SURVEY OF ALUMNI FROM DISTANCE DEGREE AND CAMPUS-BASED BACCALAUREATE PROGRAMS Free

Data from an institution’s alumni have the potential to affect policy development and assessment of programs in higher education. The Maryland legislature, for example, is including the proportion of alumni expressing satisfaction with their alma mater as a budgetbased accountability measure (Porter & Umbach, 2001). As outcomes assessment is growing in importance, data collected through alumni surveys are being recognized for the contribution they can make to this area (Pike, 1990), and their importance will undoubtedly increase.

Alumni have the unique perspective of being able to evaluate how relevant their education was to their career and post-college life, as well as to reflect on their overall academic experience. Williford and Moden (1989) point out that in contrast to surveys of currently enrolled students, alumni surveys can document students’ assessment of the quality of their educational experience in relation to their experiences since graduation.

The number of degrees offered at a distance is rapidly expanding; thus, assessment of alumni involved in such programs is of growing importance. Evaluations of distance programs at institutions that offer both traditional and distance courses may prove to be helpful in course design and development of student support services (Wisan, Nazma, & Pscherer, 2001). Although there are numerous “no significant difference” studies examining students’ performance in on-campus and distance courses (Russell, 1999), one area yet to be explored is the response of alumni enrolled in two types of programs offered by an institution—distance and on-campus—to determine the perspective of both groups of alumni on the quality of their education.

We have been unable to locate any discussions of alumni surveys completed by students enrolled in distance programs. We believe this may be the first report of such data. Perhaps more importantly, the majority of questions were completed by two types of alumni—students of a traditional age who had completed their degree on-campus, and nontraditional students who had completed their degrees through a distance learning program.

Washington State University (WSU) is a Carnegie classification Research I institution (recently reclassified as RU/VH by Carnegie), enrolling approximately 22,500 students among its main campus in Pullman (in the southeastern corner of the state), its three urban campuses in Richland, Spokane, and Vancouver, and through Distance Degree Programs. As the state’s land-grant institution, WSU has sought to make education accessible to as many citizens as possible, and since 1992 has offered degree programs at a distance to students in Washington and beyond. Six undergraduate programs, coordinated through the Office of Distance Degree Programs (DDP), enroll more than 2,800 distance students per year, and more than 1,650 students have graduated with their bachelor’s degrees.

The university administers an alumni survey biennially through its Office of Student Affairs Research and Assessment (SARA) as one part of the performance evaluation program administered by the state’s Higher Educational Coordinating Board. For its 20012002 survey, in order to reduce the cost of the survey and to improve the survey’s response rate by focusing on a smaller group of respondents, SARA drew a simple random sample of 2,999 alumni (from a total of 3,788 alumni who graduated during 2001-2002). The survey consisted of 22 questions related to overall satisfaction with WSU, employment, further academic study, and volunteer service.

SARA contracted with WSU’s Social and Economic Sciences Research Center (SESRC) to conduct the study. The center designed the survey and cover letter and drew the sample of students from all five WSU campuses (Pullman, Spokane, Tri-Cities, Vancouver, and DDP), following Dillman’s (2000) survey methodology and using two mail contacts. One-half of the sample was sent a paper survey and given a URL to an Internet version of the survey; the other half of the sample was given only the URL. A total of 604 completed questionnaires was returned for a response rate of 20.1%; 25% of those given the option of completing the survey on paper or the Internet responded, whereas only 15% of those given only the Internet option replied. Females comprised 55% of respondents, males 45%; no mean age data was provided, but respondents are undoubtedly younger than DDP students, given the residential nature of the WSU campuses. More than 90% of students completed their degrees through on-campus programs (70% attended the Pullman campus, 5% Spokane, 6% Tri-Cities, 11 % Vancouver, and 8% DDP) and thus are referred to as on-campus alumni in this article. Analysis of the group who responded suggested that those alumni who responded were representative of the graduating cohort in terms of demographics, but well-performing students were over-represented. The summary report (Office of Student Affairs Research and Assessment, 2004) cautions that “it is possible that alumni who performed well at WSU could hold the university in higher regard, report greater satisfaction, and enjoy more post-graduation success than those who did not perform as well. The reader should keep this thought in mind as (s)he interprets the results” (p. 3).

Distance Degree Programs administrators recognized the importance of assessing the satisfaction of DDP alumni with WSU programs and the impact those programs have had on its graduates. Since only 8% of the on-campus survey participants were DDP alumni, it was decided to repeat a similar survey focused specifically on them. Survey questions and the methodology used were developed in conjunction with SARA and SESRC. Many questions used in the on-campus survey were included; others important to the DDP student experience were added.

All 1,060 students who graduated from WSU through Distance Degree Programs as of December 2003 were included; it is important to recognize these alumni could have been enrolled in classes between 1992 and summer 2003. Surveys were sent via postal mail, with a self-addressed postage-paid reply envelope; they were also sent via e-mail, directing students to a URL where the survey was available electronically. Students were asked to complete the survey in one format or the other. Two sets of reminder cards were sent to students. Five hundred ninety alumni responded to the mailed or electronic survey for a response rate of 56%; 24% submitted their surveys online while 76% mailed their responses.¹ Respondents were representative of the population of DDP students surveyed in terms of gender (80% female, 20% male); however, slightly more nonresidents responded (30% nonresidents responded, whereas only 20% of all DDP students are nonresidents), and the respondents were slightly older (mean age was 40; the mean age of DDP students is 35). No data are available as to the relative academic performance of those alumni who responded and those who did not.

As Table 1 shows, responses to the satisfaction questions were very similar for WSU on-Campus and DDP alumni. If these on-campus and DDP alumni went to college again, 90% of them would definitely or probably choose to attend WSU. All but a small handful of both groups of students felt that their educational investment was worthwhile, and 97% of both groups would recommend WSU to a friend or family member who was qualified to apply. An additional question asked of DDP alumni was “If you were going to college again, would you choose to earn a degree at a distance?” Fifty-one percent of DDP alumni responded “definitely yes” and 40% said “probably yes”; only 8% replied “probably no,” while 2% said “definitely no.”

WSU on-campus and DDP alumni were asked about their satisfaction with the university’s contribution to their growth in a number of outcome areas. Both groups were asked about their satisfaction with 15 of the same outcomes; DDP alumni were asked about three additional. Results are summarized in Table 2. Responses from both groups were very similar in most instances, with the great majority of students being very or considerably satisfied with their growth in most areas. The few exceptions were “learning independently” (d), in which 76% of DDP alumni were very satisfied but only 48% of on-campus alumni were very satisfied (but 40% were considerably satisfied). Forty-five percent of DDP alumni, but only 35% of on-campus alums, felt very satisfied with the university’s contribution to their readiness for advanced education (i) (but both groups felt ready for a career—j). More DDP than on-campus alumni were also very satisfied with two other areas: “understanding differing philosophies and cultures and their interactions” (l), and “understanding the interaction of society and the environment” (n). The one area where on-campus students were more satisfied was “speaking effectively” (b), which is not surprising given the difficulty of including speaking skills in a distance learning program.

Three additional items for DDP students were added to reflect outcomes that DDP course development staff believed should be considered. DDP courses are developed with activities and assignments that require students to synthesize information from different sources, and all courses and communication with staff require use of current communication technologies, so staff were pleased with students’ responses to those questions: 51% of students were very satisfied, and 31% satisfied, with WSU’s contribution to their use of current communication tools (p), and 44% were very satisfied, and 44% satisfied, with the contribution to synthesizing and integrating information from different sources (q). Newer courses are developed with activities and assignments that require students to work collaboratively with others in their classes, but earlier courses did not include group work. Responses to this item (r) seem to reflect that, since only 52% of alumni replied that they were very or considerably satisfied with working collaboratively with others.

DDP alumni were asked about factors that influenced their decisions to complete their educational goals through WSU’s distance programs (Table 3). Responses indicate that most chose DDP for personal and work-related reasons. Almost all (95%) felt that distance education was very important in enabling them to fit college courses into their schedule, 87% said it was very important in allowing them to maintain their commitments to their family, and 79% indicated it made it possible for them to maintain their work schedule. Four-fifths of alumni responded that it was very important to them that their distance education baccalaureate programs prepared them for a broad variety of career options and increased their career mobility.

Two thirds of DDP and on-campus alumni were attending or planning to attend school for additional education or training when they responded to their surveys. As Table 4 shows, a similar percentage of DDP and on-campus students intend to pursue coursework toward a master’s degree. More DDP students plan to work toward professional certification or take courses in some “other” area, while more on-campus students plan to obtain additional undergraduate education (e.g., a second undergraduate major) or work toward a PhD.

Both groups of alumni were asked about the service, charity or volunteer work they have been involved in since graduating. The three most common types for both groups are tutoring/teaching, religious activities, and conservation activities (see Table 5). Not surprisingly, given the fact that most DDP students are established members of their communities, a higher percentage of DDP alumni volunteer more hours than do on-campus alumni (see Table 6).

Seventy-five percent of DDP alumni were employed at the time they responded to the survey. Of the alumni who were unemployed, 41% were raising a family and 55% had “other” reasons for being unemployed. In contrast, 82% of on-campus alumni reported having a job at the time of the survey. Half of those who said they were unemployed were pursuing additional schooling. Both groups of alumni reported having job classifications that were quite similar (Table 7).

The reported median income for on-campus alumni was $30,000 per year. When developing the survey to send to DDP alumni, SESRC staff advised not to ask for their income. Rather, because we wanted to know if earning a WSU degree at a distance impacted the employment of these alumni, we asked “As a result of earning your degree through DDP, did you receive a promotion or pay increase with your current employer, or did you get a promotion with a different employer? Significantly, 20% received a promotion or increase in pay with their current employer, and 18% received a promotion or increase in pay with a different employer after earning their degree. DDP alumni reported that their monthly pay increased, on the average, by 39%.

There were two open-ended questions at the end of the alumni survey to which the great majority of students responded. The first asked students about the value of a WSU undergraduate education earned at a distance, including areas where the university could improve the value.

Student responses regarding the value of the distance program fell into several categories: personal advantages due to the flexibility to take classes at home, at their own pace, while working and raising a family; employment advantages resulting from taking classes and/or receiving a degree; personal satisfaction due to practicing self-discipline, increasing computer and writing skills; and appreciation of the helpfulness and support of the WSU faculty and DDP staff. One student said, “Being able to stay in my home town and be with my family saved me the cost of relocating or having to support two households. I would have never been able to return to school and finish my degree without education available at a distance. With the Internet I never felt I was out of touch or was lacking in any way.” Another commented about the employment advantages she experienced as a result of being involved in a distance program: “Distance education gave me experience using technology and concepts that I am now seeing being integrated in my workplace. I have a better sense of how this technology works and I am able to use it to my advantage to become a better prepared & informed employee.” Another said, “I found the ability to work on my degree while living in a small town very beneficial. Finishing my degree gave me the promotion I received.”

Many students talked about the personal impact of earning a WSU degree. One stated, “My undergraduate degree opened a new level of opportunity, as well as providing a new personal perspective on the world and my role in it.” Another declared, “My education is invaluable. It has improved my confidence, my writing ability, and expanded my prospects for the future. I greatly enjoyed the process of earning my degree at a distance. It was only through this format that I was finally able to show my academic prowess.” Students agreed that the program was of high quality. One student said, “I believe the coursework was very high quality, keeping abreast of national and modern issues. The work I did during my tenure with the school was, I felt, at least equal if not better than I would have received locally. I came into my master’s program feeling very well prepared and continue to feel that way even as I progress in the course work.” Another recognized the efforts WSU as a whole has put into providing access to education, commenting, “This is a high quality education program and excellent experience. Online classes, web support, learning centers, WHETS, and many other aspects of this education program are superb.”

Students had suggestions about what the university could do to improve the degree. Over and over students said, “About the only thing that WSU could do to improve the DDP program would be to offer a wider range of degrees and classes online,” including master’s degrees. Other students wished some faculty had responded to them in a more timely manner, and some who had been in the program early on, before the Internet was widely used, wished there were “more teacher/ student interaction and more student to student interaction.” Overwhelmingly, however, students were extremely grateful for the opportunity to earn a high quality degree without having to leave their families and communities.

The second open-ended question encouraged students to make recommendations that might help new students. Students typically commented on the self-motivation and discipline required to take classes at a distance and the need to develop good time management skills, focus on personal goals, and stay on task. They also indicated the importance of acquiring good communication with professors and advisors and of taking advantage of the resources, help and support provided by DDP staff. For example, one student said, “Be realistic in the amount of time you can devote to your studies. Plan, schedule, and keep on task. Talk with your family so that they understand your commitment. Keep in touch with the DDP staff and work at being part of WSU. I would tell new WSU students that it is a wonderful opportunity and a first class education.”

It is clear that WSU alumni who earned their degrees both through on-campus and distance education formats believe they earned a high quality degree whose learning outcomes have contributed significantly to their professional and personal growth. Both groups were extremely satisfied with their experience at WSU, and over 90% of DDP alumni would definitely or probably earn their degree through a distance program if they did it over again. These data provide important evidence for those involved in assessing higher education programs about the quality of on-campus and distance programs.

DDP alumni indicated that the distance education format was very important because it enabled them to fit courses into their schedules; maintain their commitments to their families, communities and jobs; and increase their career options and mobility. Their wish for greater collaboration with faculty and other students suggest that they would approve of the group activities and interaction requirements currently being designed into online courses. They also appear to appreciate the support provided by DDP student services staff.

Given the different demographic characteristics of these two groups of alumni, it is somewhat surprising that their responses are so similar in certain areas. Both groups have similar plans for additional post-graduate education, and both groups participate in similar types of volunteer activities in their communities. In addition, about the same percentage of on-campus and DDP alumni are employed, and they report having similar job classifications. Nearly two-fifths of DDP alumni reported that their salaries increased after they earned their degrees.

As more and more institutions offer distance courses and programs, faculty and administrators around the country publicly have expressed concern that the courses and programs offered are not of the same quality as those offered on campus, and that the education that distance students are getting is inferior to that received by students who come to campus. The data discussed here provide evidence the distance learning community can use to demonstrate that alumni who complete their degrees through asynchronous distance learning formats evaluate their educational experiences very similarly to alumni who complete their degrees in an on-campus face to face setting at a traditional land-grant university.