From: <Guardado por Windows Internet Explorer 8>
Subject: Variables Related to Undergraduate Students Preference for Distance Education Classes
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 15:18:43 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
	type="text/html";
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01CBAC22.AC9D8120"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01CBAC22.AC9D8120
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Location: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer132/pontes_pontes132.html

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Variables Related to Undergraduate Students =
Preference for Distance Education Classes</TITLE>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!--Google Scholar Meta Data-->
<META name=3Dcitation_journal_title=20
content=3D"Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration">
<META name=3Dcitation_authors=20
content=3D"Manuel C F Pontes;Nancy M H Pontes;Cindi Hasit;Phillip A =
Lewis;Karen T Siefring">
<META name=3Dcitation_title=20
content=3D"Variables Related to Undergraduate Students Preference for =
Distance Education Classes">
<META name=3Dcitation_date content=3D5/15/2010>
<META name=3Dcitation_volume content=3D13>
<META name=3Dcitation_issue content=3D2>
<META name=3Dcitation_pdf_url=20
content=3Dhttp://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer123/pontes_pontes13=
2.pdf>
<META name=3Dcitation_fulltext_html_url=20
content=3Dhttp://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer123/pontes_pontes13=
2.html>
<META name=3Ddc.Title=20
content=3D"Variables Related to Undergraduate Students Preference for =
Distance Education Classes">
<META name=3Ddc.Date content=3D5/15/2010>
<META name=3Dcitation_publisher=20
content=3D"University of West Georgia Distance and Distributed Education =
Center"><!--Google Scholar Meta Data--><LINK=20
rel=3Dstylesheet type=3Dtext/css=20
href=3D"http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/onlinejournal.css">
<META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.18999"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <HR>

  <H1>Variables Related to Undergraduate Students Preference for =
Distance=20
  Education Classes</H1>
  <HR>

  <H2>&nbsp;</H2>
  <H2><STRONG>Manuel C. F. Pontes </STRONG><BR><EM><STRONG>Rowan=20
  University</STRONG><BR><A=20
  href=3D"mailto:pontes@rowan.edu">pontes@rowan.edu</A></EM></H2>
  <H2><STRONG>Cindi Hasit</STRONG><BR><EM><STRONG>Rowan=20
  University</STRONG><BR><A=20
  href=3D"mailto:hasit@rowan.edu">hasit@rowan.edu</A></EM></H2>
  <H2><STRONG>Nancy M. H. Pontes</STRONG><BR><EM><STRONG>Rowan=20
  University</STRONG><BR><A=20
  href=3D"mailto:pontesn@rowan.edu">pontesn@rowan.edu</A></EM></H2>
  <H2><STRONG>Phillip A. Lewis</STRONG><BR><EM><STRONG>Rowan=20
  University</STRONG><BR><A=20
  href=3D"mailto:lewisph@rowan.edu">lewisph@rowan.edu</A></EM></H2>
  <H2><STRONG>Karen T. Siefring</STRONG><BR><EM><STRONG>Rowan=20
  University</STRONG><BR><A=20
  href=3D"mailto:siefring@rowan.edu">siefring@rowan.edu</A></EM></H2>
  <H2>&nbsp;</H2>
  <H3><STRONG>Abstract</STRONG></H3>
  <P>The purpose of this research is to identify student-specific=20
  characteristics that are related to students=92 preference for =
distance=20
  education courses. Since distance education courses provide students =
with more=20
  convenient and flexible class schedules, they should be preferred by =
students=20
  who have a greater number of competing demands, such as work and =
family, on=20
  their time. Not surprisingly, previous research has shown that such =
competing=20
  demands are also risk factors for undergraduate degree non-completion. =

  Therefore a major purpose of this research is to examine whether =
students with=20
  risk factors for non-completion of their undergraduate degree prefer =
distance=20
  education courses. Another purpose of this research is to examine =
whether=20
  students with a disability that limits their mobility, and thus =
experience=20
  greater barriers to access their face-to-face class rooms, prefer =
distance=20
  education classes. For this research, the data are from the National=20
  Postsecondary Student Aid Survey (NPSAS) conducted in 2003-04. The =
NPSAS uses=20
  a complex survey design to collect data from a nationally =
representative=20
  sample of about 80,000 postsecondary undergraduate students in the US. =
Results=20
  confirm that students with increasing number of risk factors for=20
  non-completion of their degree show a significantly greater preference =
for=20
  distance education courses. Results also show that students with =
limited=20
  mobility also prefer distance education classes. Taken together, these =
results=20
  suggest that distance education classes are likely to increase =
enrollment and=20
  degree completion rates both for non-traditional undergraduates, who =
have more=20
  risk factors for degree non-completion than traditional =
undergraduates, and=20
  for students with physical disabilities that limit their mobility.</P>
  <H3>Introduction</H3>
  <P>Several research studies have examined whether students prefer =
face-to-face=20
  or distance education classes. In order to quantitatively combine the =
results=20
  from these studies, researchers conducted meta-analyses by extraction =
of an=20
  effect size from each study and estimation of a mean effect size =
across=20
  studies weighted by study sample size as described in the literature =
(Smith=20
  &amp; Glass, 1977). Both the meta-analyses showed that students =
preferred=20
  face-to-face classes to distance education classes (Allen et al., =
2002;=20
  Bernard et al., 2004). Also, both meta-analyses showed significant=20
  heterogeneity across studies; although the majority of studies showed =
that=20
  students preferred face-to-face classes, some studies showed that =
students=20
  preferred distance education classes (Allen et al., 2002; Bernard et =
al.,=20
  2004). This significant heterogeneity indicates that students=92 =
preference for=20
  distance education may be contingent on the characteristics of the =
students=20
  that were sampled in the particular studies (Allen et al., 2002; =
Bernard et=20
  al., 2004). The purpose of this research is to identify student =
variables that=20
  are related to their preference for distance education courses.</P>
  <H3>Student Preferences for Distance Education</H3>
  <P>A necessary condition for distance education is the spatial =
separation of=20
  information source and learners (Lou, Bernard, &amp; Abrami, 2006; =
Parsad=20
  &amp; Lewis, 2008). There are two distinctly different approaches to =
distance=20
  education, 1) Synchronous, and 2) Asynchronous distance education; for =
the=20
  latter, information source and learners are also separated in time =
(Lou et=20
  al., 2006; Parsad &amp; Lewis, 2008). For students, a major advantage =
of=20
  distance learning classes is increased place utility; information is=20
  distributed and thus learning takes place at a more convenient =
location for=20
  the student. Consequently, students who have greater difficulty =
commuting to=20
  the face-to face class location are likely to prefer distance =
education.</P>
  <P>Asynchronous distance education also offers students time utility, =
students=20
  can take classes at times that are convenient to them and are thus =
freed from=20
  having to adjust their non-academic activities in order to enroll in =
classes=20
  at the times that they are offered. Thus students who have external=20
  constraints, (such as full-time employment and/or family) that =
restrict the=20
  times when they can enroll in classes are likely to prefer distance =
education,=20
  especially asynchronous distance education. Indeed, previous research =
shows=20
  that students who worked more hours and experience greater conflict =
between=20
  class time and work commitments were more likely to be enrolled in an =
online=20
  section of a statistics course than in a face-to-face section of the =
same=20
  course (Dutton &amp; Dutton, 2005). Conversely, full-time students, =
for whom=20
  their postsecondary education is their principal activity, are likely =
to be=20
  more willing or able to adjust their schedule to the times when =
classes are=20
  offered and are likely to be more able or willing to relocate so that =
they are=20
  closer to the class location. Thus, they are likely to have a =
relatively=20
  greater preference for face-to-face (lecture) classes.</P>
  <P>Lecture classes, on the other hand, allow in-person face-to-face=20
  interactions with students and instructors. Research shows that =
students=20
  enrolled in lecture classes prefer face-to-face contact with other =
students=20
  and the instructor and feel that they learn better when they have =
face-to-fact=20
  contact with their fellow students (Dutton &amp; Dutton, 2005). In =
summary,=20
  students preferences for distance education versus lecture classes is=20
  influenced by their relative preference for the increased time and =
place=20
  utility of distance education classes versus their preference for =
face-to-face=20
  interpersonal interactions with other students and faculty that are =
possible=20
  in face-to-face classes. In the next few paragraphs, demographic and =
other=20
  variables that may be related to students=92 preference for distance =
education=20
  are discussed.</P>
  <P><EM>Risk Factors for Degree Non-Completion</EM></P>
  <P>There has been much interest in identifying students who are at =
risk for=20
  non-completion of their undergraduate degree and in identifying ways =
to=20
  increase degree completion rates (Horn, Premo, &amp; Malizio, 1995). =
Often,=20
  students who fail to complete their undergraduate degree have families =
to=20
  support; they often work full time while they are enrolled and are =
more likely=20
  to commute long distances either to their school or their jobs (Bean =
&amp;=20
  Metzner, 1985). Seven risk factors have been identified that are =
linked to=20
  undergraduate student attrition. These are 1) delayed enrollment =
(first=20
  enrollment in postsecondary education not in the same year as =
graduation from=20
  high school), 2) part-time enrollment, 3) financial independence =
(either=20
  student is &#8805;24 years of age or is married or has children), 4) =
presence of=20
  dependents other than spouse (children or elders), 5) full-time =
employment, 6)=20
  single parent, and 7) not a high school graduate (Horn et al., 1995). =
Previous=20
  research has shown that these risk-factors are strongly interrelated =
and=20
  students typically have multiple risk factors (Horn et al., 1995). =
Thus=20
  students who delay post-secondary education are more likely to be =
independent,=20
  to work full-time, and to have children (Horn et al., 1995). A major =
purpose=20
  of this study is to examine whether these 7 variables that are =
associated with=20
  greater dropout risk are also associated with greater preference for =
distance=20
  education.<STRONG></STRONG></P>
  <P><EM>Students=92 Family Status</EM></P>
  <P>Research has shown that students who have children are at greater =
risk for=20
  dropout (Horn et al., 1995). Compared to dependent students, (students =
who are=20
  less than 24 years of age and unmarried with no children), independent =

  students, and in particular those who have families (partner and/or =
children)=20
  are likely to have additional responsibilities, and constraints upon =
their=20
  time (Horn et al., 1995; Pontes, 2003). These time constraints are =
likely to=20
  increase the students=92 preference for distance education which =
enables them to=20
  attend class from the convenience of their home and, with asynchronous =

  distance education, at a time of their choice. Students with children =
may have=20
  childcare responsibilities that conflict with the times when =
face-to-face=20
  classes are scheduled. Also students with a family often experience =
time=20
  famine and are likely to have less time to develop friendships and =
socially=20
  interact with other students in their face-to-face classes (Pontes, =
2003).=20
  Students with children also prefer to live in proximity to their =
family,=20
  friends, or other persons in their social network who can assist with=20
  childcare (Pontes, 2003). Furthermore students with a family are less =
likely=20
  to wish to relocate from their residence and thus disrupt their =
family=92s=20
  social ties in order to be near their face-to-face classes. Finally, =
students=20
  with a partner are likely to prefer distance education as it enables =
them to=20
  choose their educational institution without regard to its proximity =
to their=20
  partner=92s job or school. In summary, students with families =
(spouse/partner or=20
  children) are likely to prefer distance education classes. Although =
having a=20
  spouse/partner has not been shown to increase dropout risk, it may =
plausibly=20
  increase preference for distance education.</P>
  <P><EM>Physical Disabilities that Limit Mobility</EM></P>
  <P>One of the principal advantages of distance education courses is =
that=20
  students need not travel to the class location. Internet-based =
distance=20
  education course enable students to take the class from their =
residence.=20
  Consequently students with physical disabilities that restrict their =
mobility=20
  are likely to prefer distance education courses to face-to-face =
courses.=20
  Therefore this research also investigates whether students with =
limited=20
  mobility prefer distance education courses.</P>
  <H3>Methods</H3>
  <P><EM>Data Source and Subjects</EM></P>
  <P>Data from the 2004 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study =
(NPSAS:04):=20
  Undergraduate Data Analysis System (DAS) were used for this research =
(Cominole=20
  et al., 2006). The NPSAS:04 Undergraduate DAS contains data on a =
sample of=20
  about 80,000 postsecondary undergraduates who were enrolled in about =
1,400=20
  postsecondary institutions in the US at any time between July 1, 2003 =
and June=20
  30, 2004. The sample is representative of all postsecondary =
undergraduate=20
  students, enrolled in postsecondary institutions in the 50 states, the =

  District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, who were eligible to =
participate in the=20
  federal financial aid programs in Title IV of the Higher Education =
Act.</P>
  <P><EM>Variables</EM></P>
  <P>Three dependent variables were used to assess students=92 =
preference for=20
  distance education. Two of these preference variables are enrollment=20
  variables: 1) whether the respondent was enrolled in at least one =
distance=20
  education class that year, and 2) whether the respondent was enrolled =
in a=20
  distance education program (all program classes offered through =
distance=20
  education). The third preference variable was an attitudinal variable: =
3)=20
  whether the student was more satisfied with distance education classes =
or=20
  face-to-face classes (this question was only asked of students who =
were=20
  enrolled in at least one distance education class in 2003-04). For the =

  attitudinal variable, respondents indicated one of three responses: a) =
more=20
  satisfied with distance education, b) no difference in satisfaction =
between=20
  the two formats, or c) less satisfied with distance education. A =
distance=20
  education satisfaction index was defined as 100 times the number of =
students=20
  who were more satisfied, divided by the sum of the number of students =
who were=20
  either more satisfied or less satisfied, with distant education. The =
distance=20
  education dissatisfaction index was defined as 100%-distance education =

  satisfaction index.</P>
  <P>The independent variables investigated in this study were for the =
most part=20
  variables that have been shown to increase dropout risk (Horn et al., =
1995).=20
  One of the categorical variables investigated was student=92s =
family/dependent=20
  status. The five categories were 1) dependent student, 2) unmarried/ =
separated=20
  independent student with no dependents, 3) married student with no =
dependents,=20
  4) unmarried/separated student with dependents, and 5) married student =
with=20
  dependents. (Note that an unmarried student may have strong social =
ties to a=20
  partner that are the equivalent of ties between married persons but =
there is=20
  no variable in the dataset that indicates whether an unmarried student =
has a=20
  partner). Other categorical variables investigated were student gender =
(male,=20
  female), attendance intensity in 2003-04 (exclusively full-time, mixed =
full-=20
  and part-time, and exclusively part-time), high school certificate=20
  (high-school degree or certificate or home school, no high-school =
degree or=20
  certificate). In addition other variables examined include student =
age,=20
  delayed post-secondary enrollment (0 years, 1-5 years, 6 or more =
years),=20
  number of hours worked per week (excluding work-study or =
assistantship),=20
  whether the student had limited mobility (Yes, No) and overall index =
of risk=20
  for student dropout (the dropout index of risk is the cumulative =
number of=20
  dropout risk factors for each students and ranged from 0 to 6 in the =
sample).=20
  Previous research showed that women and older students were more =
likely to=20
  enroll in an online section rather than a face-to-face section of a =
statistics=20
  course (Dutton &amp; Dutton, 2005); therefore gender and age were =
included in=20
  the analyses. </P>
  <P><EM>Statistical Analyses</EM></P>
  <P>The estimates reported in this paper were produced using the =
NPSAS:04 Data=20
  Analysis System (DAS) (National Center for Education Statistics, =
2009a). The=20
  DAS is a software application that enables users to specify and =
generate=20
  tables and to estimate covariance analyses from National Center for =
Education=20
  Statistics (NCES) data sets. Standard errors, confidence intervals, =
and=20
  t-statistics are estimated by Balanced Repeated Replication (BRR) (Rao =
&amp;=20
  Shao, 1999). For univariate analyses of categorical variables and =
continuous=20
  variables grouped into mutually exclusive categories, the statistical=20
  significance of two-group differences were estimated by t-statistics =
(National=20
  Center for Education Statistics, 2009b).</P>
  <P>Multivariate analyses were performed by three logistic regressions, =
one for=20
  each of the three dependent variables used to assess preference for =
distance=20
  education: 1) enrolled in one or more distance education classes =
(Yes/No), 2)=20
  enrolled in a distance education program (Yes/No), and 3) satisfaction =
with=20
  distance education classes (More satisfied/Less satisfied). For the=20
  multivariate regression, the predictor variables used were student =
gender=20
  (Male, Female), hours of work per week (continuous variable), marital =
status=20
  (Married, Unmarried), presence of dependents (Yes, No), presence of a=20
  disability that limited the student=92s mobility (Yes, No), and index =
of risk=20
  for dropout (0, 1, 2 or more). Since there was considerable =
inter-correlation=20
  among the various dropout risk factors, the overall index of risk was =
used for=20
  multivariate analyses along with marital status and presence of =
dependents.=20
  The other individual risk factors were not included in the =
multivariate model.=20
  Age was excluded from the regression models, since age was highly =
correlated=20
  with marital status, presence of dependents, and index of risk. More=20
  information about the use of the DAS with data from NPSAS:04, is =
available=20
  elsewhere (Cominole et al., 2006; National Center for Education =
Statistics,=20
  2009a).</P>
  <H3>Results</H3>
  <P><STRONG>UNIVARIATE ANALYSES</STRONG></P>
  <P><EM>All students</EM></P>
  <P>Estimates indicate that 15.5% of all postsecondary undergraduate =
students=20
  in the US were enrolled in at least one distance education class in =
2003-04=20
  (Table 1). Also, 5.1% of all students in the US were enrolled in a =
distance=20
  education program (all classes in program offered through distance =
education)=20
  in 2003-04 (Table 1). Of the students who were enrolled in at least =
one=20
  distance education class, the distance education satisfaction index =
(46.1%),=20
  was significantly less than the dissatisfaction index, (53.9%), =
p&lt;0.01=20
  (Table 1). This result shows that in general, students were =
significantly less=20
  satisfied with the distance education format.</P>
  <P><EM>Index of risk for degree non-completion</EM></P>
  <P>Results clearly showed that students with higher index of risk had =
a=20
  significantly greater preference for distance education classes. The=20
  percentage of students who enrolled in at least one distance education =
class=20
  was significantly less for students with dropout index of risk=3D0 =
(9.8%) than=20
  for students with index of risk=3D1 (13.7%) or index of risk=3D2 =
(16.9%) or index=20
  of risk=3D3 (19.9%) or index of risk &#8805;4 (21.9%) (Table 1). Also, =
the percentage=20
  of students who were enrolled in a distance education program was=20
  significantly less for students with index of risk=3D0 (2.6%) than for =
students=20
  with index of risk=3D1 (3.9%) or index of risk=3D2 (5.5%) or index of =
risk=3D3=20
  (7.6%) or index of risk &#8805;4 (7.9%). For students with dropout =
index of risk &#8805;4,=20
  the distance education satisfaction index (53.6%) was significantly =
greater=20
  than the distance education dissatisfaction index (46.4%), p&lt;0.01 =
(Table=20
  1). Finally, the distance education satisfaction index is =
significantly=20
  smaller for students with index of risk=3D0 (37.5%) than for students =
was index=20
  of risk=3D2 (45.2%) or index of risk=3D3 (49.5%) or index of =
risk&#8805;4 (53.6%) (Table=20
  1).</P>
  <P><EM>Hours worked per week</EM></P>
  <P>Results indicate that the number of hours worked per week was =
positively=20
  related to preference for distance education classes. The percentage =
of=20
  students who signed up for at least one distance education class was=20
  significantly less for students who worked 0-10 hours per week (11.8%) =
than=20
  for students who worked 11-20 hours per week (13.9%) or who worked =
21-30 hours=20
  per week (15.2%) or who worked 31-40 hours per week (19.7%) or who =
worked 41=20
  or more hours per week (21.8%). Enrollment in a distance education =
program was=20
  significantly less for students who worked 0-10 hours per week (3.5%) =
than for=20
  students who worked 11-20 hours per week (3.9%) or who worked 21-30 =
hours per=20
  week (4.4%) or who worked 21-40 hours per week (7.0%) or who worked 41 =
or more=20
  hours per week (9.5%). For students who worked 41 or more hours per =
week, the=20
  distance education satisfaction index (59.4%) was significantly =
greater than=20
  the distance education dissatisfaction index (40.6%), p&lt;0.01 (Table =
1).=20
  Finally, the distance education satisfaction index is significantly =
smaller=20
  for students who work 0-10 hours per week (42.7%) than for students =
who work=20
  31-40 hours per week (50.3%) or who work 41 or more hours per week =
(59.4%)=20
  (Table 1).</P>
  <P><EM>Marital/Family Status</EM></P>
  <P>Our results show that independent students, particularly those who =
were=20
  married and had children, showed a significantly greater preference =
for=20
  distance education classes than dependent students. The percentage of =
students=20
  who enrolled in at least one distance education class was =
significantly less=20
  for dependent students (11.1%) than for independent single students =
with no=20
  dependents (15.6%) or for married students with no dependents (19.6%) =
or for=20
  single students with dependents (20.5%) or for married students with=20
  dependents (25.1%) (Table 2). Enrollment in a distance education =
program was=20
  significantly less for dependent students (3.0%) than for independent =
single=20
  students with no dependents (5.2%) or for married students with no =
dependents=20
  (7.4%) or for single students with dependents (7.1%) or for married =
students=20
  with dependents (9.6%). For single students with dependents, the =
distance=20
  education satisfaction index (53.6%) was significantly greater than =
the=20
  distance education dissatisfaction index (46.4%), p&lt;0.01 (Table 2). =

  Finally, the distance education satisfaction index is significantly =
smaller=20
  for dependent students (39.7%) than for independent single students =
with no=20
  dependents (45.5%), or for single students with dependents (53.6%) or =
for=20
  married students with dependents (51.9%) (Table 2). It should be noted =
that=20
  single students with dependents have greater dropout risk than married =

  students with dependents (Horn et al., 1995). The results of this =
research=20
  indicate, however, that single students with dependents are =
significantly less=20
  likely than married students with dependents to enroll in distance =
education=20
  classes (20.5% versus married=3D25.1%, p&lt;0.01), and in distance =
education=20
  programs (single=3D7.1% versus married=3D9.6%, p&lt;0.01).</P>
  <P><EM>Gender</EM></P>
  <P>Results show that the percentage of students who enrolled in at =
least one=20
  distance education class was significantly less for men (13.6%) than =
for women=20
  (17.0%) (Table 2). Enrollment in a distance education program was also =

  significantly less for men (4.5%) than for women (5.5%). The distance=20
  education satisfaction index for men (44.6%) was not significantly =
different=20
  from that for women (47.1%) (Table 2).</P>
  <P><EM>Attendance Intensity</EM></P>
  <P>Results show that the percentage of students who enrolled in at =
least one=20
  distance education class was significantly less for students who =
enrolled=20
  exclusively full-time (12.7%) than for students who enrolled mixed =
full- and=20
  part-time (17.3%), or for students who enrolled exclusively part-time =
(18.7%)=20
  (Table 2). Enrollment in a distance education program was =
significantly less=20
  for students who enrolled exclusively full-time (3.9%) than for =
students who=20
  enrolled mixed full- and part-time (4.7%), or for students who =
enrolled=20
  exclusively part-time (7.0%). The distance education satisfaction =
index for=20
  students who enrolled exclusively full-time (43.2%) was significantly =
less=20
  than that for students who enrolled exclusively part-time (51.5%) =
(Table=20
  2).</P>
  <P><EM>High-School Degree or Certificate</EM></P>
  <P>Results show that the percentage of students who enrolled in at =
least one=20
  distance education class was significantly greater for students =
without a high=20
  school degree or certificate (17.8%) than for students with a high =
school=20
  degree or certificate (15.3%). Enrollment in a distance education =
program was=20
  significantly greater for students without a high school degree or =
certificate=20
  (6.3%) than for students with a high school degree or certificate =
(5.0%). The=20
  distance education satisfaction index for students with a high school =
degree=20
  or certificate (45.7%) was not significantly different from that for =
students=20
  without a high school degree or certificate (50.7%) (Table 2).</P>
  <P><EM>Delayed Post-Secondary Enrollment</EM></P>
  <P>Results show that the percentage of students who enrolled in at =
least one=20
  distance education class was significantly less for students who did =
not delay=20
  post-secondary enrollment (enrolled immediately after high school =
graduation)=20
  (13.9%) than for those who delayed post-secondary enrollment by 1-5 =
years=20
  (18.3%) or for those who delayed post-secondary enrollment by 6 or =
more years=20
  (20.1%) (Table 3). Enrollment in a distance education program was=20
  significantly less for students who did not delay post-secondary =
enrollment=20
  (4.4%) than for those who delayed post-secondary education by 1-5 =
years (6.7%)=20
  or for those who delayed post-secondary enrollment by 6 or more years =
(7.5%).=20
  The distance education satisfaction index for students who did not =
delay=20
  post-secondary enrollment (43.5%) was significantly less than that for =

  students who delayed post-secondary enrollment by 6 or more years =
(52.5%)=20
  (Table 3).</P>
  <P><EM>Student Age</EM></P>
  <P>Results show that the percentage of students who enrolled in at =
least one=20
  distance education class was significantly less for undergraduate =
students=20
  between 15-23 years of age (11.7%) than for those students between =
24-30 years=20
  (18.6%), or for those students between 31-40 years (23.4%) or for =
those=20
  students who were 41 or more years of age (21.6%) (Table 3). =
Enrollment in a=20
  distance education program was significantly less for undergraduate =
students=20
  between 15-23 years of age (3.2%) than for those students between =
24-30 years=20
  (6.6%), or for those students between 31-40 years (8.5%) or for those =
students=20
  who were 41 or more years of age (8.5%). The distance education =
satisfaction=20
  index for students between 31-40 years of age (53.9%) was =
significantly=20
  greater than the distance education dissatisfaction index (46.1%), =
p&lt;0.01.=20
  The distance education satisfaction index was significantly less for =
students=20
  15-23 years (40.3%) than for students 24-30 years (48.7%) or for =
students=20
  31-40 years (53.9%) or for students who were 41 years or older (49.9%) =
(Table=20
  3).</P>
  <P><EM>Disability that limits mobility</EM></P>
  <P>Results show that the percentage of students who enrolled in at =
least one=20
  distance education class was significantly greater for students who =
had a=20
  disability that limited their mobility (20.7%) than for those who did =
not have=20
  such a disability (15.3%) (Table 3). Enrollment in a distance =
education=20
  program was significantly greater for students who had limited =
mobility (6.7%)=20
  than for students who did not have limited mobility (5. 0%). The =
distance=20
  education satisfaction index for students who had limited mobility =
(54.4%) was=20
  significantly greater than that for students who did not have limited =
mobility=20
  (45.6%) (Table 3).</P>
  <P><EM>Students enrolled in a distance education program</EM></P>
  <P>Students enrolled in a distance education program accounted for =
about a=20
  third (32.9%) of all students who took at least one distance education =
class=20
  in 2003-04. For students enrolled in a distance education program, the =

  distance education satisfaction index (62.8%) was significantly =
greater than=20
  the distance education dissatisfaction index (37.2%), p&lt;0.01 (Table =
3). Of=20
  all students who took a distance education class, those who were =
enrolled in a=20
  distance education program had a significantly higher index of =
distance=20
  education satisfaction (62.6%) than those students who were not =
enrolled in a=20
  distance education program (37.5%), p&lt;0.01 (Table 3).</P>
  <P><STRONG>MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES</STRONG></P>
  <P><EM>Effects on distance education enrollment: at least one =
class</EM></P>
  <P>Results showed that hours worked per week (OR=3D1.01, t=3D13.74), =
dependents=20
  living in household (OR=3D1.33, t=3D7.47), and disability that limits =
mobility=20
  (OR=3D1.27, t=3D3.93), had a significant positive association with =
enrollment in a=20
  distance education class (Table 4). Students with dropout index of =
risk=3D1=20
  (OR=3D1.33, t=3D6.04), or dropout index of risk &#8805;2 (OR=3D1.46, =
t=3D8.85) were also=20
  more likely to enroll in a distance education class than students with =
dropout=20
  index of risk=3D0. Married students (OR=3D1.34, t=3D7.77), and women =
(OR=3D1.23,=20
  t=3D6.11) were more likely to enroll in a distance education class =
than=20
  unmarried students, and men, respectively.</P>
  <P><EM>Effects on distance education enrollment: entire =
program</EM></P>
  <P>Results showed that hours worked per week (OR=3D1.02, t=3D9.86), =
and dependents=20
  living in household (OR=3D1.33, t=3D5.17), had a significant positive =
association=20
  with enrollment in a distance education program (Table 4). Students =
with=20
  dropout index of risk=3D1 (OR=3D1.32, t=3D3.75), or dropout index of =
risk &#8805;2=20
  (OR=3D1.63, t=3D6.44), were more likely to enroll in a distance =
education program=20
  than students with dropout index of risk=3D0. Married students =
(OR=3D1.47,=20
  t=3D6.32), and women (OR=3D1.17, t=3D3.13) were more likely to enroll =
in a distance=20
  education program than unmarried students and men, respectively.</P>
  <P><EM>Effects on satisfaction with distance education =
classes</EM></P>
  <P>Results showed that hours worked per week (OR=3D1.01, t=3D4.89), =
dependents=20
  living in household (OR=3D1.26, t=3D2.61), and disability that limits =
mobility=20
  (OR=3D1.34, t=3D2.41), were significantly related to increased =
satisfaction with=20
  distance education courses (Table 4). Students with dropout index of =
risk &#8805;2=20
  were more satisfied with distance education courses than students with =
dropout=20
  index of risk=3D0 (OR=3D1.33, t=3D3.04). Married students (OR=3D0.95, =
t=3D-0.62), and=20
  women (OR=3D1.08, t=3D0.96) were not more satisfied with distance =
education than=20
  unmarried students or men, respectively.=20
  <H3>Conclusion</H3>
  <P>The results of this research, obtained with a large nationally=20
  representative US sample, show that a significant majority of =
post-secondary=20
  undergraduate students were less satisfied with distance education =
classes=20
  (Table 1). Thus the results of this research confirm the results of =
two recent=20
  meta-analyses that indicate that students had a significantly lesser=20
  preference for distance education than for face-to-face classes (Allen =
et al.,=20
  2002; Bernard et al., 2004). Both of these meta-analytic studies, =
however,=20
  showed significant heterogeneity in effect sizes across studies which=20
  indicates that there are moderator variables that influence the =
effects of=20
  education format on student satisfaction (Allen et al., 2002; Bernard =
et al.,=20
  2004).</P>
  <P>The results of this study identify some important student =
characteristics=20
  that moderate (influence) the effects of education format on =
satisfaction=20
  ratings and suggest how the composition of a convenience sample of =
distance=20
  education students could influence whether the students in the sample =
are=20
  either more satisfied or less satisfied with distance education. Thus, =
if a=20
  convenience sample of distance education students consists of students =
who are=20
  <U>enrolled in a distance education program</U> then the results of =
our study=20
  suggest that the students are likely to be more satisfied with =
distance=20
  education classes than with face-to-face classes (Table 3). =
Conversely, if a=20
  convenience sample of distance education students consists of students =
who are=20
  <U>not enrolled in a distance education program</U> then the results =
of this=20
  study suggest that the students are likely to be less satisfied with =
distance=20
  education classes than with face-to-face classes (Table 3).</P>
  <P>The results of this study also have implications for student =
evaluations of=20
  faculty that are commonly used for tenure and promotion decisions. The =
student=20
  evaluations of the faculty in distance education courses are likely to =
be=20
  influenced by the characteristics of the students in their classes. =
Faculty=20
  who teach distance education classes in which the majority of students =
prefer=20
  face to face classes are likely to receive less favorable evaluations =
than=20
  faculty who teach distance education classes in which the majority of =
students=20
  prefer the distance education format. Comparisons of student =
evaluations of=20
  faculty who teach distance education classes should ideally be =
adjusted for=20
  students=92 preference for distance education format</P>
  <P>The results of this study clearly show that post-secondary students =
with=20
  higher index of dropout risk are more likely to prefer distance =
education=20
  (more likely to enroll in distance education classes and programs, and =
likely=20
  to be more satisfied with distance education). As shown in Table 1, =
the=20
  percentage of students with 4-6 dropout risk factors who enrolled in =
one or=20
  more distance education classes in 2003-04 (21.9%) is more than twice =
the=20
  percentage of students with zero dropout risk factors who enrolled in =
distance=20
  education classes in 2003-04 (9.8%). Also, results showed a monotonic =
increase=20
  in distance education enrollment and satisfaction with increasing risk =
index=20
  (Table 1). An examination of distance education enrollment was also =
performed=20
  for each of the individual risk factors (Tables 1 -3). Results showed =
that for=20
  each of the risk factors, persons with the risk factor were =
significantly more=20
  likely to enroll in distance education classes than persons without =
the risk=20
  factor (Tables 1-3). Multivariate analyses with logistic regression =
also=20
  confirmed that students with a higher index of risk were more likely =
to enroll=20
  in distance education courses or programs and were more satisfied with =

  distance education courses (Table 4). The increased preference for =
distance=20
  education observed in students who are at greater dropout risk =
suggests that=20
  distance education classes may be important to increase the retention =
of=20
  high-risk post secondary students (Barefoot, 2004). Also distance =
education=20
  programs may expand the market for higher education by attracting more =

  non-traditional students who are unsure whether their work and family=20
  obligations will allow them to enroll in face-to-face classes at the =
fixed=20
  times and locations when they are offered.</P>
  <P>Although most of the variables that predict dropout risk are =
related to=20
  increased distance education enrollment, there are some variables such =
as=20
  gender and marital status that are not risk factors for dropout (Horn =
et al.,=20
  1995) but nevertheless are significantly related to distance education =

  enrollment (Tables 2 and 4). Our results show that enrollment in =
distance=20
  education classes or in distance education programs is significantly =
greater=20
  for women than for men and significantly greater for married students =
than for=20
  unmarried independent students (Tables 2 and 4). Previous research =
shows that=20
  single students with dependents are at greater risk for dropout than =
married=20
  students with dependents (Horn et al., 1995). The results of this =
study,=20
  however, show that single students with dependents are significantly =
less=20
  likely to enroll in distance education classes or programs than =
married=20
  students with dependents (Table 2).</P>
  <P>Previous research has shown that online classes generally have much =
higher=20
  dropout rates (Frankola, 2001; Oblender, 2002; Patterson &amp; =
McFadden,=20
  2009). The results of this study suggest that one reason why online =
courses=20
  have higher dropout rates is that they enroll a greater proportion of =
students=20
  who are at greater risk for dropout. For those online courses that=20
  predominantly enroll dependent students with low dropout risk, the =
results of=20
  this study suggest that these classes may have higher dropout rates =
than=20
  face-to-face classes because the majority of students enrolled in the =
online=20
  class students are likely to prefer face-to-face classes. Future =
research=20
  should compare the dropout rates of distance education classes versus=20
  face-to-face classes by stratifying on dropout index of risk. It is =
plausible=20
  that for high risk students, their dropout rates from distance =
education=20
  classes may not be higher, and may even be lower, than their dropout =
rates=20
  from face-to-face lecture classes.</P>
  <P>Finally, both univariate and multivariate analyses show that =
distance=20
  education is preferred by students who have a disability that limits =
their=20
  mobility. Higher education institutions are required to provide access =
to=20
  students with disabilities (Milani, 1996). The offer of distance =
education=20
  classes and programs should make higher education more accessible to =
persons=20
  with disabilities and possibly increase enrollment and graduation =
rates for=20
  such students.</P>Table 1: Distance Education: Enrollment and =
Satisfaction=20
  Relative to Face-to-Face Classes <BR><BR>
  <TABLE border=3D1 cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop colSpan=3D2>
        <P align=3Dcenter>Distance Education Enrollment - % (SE) =
</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>Distance Education </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Group </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>At least one course </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>Entire program </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>Satisfaction Index - % (SE) </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>All students </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>All </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>15.5 (0.29) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>5.1 (0.17) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>46.1 (0.83) </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Index of Risk for Non- Completion of Degree </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Zero (Ref) <BR>One <BR>Two <BR>Three <BR>Four - Six </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>9.8 (0.25) <BR>13.7 (0.48)** <BR>16.9 (0.52)** <BR>19.9 =
(0.66)**=20
        <BR>21.9 (0.60)** </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>2.6 (0.14) <BR>3.9 (0.25)** <BR>5.5 (0.35)** <BR>7.6 (0.38)** =
<BR>7.9=20
        (0.42)** </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>37.5 (1.53) <BR>41.5 (1.74) <BR>45.2 (2.13)* <BR>49.5 =
(2.31)**=20
        <BR>53.6 (1.44)<STRONG> =86=86</STRONG>** </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Hours Worked Per Week </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>0 =96 10 (Ref) <BR>11 =96 20 <BR>21 - 30 <BR>31 =96 40 <BR>41 =
or more=20
      </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>11.8 (0.29) <BR>13.9 (0.40)** <BR>15.2 (0.51)** <BR>19.7 =
(0.60)**=20
        <BR>21.8 (0.71)** </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>3.5 (0.16) <BR>3.9 (0.25)** <BR>4.4 (0.31)** <BR>7.0 (0.42)** =
<BR>9.5=20
        (0.50)** </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>42.7 (1.26) <BR>40.7 (2.27) <BR>38.9 (1.90) <BR>50.3 (1.48)** =

        <BR>59.4 (2.26)<STRONG> =86=86</STRONG>** =
</P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
  <P>%=3Dpercentage of all students in group, SE=3Dstandard error of =
estimate,=20
  Entire program=3Dall classes in program offered via distance =
education, Distance=20
  education satisfaction &gt; Distance education dissatisfaction: =
=86=3Dp&lt;0.05,=20
  =86=86=3Dp&lt;0.01, Two-group contrast with Ref (reference group): =
*=3Dp&lt;0.05,=20
  =
**=3Dp&lt;0.01.</P><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><B=
R><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>Table=20
  2: Distance Education: Enrollment and Satisfaction Relative to =
Face-to-Face=20
  Classes <BR><BR>
  <TABLE border=3D1 cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop colSpan=3D2>
        <P>Distance Education Enrollment - % (SE) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>Distance Education </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Group </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>At least one course </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>Entire program </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>Satisfaction Index - % (SE) </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Dependent students <BR>Independent students </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Dependent students (Ref) <BR>Single =96 no dependents =
<BR>Married =96 no=20
        dependents <BR>Single =96 dependents <BR>Married =96 dependents =
</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>11.1 (0.24) <BR>15.6 (0.50)** <BR>19.6 (0.78)** <BR>20.5 =
(0.69)**=20
        <BR>25.1 (0.79)** </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>3.0 (0.14) <BR>5.2 (0.33)** <BR>7.4 (0.50)** <BR>7.1 (0.49)** =
<BR>9.6=20
        (0.49)** </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>39.7 (1.18) <BR>45.4 (2.13)* <BR>45.5 (3.28) <BR>53.6 =
(1.84)<STRONG>=20
        =86=86</STRONG>** <BR>51.9 (1.94) ** </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Gender </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Men (Ref) <BR>Women </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>13.6 (0.31) <BR>17.0 (0.40)** </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>4.5 (0.18) <BR>5.5 (0.23)** </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>44.6 (1.32) <BR>47.1 (1.20) </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Attendance Intensity </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Exclusively full-time (Ref) <BR>Mixed full- and part-time=20
        <BR>Exclusively part-time </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>12.7 (0.32) <BR>17.3 (0.46)** <BR>18.7 (0.53)** </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>3.9 (0.20) <BR>4.7 (0.22)** <BR>7.0 (0.30)** </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>43.2 (1.15) <BR>40.4 (1.60) <BR>51.5 (1.74)** </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>High School Degree/Certificate </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Yes <BR>No </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>15.3 (0.30) <BR>17.8 (0.71)** </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>5.0 (0.18) <BR>6.3 (0.49)* </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>45.7 (0.80) <BR>50.7 (2.66) </P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
  <P>Dependent=3Ddependent students, Independent=3DIndependent students, =

  %=3Dpercentage of students in group, SE=3Dstandard error.</P>Table 3: =
Distance=20
  Education: Enrollment and Satisfaction Relative to Face-to-Face =
Classes=20
  <BR><BR>
  <TABLE border=3D1 cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop colSpan=3D2>
        <P align=3Dcenter>Distance Education Enrollment - % (SE) =
</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>Distance Education </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>At least one course </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>Entire program </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>Satisfaction Index - % (SE) </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Delayed Post-Secondary Enrollment </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>0 years (Ref) <BR>1-5 years <BR>&nbsp;6 or more years =
</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>13.9 (0.30) <BR>18.3 (0.62)** <BR>20.1 (0.74)** </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>4.4 (0.16) <BR>6.7 (0.38)** <BR>7.5 (0.46)** </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>43.5 (1.05) <BR>46.8 (1.88) <BR>52.5 (2.09)** </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Student Age </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>15 =96 23 years (Ref) <BR>24 =96 30 years <BR>31 =96 40 years =
<BR>41 or=20
        more years </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>11.7 (0.26) <BR>18.6 (0.48)** <BR>23.4 (0.73)** <BR>21.6 =
(0.76)**=20
      </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>3.2 (0.14) <BR>6.6 (0.35)** <BR>8.5 (0.48)** <BR>8.5 (0.50)** =
</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>40.3 (1.11) <BR>48.7 (1.91)** <BR>53.9 (1.80)<STRONG> =
=86=86</STRONG>**=20
        <BR>49.9 (2.18) ** </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Disability that limits physical activities </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>No (Ref) <BR>Yes </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>15.3 (0.29) <BR>20.7 (0.98)** </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>5.0 (0.17) <BR>6.7 (0.71)* </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>45.6 (0.83) <BR>54.4 (3.02)<STRONG> =86</STRONG>** =
</P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Enrolled in distance education program </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>No (Ref) <BR>Yes </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>11.0 (0.29) <BR>100 </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>0 <BR>100</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>37.5 (1.02) <BR>62.8 (1.16)<STRONG> =86=86</STRONG>**=20
  </P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
  <P>%=3Dpercentage of students in group, SE=3Dstandard=20
  error.</P><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>Table 4: Multivariate =
Effects=20
  (Logistic Regression) on Distance Education (DE) Enrollment and =
Satisfaction=20
  <BR><BR>
  <TABLE border=3D1 cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop colSpan=3D2>
        <P align=3Dcenter>Enrollment in DE Course </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop colSpan=3D2>
        <P align=3Dcenter>Enrollment in DE Program </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop colSpan=3D2>
        <P align=3Dcenter>Satisfaction with DE Course </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>Variables </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>OR (95% CI) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>t </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>OR (95% CI) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>t </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>OR (95% CI) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>t </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop colSpan=3D2>
        <P>Hours worked per week </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.01 (1.01 =96 1.01) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>13.74 </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.02 (1.01 =96 1.02) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>9.86 </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.01 (1.01 =96 1.01) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>4.89 </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        =
<P>Dependents:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
        </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Yes </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.33 (1.23 =96 1.43) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>7.47 </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.33 (1.19 =96 1.48) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>5.17 </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.26 (1.06 =96 1.50) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>2.61 </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        =
<P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs=
p;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
        &nbsp; </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>No R </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>&nbsp;</P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Index of Risk: </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>One </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.33 (1.21 =96 1.46) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>6.04 </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.32 (1.14 =96 1.54) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>3.75 </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.13 (0.92 =96 1.40) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>1.19 </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Two </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.46 (1.34 =96 1.59) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>8.85 </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.63 (1.40 =96 1.90) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>6.44 </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.33 (1.10 =96 1.60) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>3.04 </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Zero R </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>&nbsp;</P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Disability that </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Yes </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.27 (1.12 =96 1.43) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>3.93 </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.16 (0.94 =96 1.43) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.38 </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.34 (1.05 =96 1.71) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>2.41 </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>limits mobility </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>No R </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>&nbsp;</P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Marital Status:</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Married </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.34 (1.24 =96 1.45) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>7.77 </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.47 (1.30 =96 1.66) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>6.32 </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>0.95 (0.79 =96 1.13) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>- 0.62 </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop colSpan=3D2>
        <P>Unmarried R </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>&nbsp;</P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Gender: </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Female </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.23 (1.15 =96 1.31) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>6.11 </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.17 (1.06 =96 1.29) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>3.13 </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>1.08 (0.92 =96 1.27) </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>0.96 </P></TD></TR>
    <TR>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>Male R </P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dcenter>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P>&nbsp;</P></TD>
      <TD vAlign=3Dtop>
        <P align=3Dright>&nbsp;</P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
  <P>DE=3Ddistance education, OR=3Dodds ratio, 95% CI=3D95% confidence =
interval,=20
  t=3Dt-statistic, R=3Dreference category (for categorical variables),=20
  Dependents=3Dstudent has dependents</P>
  <H3>References</H3>
  <HR>

  <P>Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., &amp; Mabry, E. (2002), =
"Comparing=20
  Student Satisfaction With Distance Education to Traditional Classrooms =
in=20
  Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis", <EM>American Journal of Distance=20
  Education, 16</EM> (2), 83 - 97.<BR><BR>Barefoot, B. O. (2004), =
"Higher=20
  education's revolving door: confronting the problem of student drop =
out in US=20
  colleges and universities", <EM>Open Learning: The Journal of Open and =

  Distance Learning, 19</EM> (1), 9 - 18.<BR><BR>Bean, J. P., &amp; =
Metzner, B.=20
  S. (1985), "A Conceptual Model of Nontraditional Undergraduate Student =

  Attrition", <EM>Review of Educational Research, 55</EM> (4),=20
  485-540.<BR><BR>Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, =
E., Wade,=20
  A., Wozney, L., et al. (2004), "How Does Distance Education Compare =
With=20
  Classroom Instruction? A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature",=20
  <EM>Review of Educational Research, 74</EM> (3), =
379-439.<BR><BR>Cominole, M.,=20
  Siegel, P., Dudley, K., Roe, D., Gilligan, T., &amp; Griffith, J. =
(2006). 2004=20
  National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:04): Full-Scale =
Methodology=20
  Report. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences: =
NCES=20
  2006-180 Technical Report.<BR><BR>Dutton, J., &amp; Dutton, M. (2005), =

  "Characteristics and Performance of Students in an Online Section of =
Business=20
  Statistics", <EM>Journal of Statistics Education, 13</EM> (5), online =
from <A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v13n3/dutton.html">http://=
www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v13n3/dutton.html</A><BR><BR>Frankola,=20
  K. (2001), "Why online learners drop out", <EM>Workforce, 80</EM> =
(10),=20
  53-59.<BR><BR>Horn, L. J., Premo, M. D., &amp; Malizio, A. G. (1995). =
Profile=20
  of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Education Institutions: =
1992=9693. With=20
  an Essay on Undergraduates at Risk. U.S. Department of Education, =
Office of=20
  Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education=20
  Statistics.<BR><BR>Lou, Y., Bernard, R., &amp; Abrami, P. (2006), =
"Media and=20
  Pedagogy in Undergraduate Distance Education: A Theory-Based =
Meta-Analysis of=20
  Empirical Literature", <EM>Educational Technology Research and =
Development,=20
  54</EM> (2), 141-76.<BR><BR>Milani, A. A. (1996), "Disabled Students =
in Higher=20
  Education: Administrative and Judicial Enforcement of Disability Law", =

  <EM>Journal of College and University Law, 22</EM> (4 ),=20
  989-1043.<BR><BR>National Center for Education Statistics. (2009a).=20
  <EM>DAS:&nbsp; Data Analysis System</EM>. Retrieved June 22, 2009, =
from=20
  http://nces.ed.gov/das/<BR><BR>National Center for Education =
Statistics.=20
  (2009b). <EM>t-test tool</EM>. Retrieved September 22, 2009, from=20
  http://nces.ed.gov/dasol/help/ttest.asp<BR><BR>Oblender, T. (2002), "A =
hybrid=20
  course model: One solution to the high online drop-out rate ", =
<EM>Learning=20
  and Leading with Technology, 29</EM> (6), 42=9646.<BR><BR>Parsad, B., =
&amp;=20
  Lewis, L. (2008). Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary=20
  Institutions: 2006=9607 Washington, DC. National Center for Education=20
  Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of =
Education NCES=20
  2009=96044.<BR><BR>Patterson, B., &amp; McFadden, C. (2009), =
"Attrition in=20
  Online and Campus Degree Programs", <EM>Online Journal of Distance =
Learning=20
  Administration, 12</EM> (2), online from <A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer122/patterson112.html=
">http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer122/patterson112.html</A><B=
R><BR>Pontes,=20
  N. M. H. (2003). <EM>If I cry less I can fit in more play dates: =
Mothers'=20
  experiences with time famine.</EM> Submitted in partial fulfillment of =
the=20
  requirements for the D.N.Sc. degree, School of Nursing, Columbia =
University,=20
  New York.<BR><BR>Rao, J. N. K., &amp; Shao, J. (1999), "Modified =
balanced=20
  repeated replication for complex survey data", <EM>Biometrika, 86</EM> =
(2),=20
  403-15.<BR><BR>Smith, M. L., &amp; Glass, G. V. (1977), "Meta-analysis =
of=20
  psychotherapy outcome studies", <EM>Am Psychol, 32</EM> (9), =
752-60.</P>
  <HR>

  <H4><I>Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume =
XIII, Number=20
  II, Summer 2010<BR></I><I>University of West Georgia, Distance =
Education=20
  Center<BR></I><A href=3D"http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla">Back =
to the=20
  Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration=20
Contents</A></H4></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01CBAC22.AC9D8120
Content-Type: text/css;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Location: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/onlinejournal.css

H1 {
	FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman", Times, serif; COLOR: #000000; =
FONT-SIZE: 24px
}
H2 {
	FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman", Times, serif; =
COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 14px
}
H3 {
	FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman", Times, serif; COLOR: #000000; =
FONT-SIZE: 14px
}
H4 {
	FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman", Times, serif; =
COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal
}
H5 {
	FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman", Times, serif; =
COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal
}
BODY {
	FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman", Times, serif; =
COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal
}
TABLE {
	FONT-SIZE: 98%
}
.tabletop {
	BORDER-BOTTOM: black 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: black 1px solid
}
.tabletoponly {
	BORDER-TOP: black 1px solid
}
.tablebottom {
	BORDER-BOTTOM: black 1px solid
}

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01CBAC22.AC9D8120--
