Running head: CRITICAL ESSAY: CHANGING THE LANDSCAPE OF LEARNING 1

Critical Essay: Changing the Landscape of Learning: Critical

Factors in Open and Distance Learning

Carlos A. Robles Carrero

April 27, 2017

CRITICAL ESSAY: CHANGING THE LANDSCAPE OF LEARNING 2

Critical Essay

Is lack of motivation, not giving feedback on time, and inconsistency in time scheduling

from the instructor the only factors that will cause students to drop out of an online course? The

authors of the article titled “Changing the Landscaping of Learning: Critical Factors in Open and

Distance Learning” made a significant contribution on the topic of changes that are affecting the

open and distance education field, but in section 2.3.4 “Roles of the Instructor” lacks to mention

other factors that affect retention rates consistently in any type of online courses (hybrid,

blended, or MOOC). The fault in this premise is to express consistently that these mentioned

factors are the only three factors that instructors (from now on known as facilitators) affect

retention in open and distance education. During this essay, we will provide evidence that other

factors like lack of communication from the facilitator, facilitators understanding of online

learner’s culture, lack of faculty training, and digital immigrant as facilitators can affect retention

rates in open and distance education.

Firstly, let’s begin by stating that lack of communication can create havoc in any online

course because it creates frustration in students, produces delays in questions, and spreads

general confusion regarding topics in the course. Oyeleke, Olugbenga, Oluwayemi, & Sunday

(2015) mentioned that providing feedback on time is essential, which is basically true, but the

article lacks to mention that communication, in general, must be a priority in asynchronous

courses (be it blended, hybrid, or online). If a student has a personal situation that needs to be

spoken with the facilitator, and he or she finds it difficult to communicate with the facilitators, it

might cause the student to be frustrated. This increase the chances of augmenting the dropout

rates in the institution. Soto, Briseño & Gomez (2015) mention that in the asynchronous course
CRITICAL ESSAY: CHANGING THE LANDSCAPE OF LEARNING 3

students must have answers in 24 hours to be effective (including weekends). It is ironic to think

what professor Area (2015) from Spain states that online technologies facilitate the

communication between people who are far away, then creating an educational program that is

based on these communication tools just to fail because facilitators are not using them

appropriately. We can clearly state from studies and experience that delays in answering student

questions will cause frustration and tend to result in high dropout rates in courses (Soto et al.,

2015). Adding to this frustration is that today’s online learners tend to have more communication

between themselves using recent technologies (WhatsApp, Facebook, Snapchat, and other social

media networks) and if no facilitator is there to clear any doubts, that doubt might spiral out to

other students, and general confusion might spread throughout. Oyeleke et al. (2015) are correct

when stating that providing feedback is essential for asynchronous courses meaning that when an

online learner submits an assignment, the facilitator needs to comment or provide feedback on it.

They fall short of the reality by avoiding to mention that communication, in general, is essential

because the lack of interaction will create frustration in students, delays in answers to questions,

and general confusion regarding topics in the course.

Another detail that was not mentioned in the article is the lack of instructor understanding

of online learner’s language (culture) which will result in poor course design, creates a certain

amount of apathy from the instructors and a certain amount of ignorance in how to moderate

discussions. When an instructor lacks understanding of the online learner culture they tend to

create courses that to the eye of the online learners are confusing. Bawa (2016) stated that when

individual perceptions of the students and the teachers are dramatically different, a result is an
CRITICAL ESSAY: CHANGING THE LANDSCAPE OF LEARNING 4

overall poorly designed course that is confusing and dissatisfying for the learners. Bawa also

mentions that:

“instructors should be more cognizant of the psychological aspects of student reactions as

revealed in the student responses to discussions. Knowing why students react the way

they do can provide an insight into modulating discussions and other collaborative

avenues to make courses more flexible and learner friendly” (Bawa, 2016).

Adding to this situation is that when students are confused facilitators might believe that students

are just not giving their best which will create a sense of apathy in them. Subsequently, because

of the lack of understanding on why the online learners react that way, the facilitator will feel

challenged because they will fail to understand how to modulate discussions and other

collaborative avenues (Bawa, 2016). This is compounded by the fact that online courses now

days tend to be populated by students from around the world bringing with them their culture to

the course. Some students might be very knowledgeable in the topics and teaching styles

presented by the facilitator but these same teaching styles might be unbearable in other places.

Facilitators should be very careful to create courses that can be culturally neutral, meaning that it

can be understood by people from different countries even though they speak the same language.

In lacking to understand the online learners, the facilitators will create a poorly design course,

might develop apathy from the facilitator and will ignore how to moderate discussions.

Another issue confronted is the lack of effective faculty training in online instruction

which creates negative attitudes and facilitators with lack of drive. Many institutions lack the

initiative to create and maintain effective faculty training focused on educational technologies

due to many factors. Budget cuts, lack of knowledge or even neglect may cause institutions to
CRITICAL ESSAY: CHANGING THE LANDSCAPE OF LEARNING 5

delay or suspend technology training. According to De Jesús Araiza V., M., & Jardines Garza, F.

J. (2012), some teachers can overcome these obstacles and create the transformation to this new

form of learning without confronting major problems at all, but other facilitators may have a

more traditionalist personality that will force them to feel threaten by any technological change

presented in their way of teaching. For this reason, an institution that does not adequately train its

facilitators in the use of the new technologies and are not up to date may run the risk of failing in

their initiatives. Compounding to this scenario, we will see that these facilitators will

demonstrate a lack of drive in creating quality courses. When emphasizing more on development

and deploying online courses rapidly to increase enrollment rather than having a well-trained

faculty body, we sacrifice retention (Young, 2004). Bawa (2011) found in his study that a faulty

course design can cause high attrition rates in online courses. If institutions could have this in

mind when preparing course, they would save money on the long run when students stay in

courses instead of dropping out. What is more outstanding is that educational institutions (from

primary education up to higher education) not structured to learn. It is frustrating to see this

because the very nature of this institution is to teach, but is not capable of learning on its own

even though that is its main purpose (de Jesús Araiza & Jardines Garza, 2012). It is a paradox

that is widespread in our educational system. Institutions must be careful not to neglect faculty

training because they might bring negative attitudes and a lack of drive in the long run.

Lastly, we find facilitators who are digital immigrants which in consequence lead to not

utilizing the latest technologies that are available to help students, will have issues with the

technical “lingo” and in some cases, might lead to think that teaching methods that work in the

past will work for today’s online learners. The term of digital immigrant was first coined by
CRITICAL ESSAY: CHANGING THE LANDSCAPE OF LEARNING 6

Prensky (2001) in which he compares a person who is learning how to use technology with a

person immigrating to another country. These digital immigrants are learning the culture and

language but are not native to it. Most facilitators who are digital immigrants tend to lack the

knowledge on how to use the latest technology and struggle to teach digital natives (Bawa,

2016). As if having this difficulty is not enough, it is intensified when students begin using

technical “lingo” (language) or are used to being up to date in recent technologies which might

create discomfort on the facilitator. This is intensified when studies have shown that digital

immigrants are less likely to self-explore new educational technologies (Bawa, 2016). This in

any away means that they are not fit to offer online courses. It just details their struggle to

incorporate themselves into this new culture. Prensky mentions that some of these types of

facilitators have the incorrect assumption that today’s online learners are no different from what

learners have been in the past and tend to teach according to past methods. (2001). This is like

trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It must surely be avoided at all cost. Having mentioned

these facts, we can state that facilitators who are digital immigrants will avoid utilizing the latest

technologies, have issues with the technical language or lingo, and might teach using methods

that work in the past will greatly influence student retention in any online course.

The article written by Oyeleke et al. (2015) mentioned only three factors that facilitators could

avoid to prevent a high dropout rate in online courses. Lack of motivation, not giving feedback

on time, and inconsistency in time scheduling from the facilitators are not the only factors that

will cause students to drop out of an online course. These assumptions made by the authors are

true and are endorsed with many researchers that have published their findings during recent

years. What it lacks to mention is that there are other proven factors that originate from the
CRITICAL ESSAY: CHANGING THE LANDSCAPE OF LEARNING 7

facilitator that also affects retention in an online asynchronous course. In this essay, we only

mentioned three, to begin with, but it is known that if we continue to research this topic in

published research, it is a sure bet that there are more aspects facilitators can prevent to ensure a

low drop rate from online courses and increase retention. Al-Salman (2011) states the following:

There is no doubt that instructor competencies and qualifications are a major factor in the

success of learning programs. Unlike what has been traditionally required from faculty in

academia, distance learning necessitates that online faculty master a number of roles and

acquire a specific set of competencies.

Understanding that facilitators play a huge role in online retention will require that more

attention be focused on their training. Facilitators are the face of the institution, and by having a

well-trained faculty, we ensure that retention is at least kept in check. We must understand that

there are more issues that affect retention that facilitators must be aware. If institutions maintain

a constant and up to date training program for faculty, factors like lack of communication,

instructor understanding of online learners, and digital immigrant can be avoided, and faculty

can enrich any online course. By having these issues in mind, lower dropout rates is only a one

of the benefits that the institution will reap. It is understood that further research needs to be done

on this topic.
CRITICAL ESSAY: CHANGING THE LANDSCAPE OF LEARNING 8

References

Al-Salman, S. s. (2011). Faculty in Online Learning Programs: Competencies and Barriers to

Success. Journal Of Applied Learning Technology, 1(4), 6-13.

Area, M. (2009). Introducción a la Tecnología Educativa. España. Universidad de La Laguna.

Recuperado de https://manarea.webs.ull.es/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ebookte.pdf

Bawa, P. (2016). Retention in Online Courses. SAGE Open,6(1), 215824401562177.

doi:10.1177/2158244015621777

de Jesús Araiza V., M., & Jardines Garza, F. J. (2012). El Liderazgo Educativo y Las

Competencias Tecnológicas Como Generadores del Cambio. Revista Daena (International

Journal Of Good Conscience), 8(1), 82-87.

Oyeleke, O., Olugbenga, F. A., Oluwayemi, O. E., & Sunday, A. J. (2015). Changing the

landscape of learning: Critical Factors in open and distance learning. Journal of Education

and Practice, 6(13), 53-61.

Presnky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon,9(5). Retrieved April 7,

2017, from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-

%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Soto Rojas, A. D., Briseño Sepúlveda, M. G., & Gomez Zermeño, M. G. (2015). Factores de

deserción de cursos virtuales para formación docente en Costa Rica. Revista Q, 10(19), 1-22.

doi:10.18566/revistaq.v10n19.a03

Young, J. (2004, November 12). When good technology means bad teaching. The Chronicle of

Higher Education, 51(12), A31.

CRITICAL ESSAY: CHANGING THE LANDSCAPE OF LEARNING 9