Supporting Online Student Retention in Community Colleges: What Data Is Most Relevant? Free

In the institutions that support postsecondary education in the United States, community colleges have historically spearheaded the developed and delivery of distance education to students (Allen & Seaman, 2008; Xu & Jaggars, 2011). As early as 2006, community colleges enrolled more distance learners than all other types of higher education institutions (Cejda, 2010). In the fall of 2006, 1.9 million students at community colleges were enrolled in online courses (Allen & Seaman, 2008). One year later, 97%of community colleges were offering distance learning courses, far outpacing the 66%of all other postsecondary institutions offering distance learning courses (Parsad & Lewis, 2008). In 2012, postsecondary institutions offering less than 4-year degrees still supported approximately 1.9 million students through distance education courses (U.S. Department of Education, 2014).

Considering the typical student demographics of community colleges, it should not be surprising that these schools have historically been trailblazers in distance education. Distance education provides a means for continued and higher education for many students who may typically possess minimal access to higher education, and is therefore a driving force in increasing enrollment of nontraditional students in 2-year schools (Xu & Jaggars, 2011). Community colleges also typically enroll large populations of working and older students who may have numerous external commitments outside of academia, making it no surprise that online courses enroll large populations of nontraditional students (Parsad & Lewis, 2008; Simonson, Smaldino, & Zvacek, 2015; Xu & Jaggars, 2013). These are but two of the various factors which make community colleges valuable and viable options for individuals seeking higher education opportunities.

Although distance learning provides an essential resource for the delivery of instruction, online coursework requires different student capabilities than those needed to succeed in the traditional classroom (Simonson et al., 2015). Online students, for example, require sufficient levels of self-motivation to learn and must possess the ability to manage their time wisely so that they can become independent in their learning. According to theories of andragogy, these characteristics are often found in older nontraditional students (Keesee, 2011).

Although it would therefore seem apparent that distance education supports students possessing different characteristics of nontraditional students, it is also true that many of the students who enroll in community colleges are neither sufficiently prepared for either higher education in general or for online course work in particular. As stated by Bailey (2009), “a majority of community college students arrive unprepared to engage effectively in the core function of college” (p. 1). The combination of being (1) underprepared, and (2) enrolling in an online course may therefore amalgamize into an extremely difficult performance challenge for students. Additionally, many of these unprepared students are older adults who have been separated from the formal education environment for several years, and are no longer acclimated to formal learning settings. To complicate matters further, many of the students may be underachievers in school, potentially stemming from lower socioeconomic populations who may have been subjected to a lower standard at the K–12 educational level, be single or married parents with family obligations, and possess either full-time or parttime employment obligations.

For many nontraditional students wishing to pursue higher education goals, online learning is not only appealing, but necessary. Distance education may be their only hope for continued education beyond high school, regardless of how well the modality may or may not support their specific preparedness for online learning. These students are impacted by factors outside the school context that takes time away from course work. These external time constraints can become a significant influence on how and when students are able to/choose to study, or even in their choice of specific courses. Distance education appears to eliminate, or at least reduce, the obvious time constraints of the traditional classroom course schedule of classes during weekday mornings and afternoons when nontraditional students often have other obligations. Online courses are appealing because these increase course choice, eliminate time associated with commuting, lower associated commuting costs, and provide greater access by “allowing students to study on a schedule that is optimal for them” (Jaggars, 2011, p. 1).

Community colleges have early on enthusiastically embraced distance education as a means of reaching the large population of underrepresented students wanting and needing continued education. The recent historical trends of 2-year colleges, being leaders in distance education (e.g., the number of students enrolled in these courses) would seem to indicate a successful mechanism for continued education in its present state. Optimism and need in higher education for the continued expansion of distance education is obvious with more courses being offered and an increasing student population enrolling in online courses (Allen & Seaman, 2010). With this expansion in online learning, it is apparent that maintaining (and improving) the effectiveness of distance education for all students in higher education is an essential concern (Jaggars, 2011).

The majority of growth in distance education first emerged via the expansion of the number of higher education institutions offering online courses, followed by the number of programs being offered within those institutions (Allen & Seaman, 2008). Because of the rapid expansion of distance education at 2-year colleges, evaluation of the effectiveness of distance education has similarly come into question. With an ever-increasing number of online course offerings in community colleges, evaluation of the effectiveness of distance education in supporting student learning, degree/certification attainment, and continued education beyond 2-year schools has become increasingly imperative for both students and the institutions they attend (Jaggars, 2011).

With the community college student population typically being nontraditional (meaning underrepresented populations), evaluation of the effectiveness of these distance education programs is especially important. Recent statistics indicate that of the Hispanic, African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Native Americans in higher education in the United States, 56%of Hispanics, 48%of African Americans, 44% of Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 59%of Native Americans attend community colleges (American Association of Community Colleges, 2014). Demographic characteristics of students in community colleges are differentiated from typical higher education students in 4-year institutions due to the open enrollment policies in use at community colleges. Some demographics of community college students (American Association of Community Colleges, 2014) include:

• average age of 28 years;

• median age of 24 years;

• 14%over 40 years of age;

• 17%are single parents;

• 36%are first generation college students;

• 7%are non-U.S. citizens; 4%are veterans;

• 2%are students with disabilities;

• 22%are full-time students;

• 41%are part-time students and employed full-time;

• 44% are full-time students;

• 32% are part-time students and employed part-time.

These characteristics clearly demonstrate why community colleges have found it a necessary to provide abundant distance education opportunities to their students.

The open enrollment policy at most community colleges is often reflected in the level of student preparedness for higher education experienced by community college students. Approximately 42%,for example, of first-year students in public, 2-year higher education institutions are underprepared academically for college-level courses (Moss, Kelcey, & Showers, 2014). The lack of preparedness of many students, along with other characteristics, can negatively impact learning, influence attrition, and impede completion of programs. Student degree and certification completion at community colleges is historically lower than 4-year institutions, with percentages of those in community college successfully completing a program of study within 6 years as low as 20% (Shea & Bidjerano, 2014).

The low rates of completion of programs at community colleges, especially when considering the increasing rates of enrollment and the amount of money spent per student, have also raised questions about the efforts being put forth by the federal government directed towards increasing the access to higher education for nontraditional students through community colleges (Shea & Bidjerano, 2014). Low completion rates have raised concerns in academia about the effectiveness of online learning at community colleges and the apparent negative impacts it possess for nontraditional students (Shea & Bidjerano, 2014). This concern is especially salient when one considers that distance education course enrollment at community colleges has far outpaced traditional course enrollment. As indicated by Allen and Seaman (2007), the enrollment in distance education at community colleges in the 2006–2007 academic year was five times the rate (10%increase versus 2%increase) of traditional courses.

Policymakers in recent years have pressed community colleges to improve student success, which is often equivocated to degree or certificate completion, through funding based on accountability. Accountability has initiated many studies on methods to increase success (Kalinski, 2015). Promotion of student success through distance education is one method that has received considerable attention in recent years.

Studies at community colleges in the effects of distance education on success appear to indicate that distance education is increasing student enrollment numbers but not completion rates (Jaggars, 2011). Attrition via distance education is a significant factor in the lack of student completion rates (Jaggars, 2011). Students successfully pass online courses at rates comparable to traditional classes, but course completion rates for students in online courses are simultaneously significantly lower than students in the same courses that are taught in the traditional format (Xu & Jaggars, 2011, 2014). Several factors appear to influence attrition in online courses including time commitment, a lack of feeling of community, and the lack of student preparedness for college-level work. These factors could be used to argue therefore that online courses are not providing what many students require to achieve their education goals (Aragon & Johnson, 2008; Jaggars, 2011; Xu & Jaggars, 2011).

Jaggars (2011) suggests “at least three reasons why students may struggle in online courses: technical difficulties, increased “social distance,” and a relative lack of structure inherent in online courses” (p. 1). Jaggars (2011) also found that off-campus supports, such as tutoring, are lacking and difficult for students to access at a distance. Nash (2005) found that students drop or fail online courses often due to time management issues, difficulty with assignments, and lack of prompt support from instructors and tutors.

Two large-scale studies in 2011 (Xu & Jaggars) and 2014 (Xu & Jaggars) attempted to determine performance and persistence of community college students in online courses compared to traditional courses using data from schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia and Washington State. Xu and Jaggars (2014) investigated the impact of gender, age, previous academic performance, and ethnicity to determine if these characteristics impacted performance and persistence in online and traditional courses. The research showed that males, African Americans, Hispanics, and underprepared students performed significantly worse in online courses than in traditional courses (Xu & Jaggars, 2011, 2014).

Aragon and Johnson (2008) and Xu and Jaggars (2011, 2014) found that persistence, regardless of course type, was not a significant factor in course completion. When comparing course grades, White and Asian students outperformed African American and Hispanic students in online courses (Xu & Jaggars, 2014).These results likely reflect the impact that low socioeconomic status, often associated with Hispanic and African American students, may have on academic preparedness.

Regarding age, Xu and Jaggars’ (2014) research indicated that older students tend to do better in online courses than younger students, but underperform in online courses when compared to older students in equivalent traditional courses. Xu and Jaggars (2014) suggest that self-regulation and self-motivation in older students may make them perform better in online courses than their younger counterparts. Time commitments associated with obligations outside of school though appear to negatively impact older student online learning (Xu & Jaggars, 2014).

Xu and Jaggars (2011, 2014) noted that students who are less prepared often struggle with online coursework and withdraw at higher rates than academically prepared students, older students, and underprepared students in face-to-face courses. Midterm withdrawal rates are higher for underprepared students but while final course grades in online courses appear to be better than traditional courses (Xu & Jaggars, 2014); when including withdrawal rates, however, online performance is lower than traditional courses (Xu & Jaggars, 2014). The attrition rates were especially noteworthy in “gatekeeper” courses (i.e., courses that are considered college level). Over the course of Xu and Jaggars’ (2011) 4-year study, English gatekeeper attrition rates were 9%higher and 13%higher in online courses versus traditional courses. Lack of student preparation for college course work appears to be a major reason for their simultaneous underperformance within online courses.

The varying characteristics of community college students is a major influence for retention in online courses. Students in community college tend to have more time commitments outside of school than typical postsecondary students. Students studied in research carried out by Aragon and Johnson (2008) indicated that “personal problems, scheduling conflicts or overload, lack of motivation, work conflicts, and lack of time” (p. 151) impacted performance in their online courses. Aragon and Johnson (2008) research also showed that “students completing their online courses had a mean grade point average (GPA) of 2.47 and students not completing their courses had a GPA of 1.66” (p. 153) prior to beginning their online courses. This research indicates that student GPA at the start of an online course may be an indicator of student persistence in successfully completing online courses.

Regardless of student course grades and completion rates in online courses at community colleges, Shea and Bidjerano’s (2014) research indicated that students in 2-year higher education institutions complete associates degrees at higher rates than nononline course takers. Shea and Bidjerano’s (2014) research seems to indicate that regardless of how much students struggle to complete online courses, the impact of the online course apparently benefits students. Perhaps the time commitment and self-motivation needed in online work may actually be teaching students what is needed for success in higher education.

The majority of research in distance education at community colleges investigates student characteristics, rather than institutional characteristics. In reviewing the research by Aragon and Johnson (2008), Cejda (2010), and Leist and Travis (2010), the typical rural community college appears to have specific characteristics that may play a contributing role in increasing the negative effects on students taking online courses. Location of the community college plays an important role in the characteristics associated with the enrolled students. Aragon and Johnson (2008), Cejda (2010), and Leist and Travis (2010) indicated smaller, rural community colleges tend to have larger populations, by percentage, of total students of underprepared, lower socioeconomic class, older, first-in-family, and time-obligated students.

Location and number of students can be used to categorize community colleges into three categories: urban, suburban, and rural (Leist & Travis, 2010). At rural community colleges, distance education courses are especially appealing because they provide an educational opportunity to students that are spatially dispersed over large geographical areas and living far from the college. As Leist and Travis (2010) state, “no other sector of higher education is more affected by geography than rural community colleges” and “increased technology, often in the form of online courses, has great potential for delivering courses to even the most isolated reaches of the nation” (p. 18). Rural community colleges, though, often face funding issues, a shortage of faculty, and a “digital divide” created by a lack of infrastructure (Leist & Travis, 2010). These factors likely increase the negative impacts on a student population that already may have characteristics that present challenges to college course work (Leist & Travis, 2010).

One of the main issues at many community colleges, especially experienced at rural schools, is the teaching workload of faculty. Faculty at rural schools are often the only fulltime faculty members teaching within a discipline (Leist & Travis, 2010). Faculty teaching load may negatively impact distance learning because underprepared students taking an online course from an overworked faculty person, who has little extra time to dedicate towards effective online instruction, exacerbates the negatives brought to the course by the student (Leist & Travis, 2010). In addition, inexperienced faculty often teach online courses at these schools because faculty with seniority and experience do not take on the additional workload of teaching online (Leist & Travis, 2010). It is assumed that suburban and urban community colleges face these same negative impacts, but the research from Leist & Travis’ (2010) indicates the problems are greater in rural community colleges.

The remoteness of rural community college students may mean that many of these students are exclusively taking online courses. Studies by the Community College Research Center (CCRC) at the Teachers College of Columbia University (2013) suggests that rural community college students who rely on distance education courses for their college education may be more likely to drop out of school and less likely to graduate. The CCRC (2013) indicated that taking one or more online courses at community colleges negatively impacts college persistence and completion. The CCRC (2013) reported that students taking online courses in the first semester are less likely to persist in school. The report also indicated that students taking higher proportions of online courses were less likely to graduate or to transfer to 4-year universities (CCRC, 2013)

Many rural community college students also suffer from the lack of modern technological infrastructure to support online learning (Cejda, 2010). Similar to the socioeconomic digital divide, rural community colleges and students often suffer from a digital divide created by the lack of developed infrastructure (Cejda, 2010; Leist & Travis, 2010). As stated by Cejda (2010) “broadband connection in rural homes lags 19%behind that of urban homes and 22% behind that of suburban homes” (p. 13). With the many obstacles associated with nontraditional students in 2-year schools, rural students may face even more obstacles than online students in urban and suburban areas.

Four decades ago, Tinto (1975) recognized that external influences outside of the institution can play a crucial role in the attrition or retention of students in higher education. Tinto recognized that, regardless of the external influences with which students contend,their decision to withdraw or remain in higher education can be immensely influenced by peers, instructors, and administration. Tinto’s ideas were based on students in traditional higher education institutions, but since that time, as found by Shea and Bidjerano (2014), researchers have expanded ideas of support to include students in distance education. Regardless of the course delivery method though, negative and positive aspects perceived by the student are influenced by interactions with the course work, peers, instructors, administrators, and institutional support systems. For years it has been the belief of many in higher education that students fail in college, not that college fails the student (Shea & Bidjerano, 2014; Tinto, 2006). It was long believed, and often is still expressed in policy and actions of higher education institutions, that the “traditional 18– 22-year-old residential learner or nontraditional commuter, older, part-time, or distance students are responsible to adapt to a relatively inflexible, monolithic institution of higher education” (Shea & Bidjerano, 2014, p. 105).

Students’ sense of place within the institutional community, their involvement in that community, and how they fit into that community are all important in retaining students in school. Achieving these goals is difficult in the traditional setting, and is, arguably, more difficult in the distance learning setting. Distance education may nevertheless provide an ideal medium for providing a beneficial space for adjusting to higher education (Shea & Bidjerano, 2014). As stated previously, research indicates that students in 2-year higher education institutions complete associates degrees at higher rates than nononline course takers (Shea & Bidjerano, 2014). Although higher education may be unfamiliar and stressful in many instances, distance education courses may provide a soft entrance because course work is completed in a familiar space, separated from the institution, which may limit apprehension.

Changes to instructional methods and academic support systems for distance education should help alleviate some of the external influences that affect distance education students. With the “open door” enrollment policy of most community colleges, and the diverse educational, social, and cultural backgrounds of the typical student, a method of improving retention in online courses is not going to be a simple achievement. Nontraditional students who are underprepared for college, older, working, and/or lacking a supportive technological infrastructure, will constantly be part of the student population taking distance education courses at these institutions.

In order to support all community college distance learners, colleges should target their efforts on adjustments and reforms that can be controlled by the institution. The external negative impacting student characteristics brought with the student to the institution should not be ignored, but accepted as an influence on their learning that requires a targeted response from the educational institution. Rather than trying to control or eliminate these external influences, schools should focus on what they can do to lessen the influence of those negative characteristics through reforms in faculty professional development, online course design, and online student support systems. As suggested by Lee and Choi (2011), strategies in distance education to improve student persistence should include “(1) understanding of each student’s challenges and potential, (2) providing quality course activities and well-structured supports, and (3) handling environmental issues and emotional challenges” (p. 610). Interventions to improve student retention include a combination of precourse strategies, active in-course strategies, and postcourse strategies that are interconnected and cyclical.

To address the challenges during the precourse stage, community colleges can support students by integrating precourse orientations that are used to help ease students into online learning and introduce them to the higher education. Depending on the online student’s situation, either on-campus or online campus orientations can be used to inform students of what they can anticipate in the online environment, as well as the academic supports available to them. These orientations should also be used as an informal welcome to the students to help create a bond between the student and the institution. Creating a supportive environment for the student can help promote self-motivation by providing a sense of inclusion in the academic community (Britto & Rush, 2013).

Precourse assessments or surveys can be used to support faculty in developing interventions targeted toward remediating student barriers (Milltiadou & Savenye, 2003). Informal introductions should also be used for discovering student interests and academic goals. Students can be assessed on their ability to access and use the technologies needed to successfully complete the course and instructors can make informed decisions about technology use and instructional strategies. Implementation of informed instructional strategies can aid the instructor in developing instructional methods that will help sustain students’ attention, and give them confidence in the approaching coursework. Knowing academic goals, interests, and technological capabilities in an online course can aid the instructor in adjusting planned coursework to target the instruction for providing relevance to students and generating satisfaction in their learning. According to Keller (1987), attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction “influence the motivation to learn” (p. 2). Online instructors need to know their students in the online environment just as in the traditional classroom and “recognition of and attention to these factors contributes to increased student satisfaction which, in turn, yields higher persistence rates” (Stanford-Bowers, 2008, para. 8).

Additionally, prior to teaching online, instructors need to be properly trained in strategies in supporting both young and adult students. Instruction online should be studentcentered and based on the students in the course. As noted by Xu and Jaggars (2014), student learning in online courses appears to vary based on age. Principles of pedagogy and andragogy therefore need to be applied within the instruction in order to support the learning styles of students based on the relative ages of learners. This can be especially important in community colleges where the population of nontraditional, older students is typically higher than 4-year universities. As stated by Batts, Pagliari, Mallett, and McFadden (2010) “sound online technology training that also involves pedagogy is needed for faculty who teach online” (pp. 22–23). Instructors may be content experts and proficient in using a variety of technologies, but if pedagogy and andragogy knowledge is lacking, student persistence will likely be negatively impacted. Many online learners in community colleges are adult learners who bring with them a number of other issues requiring their time and attention (Aragon & Johnson, 2008; Stanford-Bowers, 2008) and may be hesitant with using many types of technology. It is vital that online instructors remember that technology is only the means for delivering the instruction (Simonson et al., 2015), and technology use should be guided by student needs, not strictly the ability to incorporate technology for technology’s sake in the course. Online course instructional design should use a systems-based approach (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2005) where students are evaluated for needs, technologies are appropriately chosen, instruction is modified based on student need, and course design is modified based on ongoing informal and formal assessments completed through a variety of student and instructor interactions.

Moore and Kearsley (1996) indicated communication in distance education involves three important types of interactions: (a) learner-content, (b) learner-instructor, and (c) learner-learner. This communication involves formal, planned, interactions and, when possible, interactions that are informal or unplanned. Communication that is frequent between learner-instructor and learner-learner reduces the feeling of isolation and supports integration through academic and social integration with the goal of improving course retention (Tinto, 1975). “A student with a positive perception of social presence maintains a high degree of interaction and collaboration with peers, and is more likely to successfully complete a community college online course with a better grade” (Liu, Gomez, & Yen, 2009, p. 173). Peer interaction in online courses helps support student learning, build community, and support retention (Tinto, 1975). In addition, frequent communication with students that is both reactive and proactive (Simpson, 2004), helps the instructor transition from being viewed as a teacher to being viewed as a facilitator or mediator, and allows for pacing and movement through the course (Smith, 2005).

Additionally, support services for students need to be available to online students that are equivalent to traditional student supports (Simonson et al., 2015). Student support systems may be designed in a way that does not effectively support the distance learner. A large percentage of students who fail to finish online courses is related to the lack of support they receive (Aragon & Johnson, 2008). Community colleges have tutoring centers, advisors, technical support, etc. that are available to all students, but students in distance education may never have the opportunity to take advantage of these services due to their physical separation from the institution (Britto & Rush, 2013). Support services should be redesigned to support both traditional and distance learners (Floyd & Casey-Powell, 2004). As stated by Floyd and Caey-Powell (2004), retaining distance learners “will become problematic if community college administrators do not commit to maintaining appropriate support services” (p. 63).

Postcourse strategies to support learners should be both student and instructor focused. Support services for students should be an ongoing and continuous strategy. After completing a course, advisors will need to be proactive in communicating with students about future course plans and registration. Although communication from the institution will aid students, as much information as possible should be available online, and made easily accessible to the students (Simonson et al., 2015).Ongoing student guidance beyond the course is also critical to student academic success in distance education (Simonson et al., 2015).

After completing a course, instructors should reflect on their course, complete a summative evaluation of the course, and evaluate the effectiveness of the course in its current design (Dick et al., 2005). Depending on the outcomes of the assessment, instructors may need to make adjustments to their course in order to better address anticipated needs of future students. This process of assessment and redesign integrates with the precourse instructional design process of evaluating students through orientations, assessments, informal surveys creating a continuum of design, evaluation, instructional planning, assessment, and redesign (Dick et al., 2005).

Many students in distance education at community colleges bring with them characteristics that negatively impact online learning. Much research has been completed in an attempt to define the characteristics that make students unsuccessful in distance education. Much of the research indicates that students who are most often negatively impacted in distance learning are those who are underprepared for college and have numerous external commitments outside of education that create barriers in a distance learning environment. It is often these same barrier-creating characteristics that make distance education appealing to many community colleges students.

Although external personal characteristics associated with many distance learning students have been shown to be a main contributor to the retention problem, students may also be negatively impacted by a lack of reliable technological public infrastructure, their ability to integrate socially and academically to school from a remote location, and dated instructional and administrative systems that are more historically aligned with traditional education. The institution may have no control over many of these issues, but with modifications to select academic processes, retention in school can be encouraged. Distance education courses should integrate a process that orients and evaluates distance learners prior to the beginning of the course, uses an instructional design system based on a learner-centered approach that encourages peer and instructor interactions, employs a flexible instructional design based on in-course observations and reflections on course outcomes, and includes a student support system that provides distance learners with the necessary academic supports.

The measure of distance education success in community colleges should not solely based on students passing online courses and completing degrees or certifications. For many nontraditional students in community college, their intent is not to obtain a degree or certification; it is simply to learn. The “open door” enrollment policy of most community colleges inspires students to participate in higher education and learn something new. To numerous nontraditional students, success may simply be enrolling in school and evaluating whether or not the pursuit of higher education is the correct personal choice. Distance education in community colleges (independent of what may appear to some as a lack of success), is opening doors in higher education for many who would otherwise not have the opportunity to study. Rather than measuring success in relation to the negatives, maybe success in community college distance education should be based on the opportunities the system has provided to thousands of students.

Regardless of the academic desires of each student, community colleges need to continue to try to improve retention of online students. As suggested, to support the large population of distance learners in community college, it is believed that an integrated and ongoing system of precourse strategies, active in-course strategies, and postcourse strategies in instruction and administration would benefit many distance education programs. Colleges should preassess all new online students enrolling in online courses. Precourse assessments should include a means of providing data to online instructors on academic skill such as high school transcripts, placement exam scores, and college entrance exam scores. Precourse teacher-student communications should collect data on basic course content knowledge, technological skill, and technological accessibility of students enrolled in the course. These precourse assessments and communications will aid in developing student-centered course content, necessary teacher-student support level based on student backgrounds, the amount of appropriate technology use, and teacher-student support level based on individual student need. Although class size would be a limiting factor for implementing these ideas, this data would provide necessary information to instructors for supporting individual students who may struggle or excel in the course.

Community colleges need to critically evaluate the student services they provide to online students. Student support services in most colleges are an extension of face-to-face support services and really do not provide equivalent support to distance learners (Britto & Rush, 2013). Data collected from online students indicating how often and when they seek advisement, tutoring, and technology support will provide the necessary information needed to provide equivalent services to online learners. Twenty-four/seven technology support and off-hour tutoring/advisement may be necessary to provide the necessary supports to online students.

Data from programs that include instructor professional development in online course design and pedagogy would offer important information related to the effectiveness of these programs for supporting online learners. As Tinto (2006) stated, it is “clear that the faculty of our universities and colleges are, as a matter of practice, the only faculty from kindergarten through universities who are literally not trained to teach their students” (p. 7). Data related to the retention rates of students in online courses from distance learning programs that use pedagogical and instructional design training for online instructors should be compared to student retention rates in programs that typically only provide technology training to instructors. Although research indicates that data is lacking in this area, the data that have been collected should be evaluated to determine if pedagogical and instructional design training supports learning and retention of distance learners. Table 1 summarizes the proposed data that community colleges should consider analyzing in support of their distance education programs.

The number of distance education courses and students enrolling in those courses is growing rapidly. As stated by Allen and Seaman (2011, 2013; National Center for Education Statistics, 2013), it is estimated that 5.5 to 7 million U.S. college students are taking at least one online course, with the majority being community college students. In recent years, the growth rate of online courses has been 10 times the growth rate of traditional courses, with a student enrollment increase of 9% (Allen & Seaman, 2011, 2013). This data shows that it is vital that higher education, especially community colleges, review their programs and modify their approaches to supporting students and faculty where necessary in order to support the millions of individual academic goals of all students in distance education.

This research is based on a review of literature that pertains to distance education in community colleges and professional experience working in distance education.