or background

variables. In some studies, institutional variables (type of institution, teaching

standards, subjects taught, among others) are used, but such information is often

difficult to find as institutions are reluctant to reveal it. With this method, a large

number of factors or variables that are suspected to relate to drop out are identified

and measured, and their correlation with the (dependent) drop out variable will be

computed. If there is a positive relationship between the factors and drop out, then the

factors related to (and hence interpreted as causing) drop out are identified and actions

will be taken with regards to these factors. It should be noted that two variables which

correlate significantly may not have a ‘causal relationship’, as the correlation may be

coincidental, or both variables caused by a third. On the other hand, even when two

variables are not correlated, they may still be causally linked, as the effect of one

variable on the dependent variable may be obscured by the effects of other variables

in the regression process. In the latter case, control experiments to ‘partial out’ the

effect of certain variables are necessary in order to identify the ‘hidden’ factors.

Previous studies on drop out at the OUHK and in Hong Kong

The issue of this institution’s high drop out rates was noticed very early on. At an OLI

Academic Board meeting held in 1992, a study on student drop out was called for, and

Dr Des Hatchard of the A&SS was asked to head a team to undertake a study on the

subject and to make recommendations to improve the situation. Interim and final

7

reports (Hatchard et al, 1993; Yuen et al, 1994) were submitted to the board in 1993

and 1994. In the final report, some important factors leading to student drop out at that

time were identified. The most important self-reported reason for drop out by

‘withdrawers’ was that they ‘could not afford (the money and time) to continue the

programme’. Other major reasons given for drop out included the course materials

being too difficult, and a loss of interest in the subject. When those who persisted in

their programmes were asked about what the determinants would be in a decision to

discontinue their study (if they ever thought about dropping out), they indicated that it

would be due to health problems, family commitments, failure in the examination, and

loss of interest in the programme.

In the 1993 Hatchard study, the major suggestions to improve student retention were:

implementing measures to assist students in their study so that they pass the

examination, such as: advising students to start their study with easier (foundation)

courses and a lighter workload; providing specific counselling services to those

new students who chose to start their study at middle or higher level courses; using

effective instructionally designed course materials and adopting an effective

tutoring and administrative system;

offering more courses so that students can choose the appropriate course(s) to start;

assisting students to better prepare for their examinations, and to plan better for

examination time by announcing the exam venue and time; and

making it known to students that tutorial attendance is positively linked to success,

and advising them to attend the optional tutorials as often as possible.

There were no follow-up discussions or actions after the completion of this study.

Other colleagues within the OUHK have also studied the drop out problem (Fan and

Chan, 1997; Fan, 2002, 2003, 2004; Fan and Lee, 2004; Jegede, 2000a). Fan and

Chan (1997) studied the factors leading to students dropping out from two

mathematics foundation courses (M111 and M112) offered by the OUHK, and

suggested ways to improve the situation. They found that the drop out rate decreased

with the age of the students, but did not relate to their gender. Education level had an

effect on drop out, but an interesting point was that students entering the OUKH with

a Form 3 to 5 level of education had a lower drop out rate than students who had

completed Form 6 or 7. It was also found that students who had taken other OUHK

courses had a lower drop out rate. In terms of the development of the drop out process,

Fan and Chan discovered that about 70% of those students who did not attend the

examination had not submitted assignments in the first half of the course. In addition,

8

90% of those students who did not submit their first TMA did not turn up for their

examination, while 75% of students who did submit this first TMA stayed on in the

course and attended the examination. Using data from a survey of drop out students,

Fan and Chan found that a student’s general education background was also related to

drop out. Fewer of the students who dropped out were married students, students with

expressed study goals and study plans, students taking more than the two M111 and

M112 courses, or students who participated in more face-to-face (tutorial) sessions.

General suggestions made by the 1997 Fan and Chan study included: a) the OUHK

should help students to maintain their commitment to their studies; b) the OUHK

should provide appropriate assistance to students to help them overcome problems

encountered when they learn at a distance; and c) the OUHK must design courses to

suit the needs of its students. The authors’ specific suggestions were: a) development

of a preparatory learning package for new students, including an introduction to

studying in the distance learning mode (the workload involved and commitment

required from students, basic distance learning skills, and counselling possibilities)

and the provision of course details and associated pre-requisites; b) enhancement of

the present student support system; and c) annual reviews of course materials.

Fan (2002, 2003, 2004) devised a run-time at-risk assessment system to identify

at-risk students, and issued ‘reminder’ notes to them in the form of initial assessment

reports. In this system the at-risk level of the students was updated and a new report

generated when an assignment was due (Fan, 2004). The system was implemented for

one year, and the at-risk level dropped by 0.12 for the experimental group, as opposed

to 0.05 for the control group. The system was hence proved to be effective in reducing

the overall drop out rate.

Fan and Lee (2004) made comparisons of course completion between students

enrolled in two different OUHK courses (a Nursing course with a 91% completion

rate, and a Mathematics course with a 46% completion rate), and identified factors

leading to a higher completion rate. The students in the Nursing course were more

homogeneous in terms of background characteristics, had stronger student-student

relationships, were offered both academic and professional qualifications after their

programme completion – a step for career advancement, and were offered monetary

awards which were specific to Nursing students. Students in the Mathematics course

did not have these characteristics. Recommendations were made based on these

differences.

9

Jegede (2000b) defined drop out as non-attendance in examinations. He reviewed the

literature on factors that relate to student drop out at the OUHK, and examined the

pattern of non-attendance of OUHK students in examinations over a 10-year period.

He found that there had been a slight decrease in examination non-attendance rate

over the years, and that in general, foundation and pre-foundation courses had higher

than average drop out rates, while higher- and middle-level education, postgraduate

education and business courses had lower than average drop out rates.

Kember (1989) carried out the most extensive study of drop out by part-time or

distance learning students in Hong Kong. Based on Tinto’s model (1975, see below

for more details), Kember identified different constructs which affect the success in

studying distance learning courses in Hong Kong, using courses of different

disciplines and duration from the OUHK and other UGC institutions in Hong Kong.

The constructs identified were external attributes, academic accommodation,

academic incompatibility, and social integration. Measures to reduce the drop out

rates were suggested in detail in Kember’s 1995 book.

A recent study by Lau (2005) on students studying for an HKIVE part-time evening

programme made use of Kember’s model and adapted his instrument. Lau’s study

found that the major factors affecting drop out were: academic integration, attendance

in classes, use of the utilitarian approach in study, English capability, high course fees,

lack of time to study, and change of employment.

Studies on drop out in distance learning & part time programmes

elsewhere

Tinto (1975) and Kember (1989) have suggested theoretical models to explain the

processes of drop out. In those models, drop out is seen as a longitudinal process of

interactions between an individual with particular background variables (skills,

financial resources, prior education, commitments, etc.) and other members of the

academic and social systems of the institution. The individual’s experience in those

systems, as indicated by his/her intellectual and social integration, continually

modifies his or her intentions and commitments. Further research by Tinto (1993)

indicates that positive or negative integration will reinforce or weaken the individual’s

intentions and commitments to complete the course/programme. Kember (1995)

identified four key constructs: social integration, academic integration, external

attribution and academic incompatibility in his casual model of student progress in

10

open learning courses. These constructs, together with students’ background

characteristics, form the elements of student progress and account for 80% of the

variance in adult student persistence in their studies. However, when the study was

replicated by Woodley et al (2001) on UKOU students, the empirical findings showed

that these casual relationships were not statistically significant.

Burt (1996) analysed student progress (all 13,586 new students ‘finally registered’ in

1985) in their years of study at the UKOU. He defined ‘success’ as registering for at

least one course and passing at least one of the courses in that given year. The first

year pass rate was 72%. He found that if a student passed a course in their first year,

91% of them continued with their studies for at least one more year; whereas if the

student did not pass at least one course in their first year, only 13% continued with

their studies. This is shown below in Table 2.

Table 2: The percentage of students who continued with their studies for all 13,586

new OUUK students ‘finally registered’ in 1985 (numbers for small courses are

dropped)

Number of years of study Number of failed per year

0 1 2 3

1 91 13 - -

2 92 35 10 -

3 96 39 20 0

4 97 48 31 0

5 99 48 0 0

6 100 44 0 -

7 86 100

8 100 100

9 100

Burt’s UKOU study also found that if a student passed a course one year (72%) and

continued with their studies, they had a 69% chance of success in the following year.

The chance of success for ‘successful’ students increased steadily, and for those who

had had five consecutive years of success, 91% were successful in the following year

of study. On the other hand, the study found that only 8% of unsuccessful first year

students had a chance of reversing their fortunes in the following year. Students who

experienced their first failure in later years were still less likely to be successful in the

following year of study but the percentage of success increased for students who

11

experienced their first failures in their fifth year of study, in which case 52% were

successful in the following year.

From the registration figures of a cohort of students, Burt concluded that the students

reflected on their past experience of success and experienced some degree of

confidence about their chances of success in the following year. They then took the

decision on whether or not to continue their studies on the basis of their feelings of

confidence. Table 3 below provides the registration figures Burt based his conclusions

on. Given that first year success plays a crucial role in future year successes,

measures to reduce OUHK student attrition in their first year of study would appear to

be the most important.

Table 3: The percentage of students who pass their courses in the following year of

study for all 13,586 new UKOU students ‘finally registered’ in 1985 (numbers for

small courses are dropped)

Number of years of study Number of failed years

0 1 2

0 72 - -

1 69 8 -

2 78 17 0

3 87 20 0

4 92 51 44

5 91 52 -

6 82 100 -

7 100 0 -

8 74 - -

Without actually conducting a survey, Simpson (2004) suggested that if students are

asked why they dropped out from their open and distance learning courses, their

answers generally tend to be, in order of decreasing significance:

Lack of time

Change of family or employment circumstances

Illness

Bereavement

Inappropriate course choice

Poor support

A host of miscellaneous issues

12

He further argued that these explanations are post hoc rationalizations of student

behaviour, and there is not a lot an institution can do about them. As rationalizations,

they may also not indicate the ‘true reason’ for dropping out.

Simpson also listed a number of ways students leave their studies. They include:

Enquirers who do not register for a course

Students who become dormant – they do not withdraw but do not submit

assignments

Students who actively withdraw

Students who submit assignments but do not take the exam

Students who fail the exam outright

Student who fail for administrative reasons – not paying fees, etc

Students who fail, are granted re-sits but do not take them

Students who fail, are granted re-sits and fail them

Students who pass one course or module but do not reserve or registered for

another

These are nine ‘holes’ through which students may leak from the system. Simpson

therefore proposed retention strategies at different stages of students’ studies.

There have been a considerable number of studies focusing on the provision of

student support services to reduce student drop out and these will be examined in

more detail in the next phase of the present study.

13

Methodology of the study

The focus of this phase of the study is to identify reasons or factors of student drop

out at the OUHK. Three methods were used: a) analysis of the enrolment patterns of

cohorts of OUHK students; b) focus group interviews of a sample of drop out students;

and c) a questionnaire survey on all ‘recent’ drop out students.

Student enrolment and re-registration patterns. Enrolment patterns for cohorts of

students, as well as their patterns of subsequent passes and failures on courses over a

period of time, with reference to students’ passes or failures in their studies were

analysed.

Focus group interviews. It was planned that focus groups would be used to discover

the reasons why students left their studies, and that students would also be asked to

suggest possible measures which might have helped to reverse their decision to drop

out. The research team recognized that there had been studies at the OUHK and

elsewhere on reasons for drop out, but still considered it worthwhile to repeat the

work, as these reasons might have changed over time at our own university, and

reasons might vary among institutions.

What is a focus group? Denzin and Lincoln (1994) state that a focus group refers to a

situation in which the researchers ask group members very specific questions about a

topic after considerable research has already been done. Kreuger (1988) defines a

focus group as a ‘carefully planned discussion designed to obtain perceptions in a

defined area of interest in a permissive, non-threatening environment’ (page 18).

Stewart and Shamdasani (1990) suggest that focus groups can be used for stimulating

new ideas and creative concepts, and generating research hypotheses that can be

submitted to further research and testing using more quantitative approaches.

Woodley (2004) pointed out that in focus group interviews the interviewees could be

probed, teased out and challenged so that the full details are uncovered, which is

preferable to a questionnaire with its simple tick boxes. Detailed descriptions of the

reasons given during the focus group interviews would allow better measures to be

devised to combat drop out, which is the focus of the second phase of this research

study.

The information collected from the focus groups, including the reasons for and

measures to reduce drop out, would then be verified by a questionnaire survey, so as

14

to provide more representative responses from the drop out students. By using both a

focus group interview and a questionnaire, the study in effect used a mixed methods

strategy. This mixed methods strategy involved qualitative datasets being collected in

the focus groups, that were then used to devise a questionnaire which sought

quantitative feedback from drop out students. The research team considered mixed

methods research capable of providing richer insight into the phenomenon than if

either dataset were used alone. It provides strengths that offset the weaknesses

inherent in each individual approach (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007).

Focus group interviews were conducted to obtain details of the reasons for student

drop out. Recently enrolled students were studied because it is believed that reasons

for drop out change with time, and the present study wishes to identify the most

up-to-date reasons so that drop out can be best addressed. Focus group interviews

rather than questionnaires were used because in an interview the interviewees can be

questioned and challenged so that the full details are drawn out, which is preferable to

a questionnaire with its simple tick boxes (Woodley, 2004). Detailed descriptions of

the reasons for drop out will allow better measures be devised to combat attrition,

which is the focus of second phase of the research study.

However, the research team did not expect that the focus group interviewees would

exhaust all valid suggested measures to reduce drop out, and so some measures not

mentioned in the interviews were included in the questionnaire by the members of

research team, which include experienced front-line teaching staff and instructional

designers.

A questionnaire survey was administered in order to obtain a representative view of

all OUHK’s drop out students. The questions in the questionnaire were based on the

reasons for drop out and suggested measures to help students continue with their study

that were given by the participants in the focus group interviews.

Selection of the sample for focus group interviews

In the present study a drop out student is defined as one who does not register for a

new course for at least two semesters after completing his or her last course. This

study focuses on more ‘current students’ rather than those who left the university

some time ago. Hence the population of the study includes all OUHK recently

enrolled students who had their first registration in April 2005, October 2005, April

15

2006, and October 2006 respectively but have since had no registration for two or

more semesters. There were 2, 218 such students.

The plan was to recruit approximately 120 such students to take part in the study, and

that only students enrolled in courses provided by the OUHK’s four schools would be

included. As requested by the school members on the research team, some special

requirements were imposed for the focus group members:

School of Arts and Social Science:

Members must be students who took specific fundamental level courses.

School of Business and Administration:

Members must be students who took courses at different levels.

School of Education and Languages:

Members must be students who enrolled in one of the three programmes: BEd, PG

Diploma, MEd.

School of Sciences and Technology:

Members must be students who enrolled in the foundation courses of three

programmes: Environmental studies, Engineering Science, Computer Science.

Invitation letters were sent to all 2, 218 drop out students in the target group,

requesting that they join a two hour group interview. A small amount of $200 was

offered to each interviewee to cover their travel expenses. A total of 119 individuals

accepted the invitation (49 by mail, 48 by fax, and 23 after a call from the RA), and

85 turned up to the interviews, which was less than the expected number. This group

formed 3.83% of the total number of drop out students under investigation. The

interviewees’ academic backgrounds fulfilled the requirements stipulated by the

schools (described above).

The focus group interviews

In each of the interview sessions, one member from the research team acted as the

chief interviewer; the RA was also present as an assistant interviewer, and a technician

from the ETPU provided technical assistance in audio recording. The set-up of the

interviews can be seen in Figure 1.

16

Figure 1: The set up of the focus group interview sessions

Standard remarks (Appendix II) were made by the chief interviewer to the group in

each of the interviews. The interviews normally took one and a half to two hours. The

venue was at the OUHK’s Island Learning Centre (4/F Shun Tak Centre, 168

Connaught Road C., Hong Kong) and took place at weekends or on weekday evenings

during the period of 1 December to 15 December 2007. A total of 17 sessions were

held. The sessions were conducted in Chinese.

In the interviews, each of the participants was in turn asked to first tell the group the

programme they had intended to study for, and the reasons for their dropping out from

their studies. Then each participant was asked to suggest what measures they believed

that, if implemented at the time of their drop out, could have helped them re-consider

or even reverse their decision. They were also asked to elaborate when necessary.

The interview sessions were tape-recorded on an MP3 recorder, and verbatim

transcriptions were made afterwards, first by clerks, and then the unclear parts were

checked and validated by the RA. The profile of the students who joined the

interviews is given in Table 4.

Table 4: Profile of the OUHK students who joined the focus group interviews

Programme type A&SS B&A E&L S&T No indication

Certificate 0 1 0 0 -

Diploma 4 0 0 1 -

Associate Degree 1 3 2 0 -

Bachelor Degree 14 26 6 10 -

PG Certificate or Diploma 0 2 2 0 -

Master Degree 1 2 3 0 -

Doctorate 0 0 0 0 -

Total 20 34 13 11 7

17

The questionnaire survey

Though initially only focus group interviews were planned for this study, the research

team felt that a further general questionnaire survey would give better representation

of the interview results, provide quantitative figures for the reasons given for drop out

and serve to triangulate the findings of the focus group interviews. The questionnaire

survey was administered in March 2008, asking students to reveal their reasons for

dropping out.

A questionnaire containing only two questions (one on the reasons for dropping out,

and the other on suggested measures the participants believe would have stopped

them from dropping out, see Appendix VI) was devised based on reasons and

suggestions given in the focus group interviews. The questionnaire was sent to the

2,218 drop out students in the population of the study. In the letter inviting students’

participation in the survey, a small gift was promised to some participants through a

‘lucky draw’. A total of 375 recipients returned the completed questionnaire, with a

return rate of 16.91%. The return rate for these questionnaires was low. However,

despite the low numbers, the study has been able to use the information in the

questionnaires to provide some pointers for further possible development in the area

of student attrition.

18

Analysis of data

The drop out students who first enrolled in OUHK courses in 2005 and 2006 form the

sample group of the present study. The course enrolment patterns of those students

were analysed. The reasons for drop out provided by the interviewees in the focus

group interviews were identified, and compared with studies conducted elsewhere.

Results from the questionnaire survey were also triangulated with those obtained from

the interviews.

Enrolment pattern of the OUHK’s two 2005 cohorts of students

Simple student enrolment patterns with reference to students’ pass or failure in their

studies are very useful information for the consideration of the institution. The UKOU

figures show that if a student passes their courses in their first year (72%), from a

statistical perspective, 91% of them continue with their studies for one more year,

whereas if the student does not pass at least one course in their first year (28%), only

13% of those students continue with their studies. The percentage difference in

re-registration is 78%. We have a similar pattern of figures at the OUHK. Tables 5a

and 5b illustrate that for the OUHK, the re-registration figures are respectively

83.94% (71.34%) and 28.81% (27.17%), and the difference is 55.13% (44.26%).

[Non-bracketed figures are for the April 2005 students (Table 5a), and bracketed

figures are for the October 2005 cohort (Table 5b). The pass percentages of April

2005 and October 2005 students are 71.85% and 69.60% respectively.]

Table 5a: The percentage of students who continue with their studies for all 1,517 new

students registered at the OUHK in April 2005

Number of semesters of study Number of failed semesters

0 1 2 3 4

1 83.94 28.81 - - -

2 93.30 69.62 25.37 - -

3 88.33 62.79 48.00 50.00 -

4 95.69 67.50 33.33 33.33 33.33

19

Table 5b: The percentage of students who continue with their studies for all 1,816 new

students registered at the OUHK in October 2005

Number of semesters of study Number of failed semesters

0 1 2 3

1 71.43 27.17 - -

2 87.78 49.41 40.38 -

3 94.71 73.06 35.29 15.22

At the OUHK, success in a student’s first courses also affects their later success in

their studies, in a similar fashion to the UKOU. The likelihood of passing is higher in

the next year if the student passes their first courses than if they fail their first courses.

Tables 6a and 6b below show that the first year’s pass rates are 71.85% and 69.90%

for the April 2005 and October cohorts respectively.

Table 6a: The percentage of students who pass their courses in the following semester

of study for all 1,517 new students registered at the OUHK in April 2005

Number of semesters of study Number of failed semesters

0 1 2

0 71.85

1 73.66 24.39 -

2 81.41 37.21 16.66

Table 6b: The percentage of students who pass their courses in the following semester

of study for all 1,816 new students registered at the OUHK in October 2005

Number of semesters of study Number of failed semesters

0 1

0 69.60

1 87.71 23.33

It is also found that quite a high proportion of students pass a course, but still leave

the university (22.30%, 26.58% and 31.17% for the April 2005, October 2005 and

April 2006 cohorts of students respectively). This group of students forms a

substantial portion of OUHK ‘drop outs’.

20

Focus group interview results

The interview sessions were all transcribed into Chinese text (the sessions were also

conducted in Chinese). The RA went through the transcripts, and identified over 30

different reasons for drop out, and over 30 different suggested measures which the

OUHK could have instated to help these students continue with their study. Since the

questionnaire survey was planned for the near future, more anticipated reasons and

suggested measures were added for coding purposes to the lists of drop out reasons

and measures to reduce drop out. The items in these two lists would be used for the

questionnaire survey later.

Reasons for drop out obtained through focus group interviews

A total of 48 different specific reasons for drop out were identified for the present

study. Each of the issues, general reasons and specific reasons were given a code for

easy reference (see Appendix III). This list of reasons for dropping out (with the codes)

was used as a guide to categorize the reasons for drop out expressed by the

interviewees, and formed the basis of the questionnaire in the survey to be

administered later. Two members of the research team went through each of the

interview transcripts, and marked the code for the reason on the transcripts when

identified.

The specific reasons for drop out given by the 85 students who took part in the focus

group interviews were identified and tallied. Appendix IV shows the list of reasons for

drop out, and the number of students providing each of the reasons. The occurrences

of the reasons for drop out were classified into seven main areas (failure in course,

personal, family, financial, career, course/programme, and institutional), 17 categories,

and 49 specific reasons. Note that students often gave more than one reason.

The reasons for dropping out, in descending order of frequency indicated by students,

are given below in Table 7:

21

Table 7: Reported reasons for drop out given by interviewees

General reasons Frequency Specific reasons Frequency

Issues related to learner’s

career

35 Change of job/position

Overtime work/On shift duty/On business trip

11

24

Personal goal /Interest/

Motivation

31 Change of personal goal

Loss or lack of interest in the course/Failure to meet own expectation

Lack of self-discipline or perseverance in the study

Did not like the DL study mode

Unmotivated to complete course/programme

Personal interest accomplished

Other

2

7

7

6

1

3

5

Problem with

Course/Programme

29 Lack of choices of programmes, courses, or language used in course

Made wrong choices in programmes, courses, or language used in

course

Too many credits required in programme and it takes too long to

complete programme

Others

9

6

13

1

Study in another

institution

21 Enrolled in a (conversion) programme/course offered by another

institution

Others

18

3

High course fee 16 Course fee was too high compared to other institution

Could not afford the course fee

10

6

Tutor supporting services 16 Tutor support was inadequate

Tutor’s attitude was bad

Tutor’s teaching method was poor / boring

8

7

1

Problems with

institutional

procedures

16 Procedure of applying for ‘credit exemption’ was too complicated and

time consuming

Procedure of applying for ‘defer-exam’ was too complicated and

time-consuming

Others

13

2

1

Inadequate pre-requisite

basic

skills/knowledge

12 Did not have basic language skills

Did not have basic mathematics skills

Did not have basic computer knowledge

Others

5

1

3

3

Failure in course 11 Did not complete or failed TMA

Did not attend or failed in exam

Others

5

5

1

22

Study workload and

difficulty of the

course

9 Too many materials needed to read

Too many TMAs needed to complete

Progress of course was too fast

Courses were too difficult

Others

2

1

2

2

2

Time management 7 Could not afford the time 7

Family issues 6 Lack of support from family

Family members demanded more time from learner

Needed to look after of children/ parents

Others

1

1

3

1

Image of OUHK 5 OUHK was not recognized by the public as a prestigious university

OUHK was not recognized by professional bodies/the public.

4

1

Health 3 Deteriorating health

Others

2

1

Lack of financial support 3 Failed to apply for bursary or scholarship

Others

2

1

Location/Facilities of

OUHK

2 Location of OUHK/learning center

2

Lack of employer support 1 Employer did not provide (or stopped providing) financial support 1

The 85 interviewees provided a total of 223 reasons (many are repeated, and the

number of different specific reasons is 48), so each interviewee gave an average of

2.56 reasons. The most frequently mentioned reasons for drop out relate to students’

career (total 35): 24 said overtime work, shift duty and business trips were major

reasons for dropping out, and 11 said it was because of a change of job or change in

position in their job. Another group of frequently mentioned reasons relate to students’

personal goals, interests and motivations (total 31): loss of interest in the course (7),

lack of self-discipline in study (7), dislike of the distance learning study mode (6),

personal interest accomplished (3), change of personal goals (2), unmotivated to

complete course/programme (1), and other personal reasons (5). Problems with the

course or programme also commonly led to drop out (total 29): 13 reported that it

takes too long to complete a programme, 9 said it was a lack of choice of programme,

course, or language used in a course, 6 made incorrect choices in programme, course,

or language used in a course, and other (1). Another major reason for drop out is that

the student was enrolled in another institution or another type of study (21). High

course fees (16), poor tutoring service (16) and problems with OUHK’s procedures

such as credit transfer, deferment of examination, changing tutorial time slots, and

delays in exam schedules and grades (16) are also frequently mentioned reasons for

23

drop out.

Other reasons mentioned in the interviews include: inadequate pre-requisite skills in

languages, mathematics, and computing (12); failure in a course (11); too heavy

workload, progress of course too fast and course too difficult (9); could not afford the

time (7); family issues, such as the need to look after children/parents, lack of support

from family, and family members demanding more time from student (6); the image

of OUHK: OUHK not being recognized by the public as a prestigious university, or

by professional bodies (5); health problems (3); lack of financial support (3); location

of OUHK (2); and lack of financial support from employer (1).

It should be noted that the most frequently mentioned reason for drop out given by

students is due to their job/career – balancing the use of time between their work and

study is a difficult task, and if there is a conflict, students will let their career/work

requirements take priority. This is followed by the interviewees’ interest and

perseverance in their study. Students will give up their study if their motivation is not

strong enough. External factors (such as an offer of a place in another institution,

possibly to study in a non-distance education mode) and problems with the

programme/course are reasons for drop out that occur third most frequently. Other

more frequently mentioned reasons relate more to the OUHK: high course fees, poor

tutoring service and problems with OUHK’s procedures such as credit transfer,

deferment of examination, changing tutorial time slots, and delays in exam schedules

and grades.

To a certain extent, it is comforting for the OUHK management to learn that students

drop out more due to their personal problems than inadequacies of the institution.

Measures the OUHK could have taken to help students continue with their study

In addition to reasons for drop out, interviewees were also asked to suggest measures

the OUHK could have taken to help them continue with their study, before they

actually left the institution. Those suggested measures were coded and identified in a

similar fashion as the reasons for drop out. The frequencies of the suggested measures

are given below in Table 8 (see Appendix V for more details).

24

Table 8: Measures suggested by interviewees that OUHK should implement to prevent

drop out

Measures suggested Frequency

Assist students in completing TMAs and answering exam questions

Change grading system: abolish examination

4

1

Provide workshops on time management 2

Provide a wider spectrum of courses in different fields

Use an alert system to remind students of assignments due, etc

Offer ‘e’/mixed/face-to-face mode of learning

Provide more face-to-face components in distance learning

Provide academic or financial awards as incentive for course/programme completion

Form study group

2

1

2

2

2

2

Provide additional sessions to improve language skills

Provide additional sessions to improve computer skills

1

1

Provide workshops to students and their family members on supporting each other 1

Lower course fee and be competitive

Provide discount on course fee

13

1

Provide more bursary and scholarship 1

Employer to provide support 1

Credit earned in one programme can be counted in a new programme

Allow students to change tutorials slots upon request or provides more tutorial session choices

Place taped tutorials sessions online

1

4

2

Offer more courses/programmes of a wider range

Reduce the number of credits and shorten the time to accomplish

15

7

Provide more tutorial classes/sections

Improves tutor’s attitude, and role to students

7

3

Simplify the study materials

Reduce the frequency of submitting TMAs

Make materials easier to study

1

1

1

Provide counselling service before course/programme starts

Provides assessment/admission test

11

1

Simplify the ‘credit exemption’ procedures and shorten the time to wait for results

Provide seminars to explain the procedures

10

3

Advertise more cases of successful OUHK graduates, and which employers accept them

Develop positive branding and clear positioning policies

Gain recognition from professional bodies and offers courses with professional bodies/big

companies/oversea universities in collaboration

1

1

1

Other 10

25

A total of 117 suggestions (39 different measures) were proposed by the interviewees

regarding what the OUHK could have done to help them continue with their study.

The most frequently mentioned measures the interviewees suggested were: ‘Offer

more courses/ programmes of a wider range’ (15); ‘Lower course fee and be

competitive’ (13); ‘Provide counselling service before the course/programme starts’

(11); ‘Simplify the ‘credit exemption’ procedures and shorten the time for results’ (10);

and ‘Provide more tutorials sessions’ (7). ‘Assist students in completing TMAs and

answering exam questions’ and ‘Allow students to change tutorials slots upon request

or provide more tutorial session choices’ were mentioned by 4 interviewees

respectively.

Questionnaire survey results

A questionnaire survey, asking about respondents’ reasons for dropping out, and

measures they could suggest that would help students to continue with their study,

was designed based on the results gathered in the focus group interviews.

Instead of asking students to list their reasons for dropping out, a total of 23 possible

reasons, based on the 17 general and the 48 specific reasons expressed in the focus

group interviews, were devised and respondents were asked of their opinion on

whether each of those reasons were ‘Very important’, ‘Of some importance’ and ‘Of

no importance’ in their decision to drop out. The respondents were also asked to

choose from a total 29 possible measures (most of which were suggested in the

interviews, but a few were devised by the research team), a maximum of five (5)

measures which they thought would have helped them continue with their study if

they were implemented during their time with the OUHK.

Reasons for drop out obtained through questionnaire

The questionnaire survey results on reasons for drop out are given below in Table 9

(also see Appendix VII):

26

Table 9: Reasons for drop out provided by respondents of the questionnaire survey

Specific reasons Very

important

Of some

importance

Of no

importance

Rank

1 Did not complete or failed TMA, or failed in exam 35 92 240 10

2 Enrolled in a programme/course offered by another institution 38 38 291 19

3 Could not afford the time to study 81 132 154 3

4 Change of personal goal 44 81 242 8

5 Loss or lack of interest in the course 18 62 287 20

6 Lack of self-discipline or perseverance in the study, or

unmotivated to complete the course/programme 27 103 237 11

7 Dislike of the DL study mode 39 85 243 9

8 Did not have basic skills in English language, mathematics, or

computers 27 63 277 18

9 Health problems (illness during the course, deteriorating

health) 19 46 302 22

10 Family issues (family did not support, demanded more time

from learner, gave birth to a baby, or need to look after of

children/parents)

35 44 288 18

11 Course fee was too high compared to other institutions, or

could not afford the course fee 108 141 118 1

12 Failed in applying for bursary or scholarship 18 35 314 23

13 Employer did not support or employer did not provide (or

stopped providing) financial support 35 71 261 14

14 Issues related to learner’s career (became unemployed, change

of job/position, overtime work, on shift duty, or on business

trip)

84 85 198 4

15 Lack of choices in programmes, courses, or language of the

course 30 71 266 15

16 Made wrong choices in programmes, courses, or language of

the course 20 51 295 21

17 Too many credits required in a programme or it takes too long

to complete a programme 88 126 153 2

18 Tutor support was inadequate 51 113 203 5

19 Tutor’s attitude or teaching method was unsatisfactory 35 83 249 13

20 Too heavy workload, too many TMAs, or progress of course

too fast 48 98 221 6

27

21 Counselling services were inadequate before, during and after

completion of the course 31 109 227 7

22 Problems with institutional procedures (e.g. procedures too

complicated and time-consuming to apply for credit

exemption, deferment of exam, changing tutorial sessions)

40 74 253 12

23 OUHK was not as a prestigious university as other universities 22 86 259 16

24 Other specific reasons 59 5 68

In arriving at a ranking for each of the reasons for drop out, ‘Very important’ was

assigned a score of 2, ‘Of some importance’ was assigned a score of 1, and ‘No

importance’ was assigned a score of 0. The scores (designated by ‘s’) for each reason

were added and the rankings of the reasons were determined according to their total

scores.

In the questionnaire, the reason with the highest rating for student drop out is ‘Course

fee too high compared to other institutions, or could not afford the course fee’ (s =

365). Other reported reasons, in order of total scores, are: ‘Too many credits required

in a programme or it takes too long to complete a programme’ (s = 305), ‘Could not

afford the time to study’ (s = 300), ‘Issues related to learner’s career (became

unemployed, change of job/position, overtime work, on shift duty, or on business trip’

(s = 259), ‘Tutor support was inadequate’ (s = 219), ‘Too heavy workload, too many

TMAs, or progress of course too fast’ (s = 197), ‘Counselling services were

inadequate before, during and after completion of the course’ (s = 176), ‘Change of

personal goal’ (s = 173), ‘Dislike of the DL study mode’ (s = 166), ‘Did not complete

or failed TMA, or failed in exam’ (s = 163), ‘Lack self-discipline or perseverance in

study, or unmotivated to complete the course/programme’ (s = 162), ‘Problems with

institutional procedures’ (e.g. procedures too complicated and time consuming in

applying for credit exemption, deferment of exam, changing tutorial sessions) (s =

156), ‘Tutor’s attitude or teaching method was unsatisfactory’ (s = 155), ‘Employer

did not support or employer did not provide (or stopped providing) financial support’

(s = 142), ‘Lack of choices in programmes, courses, or language of the course’ (s

=133), ‘OUHK was not as prestigious a university as other universities’ (s=132), ‘Did

not have basic skills in English language, mathematics, or computers’ (s = 118),

‘Family issues (family did not support, demanded more time from learner, giving birth

to a baby, or need to look after of children/parents)’ (s = 115), ‘Enrolled in a

programme/course offer by another institution’ (s = 114), ‘Loss or lack of interest in

the course’ (s = 101), ‘Made wrong choices in programmes, courses, or language of

the course’ (s =93), ‘Health problems (illness during the course, deteriorating health)’

28

(s = 86), and ‘Failed in the application for bursary or scholarship’ (s = 73).

The first two most important reasons for drop out concern the high cost of fees (rank

= 1) and the high number of credits required or the long duration of the study (rank =

2). A reason related to high course fee is ‘Failure in one’s application for bursary or

scholarship’ (rank = 23). There are also problems with institutional procedures (e.g.

procedures too complicated and time-consuming to apply for credit exemption,

deferment of exam, and to change tutorial sessions) (rank = 12), ‘Lack of choices in

programmes, courses, or language of the course’ (rank = 15) and ‘Did not have basic

skills in English language, mathematics, or computers’ (rank = 17). These are

institutional and academic issues related to drop out, which may be useful for the

senior management of the university to consider. However, the research team decided

not to devise measures to tackle these institutional and academic problems.

The perception that the students ‘Could not afford the time to study’ (rank = 3), and

issues related to career (change of job, overtime work, business trip outside Hong

Kong) (rank = 4), as well as the reason ‘Too heavy workload, too many TMAs, or

progress of course too fast’ (rank = 6) are all seemingly related to a lack of time to

study. Because of the nature of adult learning, students can be assisted with how to

manage their studies with flexible study times (for some periods in the year there is

more spare time and for others less time). Other possible measures to help reduce drop

out are to develop students’ generic time management skills and effective learning

skills.

‘Tutor support inadequate’ (rank = 5), ‘Counselling services were inadequate before,

during and after completion of the course’ (rank = 7), ‘Tutor’s attitude or teaching

method was unsatisfactory’ (rank = 13) and ‘Made wrong choices in programmes,

courses, or language’ (rank = 21), were also reported as important reasons for drop out.

These are associated with counselling and tutor support services, and measures to

enhance tutor support would be carefully considered.

In terms of the reasons such as ‘Change of personal goals’ (rank = 8), ‘Do not like the

DL study mode’ (rank = 9), ‘Employer did not support or employer did not provide

(or stopped providing) financial support’ (rank = 14), ‘Family issues (family did not

support, demanded more time from learner, giving birth to a baby, or need to look

after of children/parents)’ (rank = 18), ‘Loss or lack of interest in the course’, (rank =

20), and ‘Health problems’ (rank = 22), and well as the student having ‘Enrolled in a

programme/course offer by another institution’ (rank = 19), there does not seem to be

29

a lot either the student and the institution can do to remedy these situations.

Two important reasons for drop out are ‘Did not complete or failed TMA, or failed in

exam’ (rank = 10) and ‘Lack self-discipline or perseverance in the study, or

unmotivated to complete the course/programme’ (rank = 11). To resolve such

problems, perhaps an alert system to remind students of their study schedules, which

was used by Fan (2002, 2003, 2004) at the OUHK, would be an appropriate measure

to help students progress successfully with their studies. Tutorial sessions to help

students to successfully complete their first assignments may also be a good measure

to implement.

Some students feel that ‘OUHK was not as prestigious a university as other

universities’ (rank = 16), so they may leave the OUHK for a more prestigious

institution if there is a chance for them to do so. Boosting the OUHK’s image should

be a long term task of the university, and the research team will not focus on this issue

at this point.

Based on the reasons for drop out revealed by these students, possible measures to

help reduce drop out could include: a) development of students’ generic time

management and effective learning skills so they can study effectively with the limited

time available to them; b) provision of adequate counselling and tutor support; c) an

alert system to remind students of their study schedules (submission of TMAs,

tutorials, exam times, etc), and d) tutorial sessions to help students to successfully

complete their assignments.

Measures students believed that could have helped them continue with their study

The results of the questionnaire survey on measures which the OUHK could take to

help students to continue with their study are given below in Table 10 (see Appendix

VIII for details).

30

Table 10: Measures suggested by respondents which would help them to continue

with their studies

Suggested measures Frequency Rank

1 Provide additional tutorials to develop students’ skills in completing TMAs and answering exam

questions

120 4

2 Provide workshops on time management 47 20

3 Provide workshops on developing self-discipline 31 25

4 Provide e-mail alert to remind students date of tutorial, submission of TMA, examination 33 24

5 Provide more face-to-face components in DL courses 102 6

6 Provide academic or financial award as incentive for course/programme completion 50 18

7 Help students to form study groups 59 17

8 Provide workshops to improve students' language, mathematics, and computer skills 71 13

9 Provide workshops to students and their family members on supporting each other 14 29

10 Lower course fee and provides cash rebate or discount after course completion 244 1

11 Allow deferred payment of course fee or payment by instalments 80 11

12 Provide more bursaries and scholarships 101 7

13 Ensure more courses be included in CEF or SME Fund 93 8

14 Hold alternative tutorials on weekends 68 14

15 Allow credits earned in one programme to be counted in another programme 74 12

16 Allow students to change tutorials slots upon request 83 10

17 Videotape tutorial sessions and upload them online for student access 128 2

18 Offer more courses/programmes of a wider range and variety 67 15

19 Provide more elementary or foundation courses 34 23

20 Provide counselling on course/programme choice 28 27

21 Shorten the time to complete a course and reduce the number of credits required 107 5

22 Extend Q&A time during tutorial and allow students to ask questions 29 26

23 Improve tutors’ attitude and teaching method 49 19

24 Simplify study materials, provide summaries, and reduce study work load and TMAs 126 3

25 Provide counselling services before and after registration, during and after course completion 35 22

26 Simplify the procedures and shorten the time to release the results of credit exemption, deferred

examination, and change of tutorial time slot

60 16

27 Release examination results as soon as possible after the exam 45 21

28 Publicize more cases of successful OUHK graduates and employers who employ them 15 28

29 Obtain recognition from professional bodies and offer courses in conjunction with professional bodies

or big companies

84 9

30 Other measures and suggestions 59

31

The most frequently quoted measures which respondents believe would help students

continue with their study is to ‘Lower course fee or provide cash rebate or discount

after course completion’ (rank = 1). However, as explained earlier, measures to assist

students to overcome this problem will not be pilot tested at this time.

Other frequently suggested measures are concerned with ways to assist with the

efficiency of study: ‘Videotape tutorial sessions and upload them online for student

access’ (rank = 2), ‘Simplify study materials, provide summaries, and reduce study

work load and TMAs’ (rank = 3), and ‘Provide additional tutorials to develop

students’ skills in completing TMAs and answering exam questions’ (rank = 4). These

are concrete measures suggested in focus group interviews and the research team will

give serious consideration to those suggestions. Other less frequently recommended

measures which the team would seriously consider implementing are: ‘Provide

workshops to improve students' language, mathematics, and computer skills’ (rank =

13), ‘Help students to form study groups’ (rank = 17), ‘Improve tutors’ attitude and

teaching method’ (rank = 19), ‘Provide workshops on time management’ (rank = 20),

‘Provide counselling services before and after registration, during and after course

completion’ (rank = 22), ‘Provide e-mail alert to remind students of dates of tutorials,

submission of TMAs, examinations’ (rank = 24), ‘Provide workshops on developing

self-discipline’ (rank = 25), ‘Extend Q&A time during tutorial and allow students to

ask questions’ (rank = 26), and ‘Provide counselling on course/programme choice’

(rank = 27).

Measures to ‘Shorten the time to complete a course and reduce the number of credits

required’ (rank = 5), and ‘Provide more face-to-face components in DL courses’ (rank

= 6) and measures regarding financial assistance, such as ‘Provide more bursaries and

scholarships’ (rank = 7), and ‘Ensure more courses be included in CEF or SME Fund’

(rank = 8) were also highly ranked suggestions by students, but as explained above,

such measures will not be pilot tested in this study. This also applies to the following

measures: ‘Obtain recognition from professional bodies and offer courses in

conjunction with professional bodies or big companies’ (rank = 9), ‘Allow students to

change tutorials slots upon request’ (rank = 10), ‘Allow deferred payment of course

fee or payment by instalments’ (rank = 11), ‘Allow credits earned in one programme

to be counted in another programme’ (rank = 12, this measure is basically in existence

at the OUHK), ‘Hold alternative tutorials on weekends’ (rank = 14), ‘Offer more

courses/programmes of a wider range and variety’ (rank = 15), ‘Simplify the

procedures and shorten the time to release the results of credit exemption, deferred

examination, and change of tutorial time slot’(rank = 16), ‘Provide academic or

32

financial award as incentive for course/programme completion’ (rank = 18), ‘‘Release

examination results as soon as possible after the exam’ (rank = 21), ‘Provide more

elementary or foundation courses’ (rank = 23), ‘Publicize more cases of successful

OUHK graduates and employers who employ them’ (rank = 28), and ‘Provide

workshops to students and their family members on supporting each other’ (rank =

29).

To summarize, popular measures suggested by students to help reduce drop out, which

the research team deemed appropriate to pilot, are basically those which assist

students to study efficiently and which improve learning support. These include

concrete suggestions such as ‘Videotape tutorial sessions and upload them online for

student access’, ‘Simplify study materials, provide summaries, and reduce study work

load and TMAs’ and ‘Provide additional tutorials to develop students’ skills in

completing TMAs and answering exam questions’. The research team will give serious

consideration to these suggestions.

33

Conclusion

The findings of the study, along with its limitations will be discussed, and initial

conclusions are drawn.

About the methodology

The research team found that student enrolment patterns provided useful data for the

study. The present study did not use the factor analysis method because this type of

analysis would result in the identification of factors which are mostly student

‘background variables’ that an academic institution is often unable, or has no intention

of altering. Focus group interviews were used instead to identify reasons for drop out.

This method is time-consuming and hence we could not use a large sample of students.

In the process, it was also decided that a questionnaire survey be administered to all

drop out students, so that the findings could be more generalisable, and they could

triangulated with the focus group findings.

Course enrolment and success in the study

Student enrolment patterns show that if a student passes their courses in their first year,

from a statistical perspective, a significantly higher percentage of them enroll in a new

course, whereas if the student does not pass at least one course in their first year, a

significantly lower percentage continue with their studies. The percentage difference

in re-registration is about 50% for the OUHK. The implication is that if we can help a

‘failed’ student pass in their first year of study, then there is 50% increased chance that

they will enrol in another course in the next semester.

Another important finding derived from our analysis of student enrolment patterns is

that the passing of a student’s first courses is positively related to their later success in

their studies, and together with the above finding, later re-registration.

Analysis of both situations leads us to conclude that if the university provides

additional support to students to help them pass and thereby enables greater retention

rates (i.e. reduction in drop out), then these support functions should be implemented

in the first year of a student’s study, or there is a very high chance that these students

34

will be gone forever.

The research team is mindful that, regarding what is stated above, there is no causal

relationship established between passing subjects and re-registration, i.e. there is not

yet experimental evidence to prove that if we can help the would-be ‘failed’ students

pass in their first year of study, then these students will pick up the same high

percentage of registration as the normal first year ‘pass’ student in the next year, nor

do we have proof yet that if we can help the ‘failed’ students pass in their first year of

study, then these students will have the same high pass rate as the normal first year

pass student in the next year. The above is subject to experimental validation, which is

the next phase of the study.

The study also found that quite a high proportion of students pass a course, but still

leave the university (22.30% to 31.17%). This group of student forms a substantial

portion of ‘drop outs’. Interview findings obtained in this study indicate that one

possible reason for the departure of these students is that they have chosen to switch

to full time study, either here at the OUHK or elsewhere. Therefore, the ‘drop out’ is

not wastage from the students’ perspective, though they have discontinued their study

with the OUHK.

Reasons for drop out suggested in focus group interviews and in the

questionnaire survey

In the focus group interviews, the most commonly mentioned reason for drop out is

related to the interviewees’ job/career, which is followed by students’ (change of)

interest and (lack of) perseverance in their studies. Other frequently mentioned

reasons for drop out are: problems with the course or programme (lack of choice of

courses/programmes, made wrong choices of courses/programmes), the offer of a

place in another institution, high course fees, poor tutoring service and problems with

the OUHK’s procedures.

Results from the questionnaire differ from the order above. The first two most highly

rated reasons for drop out in the questionnaire survey concern the high cost and the

long duration of respondents’ studies. Issues related to the respondents’ job/career and

lack of time to study are next in rating. The next set of reasons concern inadequate

tutor support, too heavy workload, and problems with institutional procedures. It is

interesting to note that the reasons, ‘Change of personal goals’ and ‘Enrolled in a

35

programme/course offered by another institution’ are not as highly ranked in the

questionnaire survey as in the focus group interviews.

The reasons given by the interviewees, together with the ratings accorded to the

suggested reasons in the questionnaire survey, are good references for the design of a

pilot set of measures to assist students to continue their study with us.

Measures that the OUHK could use to help students continue with

their study

The priority of the measures suggested by the questionnaire respondents provides a

very useful reference when we design our pilot study on effective measures to reduce

student drop out, since the data come from a more representative sample.

From the students’ perspective, the most important thing the OUHK could have done

to help in their study is to reduce course fees. This reduction of course fees (and two

other measures of lower importance: provision of bursaries and scholarships, and

courses be included in CEF or SME Fund) is greatly supported by OUHK students.

We noted that these suggested measures are not related to academic support, though

they are useful for the consideration of the university senior management.

Other frequently suggested measures concern helping students in their studies:

‘Videotape tutorial sessions and upload them online for student access’, ‘Simplify

study materials, provide summaries, and reduce study work load and TMAs’, ‘Provide

additional tutorials to develop students’ skills in completing TMAs and answering

exam questions’, ‘Shorten the time to complete a course and reduce the number of

credits required’, and ‘Provide more face-to-face components in DL courses’. These

and other specific suggestions will be seriously considered in designing a full set of

measures to be administered to students, which will be conducted in the second phase

of the study.

Analysis of findings

In this first phase of this project, it has been found that based on students performance

in their studies, students’ success in their academic study is a major factor for their

retention at OUHK, as in distance learning institutions elsewhere.

36

The commonly-referred-to reasons or factors for drop out by students in an interview

and in a questionnaire survey differ. The first two most highly rated reasons for drop

out in the questionnaire survey concern the high cost and the long duration of

respondents’ studies. Issues related to the respondents’ job/career and lack of time to

study are nBrennan, John, Johnston, Brenda, Little, Brenda, Shah, Tarla and Woodley, Alan ext in rating.

The next set of reasons concern inadequate tutor support, too heavy workload, and

problems with institutional procedures. ‘Change of personal goals’ and ‘Enrolled in a

programme/course offered by another institution’ are not as highly ranked in the

questionnaire survey as in the focus group interviews. We believe students willing to

participate in the focus group interviews may consist of more younger students who

are fresh secondary school graduates and prefer to study full time. While they can

suggest good reasons or factors for drop out for inclusion in the questionnaire survey,

the research team believe the findings of the questionnaire survey is more

representative of drop out students’ views.

The team found there are such a variety of reasons given by students for their drop out,

and so many different measures suggested. However, we reminded ourselves that the

major reason for us to find the drop out reasons or factors is to identify measures to

help students reduce the possibility of dropping out. When we examined the reasons

for drop out we identified in the study, we found that it was not always possible for us

to find a solution to tackle them. Even if a solution can be found, it might be outside

the research team to try out the measure. For example, one reason for drop out is the

frequency of overtime work required of a student, meaning that they have inadequate

time to study. What could we possible do? Another example is ‘Course fees too high

in comparison to other institutions, or could not afford the course fees’. One possible

solution to tackle the problem is reduce course fees and then test the sensitivity of

course fee reduction with respect to increase in enrolment – different course fee levels

should be offered and the increase (or decrease) in enrolment noted. However, in

practice, the research team found it difficult to put this into experimentation. We

found many of the reasons for drop out (often personal) require solutions beyond the

scope of work of this institution. The team decided that we would there only act on

the factors to help retain students which we could manage.

With the above consideration in mind reasons or factors for drop out collected from

our student can be classified into three categories. The first category of reasons for

dropping out can be labeled ‘not addressable’, which predominantly include student

personal reasons such as change of work pattern (e.g. extended working hours and

business trips) and career goals.

37

The second category can be labeled ‘not readily addressable’, and includes reasons

such as high tuition fees, the OUHK’s limited variety of courses and rigorous

requirements such as long study durations and large amounts of coursework.

The third category refers to ‘addressable’ factors, including failure to maintain

motivation in study and distance learning, lack of self-discipline, inadequate

prerequisite skills in languages and other knowledge gaps, and a lack of extra

academic support. (See Table 11, in which reasons for drop out are categorized

according to their ‘addressability’.)

After examining these factors carefully, the project team members believe that our

immediate effort and resources should focus on addressable factors, with the aim to

support students in their academic success. Systematic measures should be provided

to students at different stages of their study. Piloting these measures to students in

their first year of study at the OUHK should be our major focus in the second phase of

this project.

Measures we can implement, based on the ‘addressable factors’ for drop out revealed

by students, would include measures which:

a) help develop students’ generic time management and good learning skills to help

them to study effectively with the limited time available to them (addressing

reasons 3, 17and 20 in the questionnaire survey);

b) provide adequate tutor support – specifically provide tutorial sessions to help

students to successfully complete their assignments (addressing reasons 1, 18 and

20 in the questionnaire survey);

c) develop an alert system to remind students of their study schedules (submission of

TMAs, tutorials, exam times, etc) (addressing reason 1 in the questionnaire survey)

and

d) provide counseling service to prospective students (addressing reason 16 in the

questionnaire survey).

38

Table 11: Addressability of the factors for drop out provided by respondents of the questionnaire survey

Specific factors Rank Address-

ability

17 Too many credits required in a programme or it takes too long to complete a programme 2 Yes

3 Could not afford the time to study 3 Yes

18 Tutor support was inadequate 5 Yes

20 Too heavy workload, too many TMAs, or progress of course too fast 6 Yes

21 Counselling services were inadequate before, during and after completion of the course 7 Yes

1 Did not complete or failed TMA, or failed in exam 10 Yes

19 Tutor’s attitude or teaching method was unsatisfactory 13 Yes

15 Lack of choices in programmes, courses, or language of the course 15 Yes

16 Made wrong choices in programmes, courses, or language of the course 21 Yes

11 Course fee was too high compared to other institutions, or could not afford the course fee 1 NRA

22 Problems with institutional procedures (e.g. procedures too complicated and

time-consuming to apply for credit exemption, deferment of exam, changing tutorial

sessions)

12

NRA

23 OUHK was not as a prestigious university as other universities 16 NRA

10 Family issues (family did not support, demanded more time from learner, gave birth to a

baby, or need to look after of children/parents) 18

NRA

14 Issues related to learner’s career (became unemployed, change of job/position, overtime

work, on shift duty, or on business trip) 4

NA

4 Change of personal goal 8 NA

7 Dislike of the DL study mode 9 NA

6 Lack of self-discipline or perseverance in the study, or unmotivated to complete the

course/programme 11

NA

13 Employer did not support or employer did not provide (or stopped providing) financial

support 14

NA

8 Did not have basic skills in English language, mathematics, or computers 18 NA

2 Enrolled in a programme/course offered by another institution 19 NA

5 Loss or lack of interest in the course 20 NA

9 Health problems (illness during the course, deteriorating health) 22 NA

12 Failed in applying for bursary or scholarship 23 NA

24 Other specific reasons --

Note: For addressability of the factors of drop out: Yes = Addressable; NRA = Not readily addressable;

NA = Not addressable.

39

The team considered that reasons 15 and 19, while addressable, will not be dealt with

in the present study, as they relate to wide academic issues which the team could not

adequately address (Factor 15 = ‘Lack of choices in programmes, courses, or

teaching language of the course’ and Factor 19 = ‘Tutors’ attitude or teaching

method was unsatisfactory’ and).

When we analysed the frequently suggested measures to reduce drop out, we also

found that some of them are more suitable for the consideration of the senior

management of the university rather than measures for our research team to pilot. One

obvious example is the most quoted suggestion by students: ‘Lower course fee or

provide cash rebate or discount after course completion’.

The course team therefore has tried to use a more systematic approach to identify (and

try out at a later date) trial measures which will help to reduce student drop out. The

team has found in its literature review that many studies focus on enhancing the

provision of support to students’ learning as a major way to reduce drop out. The

reasons for drop out expressed by our students were examined carefully again and it

was found that a common thread linking all measures to help solve the problem of

drop out could be the provision of support and counselling services (both reactive and

proactive interventions) for students during their course of study (Simpson, 2004).

This means that the whole period of time when a student is engaged in the study of a

course will be examined and appropriate measures to reduce drop out devised. In the

development of these measures, which will be the work for the second phase of the

study, findings from the focus group interviews and the questionnaire survey will be

used to justify usage.

When the measures students which would help them to continue with their studies

were analyzed, it was also found that their suggestions could be categorized into three

groups: those are viable and worth testing in the study; those are already in existence

but might not be adequately utilized; and those we considered not viable. (See Table

12.)

There are nine measures (measures 1, 2, 4, 5, 8,17, 20, 22 and 25 in Table 12) we

believe are viable for piloting testing; and these suggested measures can be grouped

under the same categories of measures the research team suggested to implement

earlier, based on the ‘addressable factors’ for drop out revealed by students. They are

measures which would

40

a) help develop students’ generic time management and good learning skills to help

them to study effectively with the limited time available to them (measures 1, 2,

and 8 in the questionnaire survey);

b) provide adequate tutor support – specifically provide tutorial sessions to help

students to successfully complete their assignments (measures, 1, 5,17 and 22 the

questionnaire survey);

c) develop an alert system to remind students of their study schedules (submission of

TMAs, tutorials, exam times, etc) (measure 4 in the questionnaire survey) and

d) provide counseling service to prospective students (measures 20 and 25 in the

questionnaire survey).

We also find that 6 measures suggested by students in the survey are already being

implemented at the OUHK in one way or another, and we would not pilot test them in

our present study. The other 14 measures students suggested are either outside the

scope of the research team, or are not implementable.

The above will form the basis of the next phases of the study.

41

Table 12: Measures suggested by respondents which would help them to continue

with their studies

Suggested measures Rank Viability

17 Videotape tutorial sessions and upload them online for student access 2 Yes

1 Provide additional tutorials to develop students’ skills in completing TMAs and answering exam questions 4 Yes

5 Provide more face-to-face components in DL courses 6 Yes

8 Provide workshops to improve students' language, mathematics, and computer skills 13 Yes

2 Provide workshops on time management 20 Yes

25 Provide counselling services before and after registration, during and after course completion 22 Yes

4 Provide e-mail alert to remind students date of tutorial, submission of TMA, examination 24 Yes

22 Extend Q&A time during tutorial and allow students to ask questions 26 Yes

20 Provide counselling on course/programme choice 27 Yes

29 Obtain recognition from professional bodies and offer courses in conjunction with professional bodies or

big companies

9 Existing

16 Allow students to change tutorials slots upon request 10 Existing

11 Allow deferred payment of course fee or payment by instalments 11 Existing

15 Allow credits earned in one programme to be counted in another programme 12 Existing

7 Help students to form study groups 17 Existing

27 Release examination results as soon as possible after the exam 21 Existing

10 Lower course fee and provides cash rebate or discount after course completion 1 No

24 Simplify study materials, provide summaries, and reduce study work load and TMAs 3 No

21 Shorten the time to complete a course and reduce the number of credits required 5 No

12 Provide more bursaries and scholarships 7 No

13 Ensure more courses be included in CEF or SME Fund 8 No

14 Hold alternative tutorials on weekends 14 No

18 Offer more courses/programmes of a wider range and variety 15 No

26 Simplify the procedures and shorten the time to release the results of credit exemption, deferred

examination, and change of tutorial time slot

16 No

6 Provide academic or financial award as incentive for course/programme completion 18 No

23 Improve tutors’ attitude and teaching method 19 No

19 Provide more elementary or foundation courses 23 No

3 Provide workshops on developing self-discipline 25 No

28 Publicize more cases of successful OUHK graduates and employers who employ them 28 No

9 Provide workshops to students and their family members on supporting each other 29 No

30 Other measures and suggestions 59 --

Note: Yes = Viable; Existing = such measures are being practised; No = Difficult to implement by team.

42

Limitations of the study

The present study made use of empirical methods to investigate the reasons students

had for dropping out of the OUHK, and hence the study has its limitations. First,

during the focus group interviews and questionnaire survey, subjects were asked to

volunteer to join the study. It is possible that subjects who have (perceived)

‘inadequate reasons’ for dropping out could have been more reluctant to participate in

the focus group discussions, and therefore those who had more ‘adequate reasons’

were over-represented. We note this limitation because proportionally there were

actually more focus group interviewees who dropped out from their distance learning

studies and went on to study in full-time programmes.

Second, we assumed that the interviewees were willing and able to explain the causes

of their behaviour. However, given that drop out is often seen as failure, people may

rationalize their behaviour by not telling the truth. In addition, drop out is a complex

issue and some people may not be able to explain the cause(s).

Third, in both the interviews and the questionnaire survey, the respondents may have

found it difficult to recall their reasons for dropping out of the OUHK, especially

given the relatively long time period (at least one year) between their decision to drop

out and the interview or survey, when they were being questioned.

The questionnaire survey’s low return rate (16.91%, n = 375) is also worth special

attention. An explanation for the low return rate is that a lot of students might consider

dropping out from their studies a ‘failure’ and would be reluctant to bring up the issue

again. On the other hand, those drop out students who had an unhappy experience at

the OUHK might have liked to use this as an opportunity (interview or survey) to

voice their complaints with the university. Therefore, these students may constitute

an over-representation in the sample of students both in the interviews and in the

survey

43

Work ahead

The first phase of the study is now finished. The field work has been completed and

the data collected has been analysed. The results have enabled us to have a better

understanding of the reasons given for drop out by our students. We also have some

idea of the kinds of measures those students who dropped out wished to see us

undertake so as to help them continue with their study.

The research team will continue with the process of preparing for phases two and

three, which is to plan and then test measures we believe would reduce student drop

out, and to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures.

The research team also decided that the measures which would be put to test would be

only for students studying for their first course.

Some initial ideas for the measures to be pilot tested include the following:

Before a student registers for a course

A primer course on open learning, focusing on selecting and planning an

appropriate programme of study, and understanding what distance learning is

[addressing the factors, ‘Made wrong choices in programmes, courses, or

language’ and ‘Counselling services were inadequate before, during and after

completion of the course’, and responding to the actual measure suggested]; and

Individualized counselling services for course selection and for answering

queries related to course enrolment (face-to-face sessions by appointment or

walk-in, or by telephone and other telecommunication means) [addressing the

factors, ‘Made wrong choices in programmes, courses, or language’ and

‘Counselling services were inadequate before, during and after completion of the

course’, and responding to the actual measure suggested].

Just after registering for the first course

A face-to-face three-session orientation programme for first time distance

learners, which includes: learning effectively in a distance learning course, using

electronic/online resources, and tackling the first assignment [addressing the

factors, ‘Could not find time to study’, and ‘Did not complete or failed TMA, or

failed in exam’, and responding to the suggested measure, ‘Provide more

face-to-face components in DL courses’].

44

During the course

Recording tutorials using Classroom Replay, and placing the videos online for

student access after class [addressing drop out factors related to a learner’s

career – overtime work, shift duty, or business trips which may stop students

from attending tutorials, and responding to the same measure suggested];

An e-alert system for tutorials, assignment submissions and examinations

[addressing the factor, ‘Did not complete or failed TMA, or failed in exam’]; and

A tutor to identify ‘students-at-risk’ and to offer academic assistance [addressing

the factors, ‘Did not complete or failed TMA, or failed in exam’, and ‘Tutor

support was inadequate’ ].

After examination

The CC to identify ‘failed’ students and contact them to offer advice; and

A message be sent by the Dean to congratulate the ‘pass’ students, to encourage

them to continue with their study [both measures are not suggested by students;

but they inexpensive, easy to administer and were recommended by team

members].

45

References:

Ashby, A (2004) ‘Monitoring student retention in the Open University: Definition,

measurement, interpretation and action’, Open Learning, 19(1): 64-77.

Burt, G (1996) ‘Success, confidence and rationality in student progress’, Open

Learning, November: 31-37.

Carnwell, R (2000) ‘Approaches to study and their impact on the need for support and

guidance in distance learning’ Open Learning, 15(2): 123-40.

Case, P S and Elliott, B (1997) ‘Attrition and retention in distance learning programs:

Problems, strategies, solutions’, Open Praxis, 1: 30-33

Cooke D K, Sims R L, and Peyrefitte J (1995) ‘The relationship between graduate

student attitudes and attrition’, Journal of Psychology, 129, 677-88.

Creswell J W and Plano Clark V L (2007) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods

Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin N K and Lincoln Y S (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research, London:

Sage.

Dowsett, T and Eisenberg, E (1990) ‘Student drop-out from a distance education

project course: A new method of analysis’, Distance Education, February: 231-53.

Fan R Y K and Chan M (1997) ‘A study on the drop out in mathematics foundation

courses’, Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of the Asia Association of Open

Universities, 1, 70-80.

Fan, R Y K (2002) ‘An early identification of at-risk students in a foundation course’,

15th AAOU Annual Conference, New Delhi, 21-23 February.

Fan, R Y K (2003) ‘An early identification of at-risk students in an ODL course and

its applications’, Research Report, Open University of Hong Kong.

46

Fan, R Y K (2004) ‘A run-time assessment of students’ at-risk levels in an ODL

course’, 21st ICDE World Conference, Hong Kong, 18-21 February.

Fan, R Y K and Lee, L Y K (2004) ‘Improving student completion rate: Learning from

a successful experience’, 18th AAOU Annual Conference, Shanghai, 28-30 November.

Garrison, D R (1989) ‘Researching drop out in distance education’, Distance

Education, August: 95-101.

Hatchard, D B, Hung G, Siaw I and Yuen, K S (1993) ‘Studying the issues of student

attrition at the Open Learning Institute of Hong Kong’, 10th Annual Conference of the

Hong Kong Education Research Association, Hong Kong, 20-12 November.

Jegede, O (2000a) Student attrition at OUHK: A preliminary investigation, Report

submitted to OUHK Senate.

Jegede, O (2000b) ‘Factors that enhance achievement in opening learning: A case

study of high vs low achieving students at OUHK’, Research report, OUHK, Hong

Kong,

http://www.ouhk.edu.hk/WCM/?FUELAP_TEMPLATENAME=tcSingPage&ITEMI

D=CCCRIDALCONTENT_519454.

Kelly, P and Mills, R (2007) ‘The ethical dimensions of learner support’, Open

Learning, 22(2): 149-157.

Kember D (1989) ‘A longitudinal-process model of drop-out from distance education’,

Journal of Higher Education, 60(3): 278-301.

Kember, D (1995) Open Learning Courses for Adults: A Model of Student Progress,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Education Technology.

Knight, P (2007) ‘Promoting retention and successful completion on Masters courses

in education: A study comparing e-tuition using asynchronous conferencing software

with face-to-face tuition’, Open Learning, 22(1): 87-96.

Kreuger, R.A. (1988) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. London:

Sage.

47

Lange, R D, Tanewski, G and Woodley, A (2001) ‘Student progress in distance

education: Kember’s model re-visited’, Open Learning, 16(2): 113-31.

Lau, H Y (2005) A study on the factors of drop out for students enrolled in a part-time

evening course at the Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education, Dissertation, The

Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Public Accounts Committee, House of Commons (2008) Public Accounts – Tenth

Report. UK: House of Commons.

Shin, N (2003) ‘Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance

learning’, Open Learning, 24(1): 69-86.

Simpson, O (2002) Supporting Students in Online, Open and Distance Learning, 2nd

edn, London: Kogan Press.

Simpson, O (2004) ‘The impact on retention of interventions to support distance

learning students’, Open Learning, 19(1): 79-85.

Simpson, O (2006) ‘Predicting student success in open and distance learning’, Open

Learning, 21(2): 125-138.

Stewart D W and Shamdasani P N (1990) Focus groups: Theory and practice. London:

Sage.

Tinto V (1975) ‘Drop out from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent

research’, Review of Educational Research, (45): 89-125.

Tait, A (2000) ‘Planning student support for open and distance learning’, Open

learning, 15(3): 287-99.

Tait, J (2004) ‘The tutor/facilitator role in student retention’, Open Learning, 19(1):

97-109.

Woodley, A. Brennan, John, Johnston, Brenda, Little, Brenda, Shah, and Tarla (2001) The

Employment of UK graduates: comparisons with Europe and Japan. Higher Education

Funding Council for England.

48

Woodley, A (2004) ‘Conceptualizing student drop out in part-time distance education:

pathologizing the normal?’, Open Learning, 19(1): 47-63.

Woodley, A, De Lange P, and Tanewski G (2001) Student progress in distance

education: Kember’s model revisited. Open Learning, 16(2), 113-131.

Wylie, J R (2005) Non-tradition student attrition in higher education: A theoretical

model of separation, disengagement then drop out, Project No.: WYL05439, SELF

Research Center, University of Western Sydney, Australia.

Yorke M (1999) Leaving Early: Undergraduate Non-completion in Higher Education,

London: Taylor & Francis.

Yuen, K S, Siaw, I, Hung, G and Hatchard, D B (1994) ‘A study on the drop out of

OLI students’, Report submitted to OLI’s 72nd Academic Board, with an attachment

‘Comments from the School of Education’ submitted to the 73rd Academic Board,

OUHK.

49

Appendix I: Project plan

Project stages

The project consists of three parts:

1 A review of reasons or factors for student drop out.

2 Development and implementation of measures which assist in addressing the

factors leading to drop out identified.

3 Evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures used above, using drop out data

from an ‘experimental’ and a ‘control’ group, and advising the OUHK on the

adoption of the measures identified.

1 Review of reasons or factors for student drop out

Past findings (including those carried out at the OUHK and outside the OUHK) on

student drop out will be reviewed. An update of the reasons for OUHK student drop

will also be studied principally making use of focus groups. The aim is to find out in

detail and qualitatively why students drop out from their studies, and to deduce

possible ways to remedy the situation.

This part of the project is planned to take up to 7 months.

(June 2007 to December 2007)

2 Development and implementation of measures which assist in addressing the factors

leading to drop out identified so far

Partly through a survey of existing practices in community colleges and distance

learning institutes in Hong Kong and world wide, and partly using findings obtained

in part 1, a number of measures which help student succeed in their studies will be

developed and implemented. These methods to reduce attrition will be developed at

the same time as early as June 2007, and they are planned to be piloted starting in

June 2008 until February 2009.

(January 2008 to February 2009)

50

3 Evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures used in part 2

The effects of the measures used in part 2 will be compared to control groups. The

evaluation will be carried out immediately after the implementation of the measures

described in part 2. It will last for about three months. A final report will be produced

after detailed discussion and deliberation within the project team.

(March 2009 to May 2009)

Expected duration (in months):

a Starting date: June 2007

b Completion date: May 2009

2007 2008 2009

1 Review of drop out

2 Measures to reduce drop out:

develop and implement

3 Evaluation

51

Appendix II: Standard remarks made by interviewer at focus group

meetings

Welcome to this focus group discussion. We thank you for taking time to join our

discussion. We will audio-tape the session, but please be assured that the recording

will only be used for research and individuals will not be identified in the study, so

you may say whatever you wish to tell us. As stated in our invitation letter, we wish to

focus our discussion on two major themes:

You have stopped enrolling at the OUHK. Can you tell us in detail why you did

this?

We also wish to know, if you think back to before you stopped enrolling in OUHK

courses, what possible measures could the OUHK have put in place to help you

continue with your study with us?

We will start with any of you. Tell us your name and what subject and programme you

studied first.

52

Appendix III: Coding sheet for reasons for drop out and measures to reduce drop out expressed in focus group

interviews

General reasons Specific reasons Suggested measures to reduce drop out

Failure in

course

[R01] Failure in course [R011] Did not complete or failed in TMA

[R012] Did not attend or failed in exam

[R019] Others

[M011-2] Provide additional tutorials to develop

students’ skills in completing TMAs and

answering exam questions

[M019] Others

Personal [R02] Studied in another

institution

[R021] Enrolled in a (conversion) programme / course

offer by another institution

[R029] Others

[M029] Others

[R03] Time management [R031] Could not afford the time

[R039] Others

[M031] Provide workshops on time management

[M039] Others

[R04] Personal goal/

Interest/ Motivation

[R041] Change of personal goal

[R042] Loss of or lack of interest in the course /

Failure to meet expectation

[R043] Lack of self-discipline or perseverance in the

study

[R044] Did not like the DL study mode

[M042] Provide a wide range of courses in different

fields

[M043A] Provide workshops on developing

self-discipline

[M043B] Provide e-mail alert to remind students date

of tutorial, submission of TMA, examination

[M044B] Provide more face-to-face components in DL

53

[R045] Unmotivated to complete course / programme

[R046] Personal interest fulfilled

[R049] Others

courses

[M045A] Provide academic or financial award as

incentive for course/programme completion

[M045B] Help students to form study group

[M049] Others

[R05] Inadequate

pre-requisite basic

skills/knowledge

[R051] Did not have basic language skills

[R052] Did not have basic mathematics skills

[R053] Did not have basic computer knowledge

[R059] Others

[M051-3] Provide workshops to improve students'

language, mathematics, and computer skills

[M059] Others

[R06] Health [R061] Illness during the course

[R062] Deteriorating health

[R069] Others

[M069] Others

Family [R07] Family issues [R071] Lack of support from family

[R072] Family members demanded more time from

learner

[R073] Giving birth to a baby

[R074] Need to look after of children/ parents

[R079] Others

[M071] Provide workshops to students and their family

members on supporting each other

[M079] Others

54

Financial [R08] High course fee [R081] Course fee was too high

compared to other

[R082] Could not afford the course fee

[R089] Others

[M081A] Lower course fee and provide cash rebate or

discount after course completion

[M081B] Allow deferred payment of course fee or

payment by instalments

[M089] Others

[R09] Lack of financial

support

[R091]Failed to apply for bursaries or scholarships

[R099] Others

[M091] Provide more bursaries and scholarships

[M099] Others

Career [R10] Lack of employer

support

[R101] Employer did not support

[R102] Employer did not provide (or stopped

providing) financial support

[R109] Others

[M101] Hold alternative tutorials in weekends

[M102] Ensure more courses be included in CEF or

SME Fund

[M109] Others

[R11] Issues related to

learner’s career

[R111] Became unemployed

[R112] Change of job / position

[R113] Overtime work / On shift duty / On business

trip

[R119] Others

[M112] Allow credits earned in one programme be

counted in another programme

[M113A] Allow students to change tutorials slots upon

request

[M113B] Videotape tutorial sessions and upload them

online for student access

[M119] Others

Course

/Programme

[R12] Course/Programme [R121] Lack of choices in programmes, courses, or

language used in the course

[M121] Offer more courses/programmes of a wide

range and variety

55

[R122] Made wrong choices in programmes, courses,

or language used in the course

[R123] Too many credits required in a programme and

takes too long to complete a programme

[R129] Others

[M122] Provide counselling on course/programme

choice

[M123] Shorten the time to complete a course and

reduce the number of credits required

[M129] Others

[R13] Tutor supporting

services

[R131] Tutor support was inadequate

[R132] Tutor’s attitude was bad

[R133] Tutor’s teaching method was poor / boring

[R139] Others

[M131A] Extend Q&A time during tutorial and allow

students to ask questions

[M132] Improve tutors’ attitude and teaching method

[M139] Others

[R14] Study workload and

difficulty of the

course

[R141] Too many materials needed to read

[R142] Too many TMAs needed to complete

[R143] Progress of course was too fast

[R144] Course were too difficult

[R149] Others

[M141AB] Simplify study materials, provide

summaries, and reduce study work load and

TMAs

[M144A] Provide more elementary or foundation

courses

[M149] Others

Institutional [R15] Not adequate

counselling /

assessment

[R151] Counselling services were inadequate before

the course / programme starts,

[R152] Counselling services were inadequate during

the course,

[R153] Counselling services were inadequate after

[M151-3] Provide counselling services

before and after registration, during and after

course completion

56

completion of a course

[R154] No assessment to measure students ability

[R159] Others

[M159] Others

[R16] Problems with

institutional

procedures

[R161] Procedure of applying for ‘credit exemption’

was too complicated and time consuming

[R162] Procedure of applying for ‘defer-exam’ was too

complicated and time consuming

[R163] Procedure of applying for ‘changing tutorial

sessions’ was too complicated and time

consuming

[R164] Delay in exam schedule and grades

[R169] Others

[M161-3] Simplify the procedures and shorten the time

in releasing the results of credit exemption,

deferred examination, and change of tutorial

time slot

[M164] Release examination results as soon as possible

after the exam

[M169] Others

[R17] Image

of OUHK

[R171] OUHK was not recognized by the public as a

prestigious university

[R172] OUHK was not recognized by professional

bodies / the public

[R179] Others

[M171] Publicize more cases of successful OUHK

graduates and employers who employ them

[M172] Obtain recognition from professional bodies

and offer courses in conjunction with

professional bodies or big companies

[M179] Others

[R18]Location / Facilities

of OUHK

[R181] Location of OUHK / learning center

[R182] Lack of facilities, such as Library, Lab

[R189] Others

[M189] Others

57

Appendix IV: Reasons for drop out expressed by focus group

interviewees

General reasons Specific reasons

[R01] Failure in course 11 [R011] Did not complete or failed TMA

[R012] Did not attend or failed in exam

[R019] Others

5

5

1

[R02] Studied in another institution 21 [R021] Enrolled in a (conversion) programme / course offer by another

institution

[R029] Others

18

3

[R03] Time management 7 [R031] Could not afford the time

[R039] Others

7

0

[R04] Personal goal / Interest /

Motivation

31 [R041] Change of personal goal

[R042] Loss or lack of interest in the course /

Failure to meet expectation

[R043] Lack of self-discipline or perseverance in the study

[R044] Did not like the DL study mode

[R045] Not motivated to complete course / programme

[R046] For personal interest

[R049] Others

2

7

7

6

1

3

5

[R05] Inadequate pre-requisite

basic skills/knowledge

12 [R051] Did not have basic language skills

[R052] Did not have basic mathematics skills

[R053] Did not have basic computer knowledge

[R059] Others

5

1

3

3

[R06] Health 3 [R061] Illness during the course

[R062] Deteriorating health

[R069] Others

0

2

1

[R07] Family issues 6 [R071] Lack of support from family

[R072] Family members demanded more time from learner

[R073] Giving birth to a baby

[R074] Need to look after of children/ parents

[R079] Others

1

1

0

3

1

[R08] High course fee 16 [R081] Course fee was too high

compared to other

[R082] Could not afford the course fee

[R089] Others

10

6

0

[R09] Lack of financial support 3 [R091]Failed to apply for bursaries or scholarships

[R099] Others

2

1

58

[R10] Lack of employer support 1 [R101] Employer did not support

[R102] Employer did not provide (or stopped providing) financial support

[R109] Others

0

1

0

[R11] Issues related to learner’s

career

35 [R111] Became unemployed

[R112] Change of job / position

[R113] Overtime work / On shift duty / On business trip

[R119] Others

0

11

24

0

[R12] Problems with course /

programme

26 [R121] Lack of choices in programmes, courses, or language used in the

course

[R122] Made wrong choices in programmes, courses, or language used in

the course

[R123] Too many credits required in a programme and takes too long to

complete a programme

[R129] Others

6

6

13

1

[R13] Tutor supporting services 16 [R131] Tutor support was inadequate

[R132] Tutor’s attitude was bad

[R133] Tutor’s teaching method was poor / boring

[R139] Others

8

7

1

0

[R14] Study workload and

difficulty of the course

9 [R141] Too much materials needed to read

[R142] Too many TMAs needed to complete

[R143] Progress of course was too fast

[R144] Course were too difficult

[R149] Others

2

1

2

2

2

[R15] Not adequate counselling /

assessment

0 [R151] Counselling services were inadequate before the course /

programme starts,

[R152] Counselling services were inadequate during the course

[R153] Counselling services were inadequate after completion of a course

[R154] No assessment to measure student’s ability

[R159] Others

0

0

0

0

0

[R16] Problems with institutional

procedures

16 [R161] Procedure of applying for ‘credit exemption’ was too complicated

and time consuming

[R162] Procedure of applying for ‘defer-exam’ was too complicated and

time consuming

[R163] Procedure of applying for ‘changing tutorial sessions’ was too

complicated and time consuming

[R164] Delay of exam schedule and grades

[R169] Others

13

2

0

0

1

59

[R17] Image

of OUHK

5 [R171] OUHK was not recognized by the public as a prestigious university

[R172] OUHK was not recognized by professional bodies / the public

[R179] Others

4

0

1

[R18]Location / Facilities

of OUHK

2 [R181] Location of OUHK / learning center

[R182] Lack of facilities, such as Library, Lab

[R189] Others

2

0

0

60

Appendix V: Measures to reduce drop out suggested by focus group

interviewees

General reasons Specific reasons Counts

[R01] Failure in course 11 [R011] Did not complete or failed TMA

[R012] Did not attend or failed in exam

[R019] Others

5

5

1

[R02] Studied in another institution 21 [R021] Enrolled in a (conversion) programme / course offer by another

institution

[R029] Others

18

3

[R03] Time management 7 [R031] Could not afford the time

[R039] Others

7

0

[R04] Personal goal / Interest /

Motivation

31 [R041] Change of personal goal

[R042] Loss or lack of interest in the course /

Failure to meet expectation

[R043] Lack of self-discipline or perseverance in the study

[R044] Dislike of the DL study mode

[R045] Not motivated to complete course / programme

[R046] For personal interest

[R049] Others

2

7

7

6

1

3

5

[R05] Not adequate pre-requisite

basic skills/knowledge

12 [R051] Did not have basic language skills

[R052] Did not have basic mathematics skills

[R053] Did not have basic computer knowledge

[R059] Others

5

1

3

3

[R06] Health 3 [R061] Illness during the course

[R062] Deteriorating health

[R069] Others

0

2

1

[R07] Family issues 6 [R071] Lack of support from family

[R072] Family members demanded more time from learner

[R073] Giving birth to a baby

[R074] Need to look after of children/ parents

[R079] Others

1

1

0

3

1

[R08] High course fee 16 [R081] Course fee was too high

compared to other

[R082] Could not afford the course fee

[R089] Others

10

6

0

[R09] Lack of financial support 3 [R091]Failed to apply for bursaries or scholarships

[R099] Others

2

1

61

[R10] Lack of employer support 1 [R101] Employer did not support

[R102] Employer did not provide (or stopped providing) financial support

[R109] Others

0

1

0

[R11] Issues related to learner’s

career

35 [R111] Became unemployed

[R112] Change of job / position

[R113] Overtime work / On shift duty / On business trip

[R119] Others

0

11

24

0

[R12] Course / Programme 26 [R121] Lack of choices in programmes, courses, or language used in the

course

[R122] Made wrong choices in programmes, courses, or language used in

the course

[R123] Too many credits required in a programme and takes too long to

complete a programme

[R129] Others

6

6

13

1

[R13] Tutor supporting services 16 [R131] Tutor support was inadequate

[R132] Tutor’s attitude was bad

[R133] Tutor’s teaching method was poor / boring

[R139] Others

8

7

1

0

[R14] Study workload and

difficulty of the course

9 [R141] Too many materials needed to read

[R142] Too many TMAs needed to complete

[R143] Progress of course was too fast

[R144] Course were too difficult

[R149] Others

2

1

2

2

2

[R15] Not adequate counselling /

assessment

0 [R151] Counselling services were inadequate before the course /

programme starts,

[R152] Counselling services were inadequate during the course

[R153] Counselling services were inadequate after completion of a course

[R154] No assessment to measure students ability

[R159] Others

0

0

0

0

0

[R16] Problems with institutional

procedures

16 [R161] Procedure of applying for ‘credit exemption’ was too complicated

and time consuming

[R162] Procedure of applying for ‘defer-exam’ was too complicated and

time consuming

[R163] Procedure of applying for ‘changing tutorial sessions’ was too

complicated and time consuming

[R164] Delay in exam schedule and grades

[R169] Others

13

2

0

0

1

[R17] Image of OUHK 5 [R171] OUHK was not recognized by the public as a prestigious university 4

62

[R172] OUHK was not recognized by professional bodies / the public

[R179] Others

0

1

[R18]Location/Facilities

of OUHK

2 [R181] Location of OUHK / learning centre

[R182] Lack of facilities, such as Library, Laboratory

[R189] Others

2

0

0

63

Appendix VI: Survey questionnaire

各位校友：

香港公開大學現正進行一項名為「香港公開大學學生停學原因」的調查研究，旨

在深入了解本校學生的停學原因，以便日後策劃適切的支援服務，幫助各學生克

服困難，順利完成學業。

為了進一步了解和分析本校學生的停學原因，我們特意邀請最近兩個學期沒有修

讀任何科目的學生，回答一份簡單的問卷。早前我們已對你寄出問卷，但直到現

時還沒有收到你的回覆。我們再次對你提出邀請，衷心的希望你能完成問卷。問

卷只有兩部份，回答需時約十分鐘。你所提供的資料僅供本研究所用，個人資料

絕對保密。

請你完成問卷，並於 2008 年 3 月 31 日之前，以郵寄（請用隨函寄奉的已付郵資

回郵信封）或傳真（傳真號碼：2396-5009），交回本大學調查及研究小組。為答

謝你的參與，我們將在眾多回答問卷中，抽出 60 位學生，每位致送 $50 超市禮

券，禮券將會隨後寄到府上。

本人對你的幫助，謹此致謝。 順祝

萬事如意。

香港公開大學‚停學原因調查及研究小組‛組長

袁建新 博士 謹啟

如果你希望參加禮券抽獎，請填寫以下項目，以便我們與你接觸。否則不用填寫。

姓名(請用大階填寫): ________________ 身分證或公開大學學生證號碼: ______________________

64

Q1 你認為以下哪些項目是導致你停學的原因? 請你就下列每一個停學原因，在適當的空格填上‘ ’號。

停學原因

這不是 這是導 這是導

導致我 致我停 致我停

停學的 學的部 學的重

要原因 分原因 要原因

個人

原因

1 未能完成所修科目部分或全部 TMA 作業，或考試不及格

2 接受其他院校取錄，轉讀其課程或科目

3 不夠時間學習

4 個人目標改變

5 對學科失去興趣

6 欠缺自律或失去動力

7 不喜歡/不適應遙距學習模式

8 欠缺英語、數學或電腦的基礎知識

9 健康問題（中途患病，或精神/體力不繼）

10 家庭原因（家人不支持，需要更多持家時間，懷孕產子，或要

照顧家人）

經濟

原因

11 學費太貴（無力負擔，或感覺學費高於其他院校）

12 申請獎學金、助學金失敗

工作

原因

13 僱主不支持，或欠缺僱主資助

14 失業、轉工、加班、輪班或派外公幹

課程

科目

設計

及

教學

支援

15 沒有適合的課程、科目、或教學語言可供選擇

16 選錯課程或科目

17 修畢整個課程需要太多學分或需時過長

18 欠缺導師支援

19 導師教學態度或方法欠理想

20 學習量及功課量大，進度太快

大學

行政

安排

21 選科諮詢及輔導服務不足

22 校方的行政安排欠理想(如豁免學分、申請延期考試、更改導修

課時間、發放成績等)，申請手續繁複費時

23 公開大學形象和地位不及其他大專院校

其他 24 其他停學原因（請詳細填寫）：

請轉下一頁，繼續作答

65

Q2 你認為大學作出下列哪些變革或改善措施，才會令你留下，繼續完成學業。請你就下列的項目中選擇

五項對你最有幫助的項目，在適當的空格加‘ ’號。 (最多只能選五項，可選少於五項)

改革及改進的項目 這項目對

我有幫助

個人

輔導

1 增加專門講解作業及考試答題技巧的導修課

2 舉辦‚時間管理‛工作坊，教導學生分配時間學習

3 舉辦‚自我認識‛工作坊，教導學生自律與堅持

4 設置‚電郵預警‛系統 (提醒學生上導修課、交功課、考試日期時間)

5 舉行更多面授課堂，講解科目內容

6 增設獎賞 (如頒發獎狀或獎賞予考試及格的學生)

7 幫助學生成立學習小組

8 開辦工作坊，協助學生加強英語、數學能力和電腦知識

9 為學生及其家人開辦‚關懷支持‛工作坊，幫助學生爭取家人支持

經濟

措施

10 減低學費，完成課程的學生可獲學費回贈或折扣優惠

11 延期或分期收取學費

12 提供更多助學金及獎學金

13 申請更多科目納入‚持續進修基金或中小型企業學習進修‛計劃

課程

科目

設計

及

教學

支援

14 安排導修課於星期六或星期日舉行

15 允許學分從一個課程轉移到另一個課程

16 允許學生自由轉換到其他導修組上課

17 錄影導修課，上載互聯網，方便學生重溫

18 開辦更多不同種類的課程或科目

19 開辦更多初級或基礎科目

20 提供課程及科目報讀諮詢服務

21 縮短課程完成時間，降低課程學分要求

22 在導修課上延長發問時間，讓導師解答學生問題

23 導師改善對學生的態度並改進教學方法

24 精簡教材，提供摘要及筆記，減少學習時間及功課量

大學

行政

安排

25 增加學生在入學前後、完成課程或科目後的選科、升學輔導及諮詢服務

26 精簡豁免學分、延期考試、更改導修課時間等事項的申請程序，縮短等候結果時間，

並多辦專題講座解釋

27 考試後盡快發佈成績，以便學生選科

28 介紹本校學生成功的實例，報道有大公司聘用個案

29 爭取更多專業組織認可學歷，並開辦更多的專業課程

其他 30 其他改革及改進項目或其他意見（請詳細填寫）：

66

Appendix VII: Importance of the reasons leading to drop out expressed by respondents in the questionnaire survey

(Each respondent was asked to indicate the importance of each reason according to whether they were ‘very important’, ‘of some importance’,

and ‘of no importance’ in their decision to drop out. ‘Very important’ was assigned a score of 2, ‘of some importance’ was assigned a score of 1,

and ‘of no importance’ was assigned a score of 0. The scores from all respondents were added and the rankings of the reasons were determined

according to their total scores.)

Importance of the reasons for drop out provided by respondents of the questionnaire survey

Item General reasons Specific reasons Very

important

Of some

importance

Of no

importance

Rank

1 [R01] Failure in course [R011-2] Did not complete or failed TMA, or failed in exam 35 92 240 10

2 [R02] Enrolled in another institution [R021] Enrolled in a programme/course offer by another institution 38 38 291 20

3 [R03] Time management [R031] Could not afford the time to study 81 132 154 3

4 [R04] Personal goal/Interest/Motivation [R041] Change of personal goal 44 81 242 8

5 [R04] Personal goal /Interest/Motivation [R042] Loss or lack of interest in the course 18 62 287 21

6 [R04] Personal goal/Interest/Motivation [R043] Lack of self-discipline or perseverance in the study, or not motivated to complete the course/programme 27 103 237 11

7 [R04] Personal goal / Interest / Motivation [R044] Dislike of the DL study mode 39 85 243 9

8 [R05] Not adequate basic skills/knowledge [R051] Did not have basic skills in English language, mathematics, or computer 27 63 277 18

9 [R06] Health [R061-2] Health problems (illness during the course, deteriorating health) 19 46 302 23

10 [R07] Family issues [R071-4] Family issues (family did not support, demanded more time from learner, giving birth to a baby, or need

to look after of children/parents) 35 44 288 19

11 [R08] High course fee [R081] Course fee was too high compared to other institutions, or could not afford the course fee 108 141 118 1

67

12 [R09] Lack of financial support [R091]Failed in applying for bursary or scholarship 18 35 314 24

13 [R10] Lack of employer support [R101] Employer did not support or employer did not provide (or stopped providing) financial support 35 71 261 14

14 [R11] Issues related to learner’s career

[R111-3] Issues related to learner’s career (became unemployed, change of job/position, overtime work, on shift

duty, or on business trip) 84 85 198 4

15 [R12] Course / Programme [R121] Lack of choices in programmes, courses, or language of the course 30 71 266 15

16 [R12] Course / Programme [R122] Made wrong choices in programmes, courses, or language of the course 20 51 295 22

17 [R12] Course / Programme [R123] Too many credits required in a programme or it takes too long to complete a programme 88 126 153 2

18 [R13] Tutor supporting services [R131] Tutor support was inadequate 51 113 203 5

19 [R13] Tutor supporting services [R132] Tutor’s attitude or tutor’s teaching method was unsatisfactory 35 83 249 13

20 [R14] Study workload [R141] Too heavy a workload, too many TMAs, or progress of course too fast 48 98 221 6

21 [R15] Not adequate counselingcounselling [R151] Counselling services were inadequate before, during and after completion of the course 31 109 227 7

22 [R16] Problems with institutional

procedures

[R161] Problems with institutional procedures (e.g. procedures too complicated and time consuming in applying

for ‘credit exemption’, deferment of-exam, ‘changing tutorial sessions’) 40 74 253 12

23 [R17] Image of OUHK [R171] OUHK was not as a prestigious university as other universities 22 86 259 16

24 [R18] Others [R189] Other specific reasons 59 5 68 17

68

Appendix VIII: Measures to reduce drop out suggested by

respondents in the questionnaire survey

(Each respondent selects a maximum of five measures they believe would have

helped them continue with their study.)

Measures suggested by respondents which would have helped them to continue with their studies at

OUHK

Frequency Rank

1 Provide additional tutorials to develop students’ skills in completing TMAs and answering exam

questions

120 4

2 Provide workshops on time management 47 20

3 Provide workshops on developing self-discipline 31 25

4 Provide e-mail alert to remind students date of tutorial, submission of TMA, examination 33 24

5 Provide more face-to-face components in DL courses 102 6

6 Provide academic or financial awards as incentives for course/programme completion 50 18

7 Help students to form study groups 59 17

8 Provide workshops to improve students' language, mathematics, and computer skills 71 13

9 Provide workshops for students and their family members on supporting each other 14 29

10 Lower course fees and provides cash rebates or discounts after course completion 244 1

11 Allow deferred payment of course fees or payment by instalments 80 11

12 Provide more bursaries and scholarships 101 7

13 Ensure more courses are included in CEF or SME Fund 93 8

14 Hold alternative tutorials on weekends 68 14

15 Allow credits earned in one programme to be counted in another programme 74 12

16 Allow students to change tutorials slots upon request 83 10

17 Videotape tutorial sessions and upload them online for student access 128 2

18 Offer more courses/programmes of a wider range and variety 67 15

19 Provide more elementary or foundation courses 34 23

20 Provide counselling on course/programme choice 28 27

21 Shorten the time to complete a course and reduce the number of credits required 107 5

21 Extend Q&A time during tutorial and allow students to ask questions 29 26

23 Improve tutors’ attitude and teaching method 49 19

24 Simplify study materials, provide summaries, and reduce study work load and TMAs 126 3

25 Provide counselling services before and after registration, during and after course completion 35 22

26 Simplify the procedures and shorten the time for releasing the results of credit exemption, deferred

examination, and change of tutorial time slot

60 16

27 Release examination results as soon as possible after the exam 45 21

69

28 Publicize more cases of successful OUHK graduates and employers who employ them 15 28

29 Obtain recognition from professional bodies and offer courses in conjunction with professional bodies

or big companies

84 9

30 Other measures and suggestions 59

Total 2,136