Delicate Engagement: The Lived Experience of Community College Students Enrolled in High-Risk Online Courses

219

Community College ReviewVolume 36 Number 3January 2009 219-238© 2009 North Carolina

State University10.1177/0091552108327187http://ccreview.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

Delicate Engagement

The Lived Experience of CommunityCollege Students Enrolled in High-RiskOnline Courses

Cynthia S. BambaraLord Fairfax Community College, Middletown, VAClifford P. HarbourUniversity of Wyoming, LaramieTimothy Gray DaviesSusan AtheyColorado State University, Fort Collins

This article reports the findings of a phenomenological study that examined thelived experience of community college students enrolled in high-risk onlinecourses (HRCs) at a community college in theAmerican Southeast. HRCs weredefined as college courses with withdrawal or failure rates of 30% or more. In-depth interviews were conducted with 13 students enrolled in four differentHRCs. Isolation, academic challenge, ownership, and acquiescence emergedas structural themes that framed the experience of participants. These struc-tural themes intermingled in discrete ways that led to the survival or surrenderof these HRC participants and formed the essence of the phenomenon that isreferred to as delicate engagement, which speaks to the vulnerable threads ofacademic and social involvement that permeated the HRC student experience.

Keywords: online courses, student success, phenomenology

Nationwide, the number of students enrolled in online courses has grownat a rapid rate. Student enrollment from the fall of 2004 to the fall of

2005 increased from 2.3 million to nearly 3.2 million (Allen & Seaman,2006). The 2005 online enrollment represented 17% of all higher educationstudents. Allen and Seaman (2006) found that 96% of all higher educationpublic institutions provided opportunities for online learners. Associate’sdegree-granting institutions, such as community colleges, enrolled more thanhalf of all online learners.

at University of Wyoming Libraries on January 6, 2009 http://crw.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://crw.sagepub.com

220 Community College Review

Online courses provide many community college students with newopportunities to participate in postsecondary education (Cox, 2005; Dalziel,2003; Kozeracki, 1999; Young, 2008). Online courses are especially attrac-tive to many community college students because work and family obliga-tions limit attendance in traditional synchronous, on-campus classes. Somestudents enroll in online courses to expand their schedule of classes or limitthe cost of commuting. Health care workers, fire fighters, and police officersfind online learning compatible with their dynamic shift schedules. In addi-tion, parents of small children can reduce child care expenditures by takingonline classes.As online learning options expand, however, these new opportunities are

accompanied by higher attrition rates (Berge & Mrozowski, 2001; Carr, 2000).Carr’s (2000) inquiry into online learning at several community colleges indi-cated that student attrition increases when the instructor and the student are indifferent locations. Studies of online student attrition and persistence conductedat individual community colleges confirm Carr’s findings, reporting dropoutrates that are 15% to 50% higher in online classes than in the same synchronousface-to-face options (Crabtree, 2000; Kennedy, 2001; Pedone, 2003; York,2003). As community colleges continue to expand opportunities for studentsthrough online learning, it is essential to understand why large numbers of thesestudents withdraw or fail these courses.This article reports on a qualitative study that used the phenomenological

method to examine the lived experiences of students enrolled in challengingonline courses at a community college in the American Southeast. Our mainobjective was to determine if participants in such online courses shared a com-mon experience that superseded their individual successes or failures. We dis-cuss our study in the following manner. First, we briefly review the relevantliterature on community college online learners. Second, we explain ourresearch method, phenomenology, and discuss data collection and analysis pro-cedures. Third, we present and interpret our findings in a section that outlinesfour structural themes that describe the experiences reported by our student par-ticipants. We then describe and explain the essence of the phenomenon that werefer to as a “delicate engagement”. Finally, we close with a summary and rec-ommendations for practice and research.

Literature Review

The literature regarding distance education at the community college hasconfirmed its rapid growth. Kozeracki’s (1999) research provided a baseline



for examining the early development of distance education at communitycolleges. Kozeracki based her work on several sources, including statisticaldata from United States Department of Education reports and documentarydata collected from community college course listings, catalogs, and enroll-ment reports. She found that in the late 1990s only a small portion of the cur-riculum was offered via distance technologies. However, she reported thatbetween 58% and 79% of the institutions surveyed in two national studiesoffered at least some courses via distance technology. More recently, Cox(2005) examined the adoption of online education at 15 community collegesin six states. Cox’s work, based primarily on documentary and interviewdata, found that the institutions’ adoption of online courses was driven to alarge extent by myths regarding the utility of online courses as a means ofsatisfying student interests and demands, the need to adopt online educationto survive greater competition in the higher education marketplace, and thenotion that online education was enhancing students’ technological literacy.Cox maintained that these myths were not supported by empirical data andinstead reflected context-specific institutional forces and interests. These twostudies (Cox, 2005; Kozeracki, 1999) showed how researchers are attempt-ing to describe and understand the development of this important innovationin the community college curriculum.Since Kozeracki’s (1999) study, the literature has focused more specifically

on various aspects of community college online courses and on the studentsenrolled in them. Dissertation research has reported on student performance(Bangurah, 2004; Crabtree, 2000), the experience of student learning (Harbeck,2001; Pedone, 2003; Schilke, 2001), student satisfaction (Aljarrah, 2000; Reed,2001), and student retention (York, 2003). Research concerning student perfor-mance in online courses at 4-year colleges and universities is progressing alongsimilar lines (e.g., Dupin-Bryant, 2004; Morris, Wu, & Finnegan, 2005;Schreck, 2003). For example, Schreck (2003) reported on efforts made by oneuniversity’s faculty and staff to retain students in online courses. Morris et al.(2005) described their work to identify student record variables that came clos-est to predicting retention in one university’s general education online courses.Researchers in both community college and university settings are still seekingto identify and then understand the variables most likely to predict retention(e.g., Dupin-Bryant, 2004; Morris et al., 2005) and the complex life experiencesof students enrolled in online courses (e.g., Harbeck, 2001; Pedone, 2003;Schilke, 2001). Our specific interest was in understanding the life experiencesof community college students enrolled in high-risk online courses (HRCs), thatis, courses in which 30% or more of the students withdraw from the course or

Bambara et al. / Delicate Engagement 221



earn final course grades of D or F (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). An extensivereview of the literature revealed no research on this topic.

Method

We selected phenomenology as our qualitative method for research. Thisapproach allowed for an in-depth inquiry of participants sharing a commonexperience (Moustakas, 1994). Phenomenology also afforded us an opportu-nity to examine the interrelated dimensions of the human experience andaddress our universal research question:What is the lived experience of com-munity college students enrolled in HRCs?The community college selected for our study published a distance learn-

ing research report providing an analysis of enrollment in all online coursesoffered in 2003-2004. The report compared 25 courses delivered online andon campus. Following Pascarella and Terenzini’s (2005) definition of anHRC, we identified 13 online courses in which 30% or more of the studentswithdrew or earned final course grades of D or F. From the list of HRCs, weselected the four courses with the highest rates (40%-76%) of withdrawal orfinal course grades of D or F. The HRCs selected for this study were the fol-lowing: principles of accounting I, precalculus, statistics, and basic com-puter skills.All students enrolled in these four HRCs from the spring of 2005 through

the summer of 2006 were sent an e-mail invitation to participate in the study.All participants were required to be enrolled in a program leading to a degreeor certificate at the college. Thirteen students who met this criterion volun-teered to participate in our study. Our primary researcher collected datathrough private, face-to-face, in-depth interviews to gain a rich understand-ing of their experiences (Fontana & Frey, 2000). Interviews lasted 60 to 90minutes each. A standard but flexible protocol with broad discussion topicswas used to guide the interviews (Moustakas, 1994). Questions asked partic-ipants to describe their experiences as community college students enrolledin an HRC, what the experiences meant for them, how the experiencesaffected them, and what opportunities and obstacles were encountered in theHRC. E-mail and brief telephone conversations were used for follow-up con-versations with participants to clarify and check data for accuracy.Of the 13 community college students who participated, three had experi-

ence in two HRCs. This allowed us to collect data from sixteen course expe-riences. Eight participants were women and five were men. Participants




ranged in age from the early 20s to the early 60s. Eight participants com-pleted their HRCs and two of the eight completed two different HRCs. Thisallowed for a total of 10 completed HRC experiences. Five participants with-drew from or failed their HRCs. The participants’ experiences included bothcompletion and withdrawal or failure in principles of accounting I, statistics,and basic computer skills. One experience in precalculus was reported; inthis instance, the participant withdrew from the course.The interview transcriptions and follow-up e-mail messages were used to

create typed, electronic data sets for all 13 participants. Pseudonyms wereassigned to each participant, assuring confidentiality. Moustakas’s fourmajor processes were used to analyze and interpret data: epoche, phenome-nological reduction, imaginative variation, and synthesis of composite tex-tural and structural descriptions. As we followed these processes, wedeveloped a procedure to organize, analyze, and synthesize the individualportions of our data. Adaptation of Moustakas’s method allowed us to artic-ulate our participants’ collective voices and the essence of the phenomenonthat emerged in those voices.

Findings and Interpretation

Participants’ voices (presented here through pseudonyms) combined toform four structured themes that defined the participants’ lived experiences intheir HRCs. These were isolation, academic challenge, ownership, and acqui-escence. All participants experienced isolation and academic challenge insome way and to some degree.Where they differed, however, was in how theyresponded to these experiences. Data analysis revealed that some respondedthrough ownership. Others responded through acquiescence.

Isolation

The structural theme of isolation describes the loneliness participants felt asthey experienced their HRCs. Data analysis confirmed that four dimensions ofthe students’HRC experience contributed to their sense of isolation: the surrealHRC classroom, the lack of student-instructor interaction, the void in student-to-student connections, and the possibility of a different experience.

The surreal HRC classroom. Participants’ voices portrayed the HRCclassroom as a surreal and intangible place. They articulated the difficulty of




interpreting an abstract concept in a virtual world and then attempting toapply it in their real world. To make the classroom feel real, they needed toconnect the virtual world to their real world through an inanimate object, acomputer, and intangible technology. As they logged into their course man-agement system, their connection to this virtual world occurred throughdownloading course documents, interacting with other students on the classdiscussion board, interacting with their instructors through the courseware e-mail, and dropping assignments into a digital drop box. Many participantsknew the virtual classroom could be a lively, dynamic place, but it was notso in these HRCs. On the contrary, these virtual classrooms were static.Participants reported that the discussion board was used minimally with nomeaningful student or instructor interaction. Responses from instructors to e-mails or discussion board postings were often cryptic and incomplete.Without a requirement to interact with other students or the instructor, manyparticipants downloaded the course documents and essentially took the classoffline. Alyson and Carly both said, “It’s not the same as being in a regularclass, you don’t have a teacher.” Sandy described the isolation she felt bysaying, “I thought that it was a lot of teaching myself . . . I was by myself alot. I remember feeling left out.” Samantha added, “I don’t feel like HRC isa real class.” Tom echoed, “What class? What professor? What assignments?. . . The online courses seem almost surreal.” The experience of isolationtempted HRC participants to believe there was no class at all.

The lack of student–instructor interaction. Struggling to find life withintheir classrooms, participants reached out to establish a relationship withothers. Unlike traditional campus classes where, as Keith said, “there areother people around you to talk to, [where] you can figure out what is goingon,” HRC participants did not see anyone, and they did not have a sense thatanyone was present. David explained, “I don’t feel like there was an instruc-tor presence . . . I don’t feel like there was anything that I was learning fromthe instructor. The instructor was simply there as a Web administrator or asa grader.” When our participants tried to contact their instructors, somereceived very limited and unhelpful replies. Geraldine explained that when-ever anyone would ask a question, the instructor would respond monosyllab-ically: “It was so ‘yes, no.’ . . . It was a two word answer . . . you sort of feltslapped.” In some cases participants received no reply at all. In manyinstances, the only feedback they received on class assignments was a scorein the electronic course grade book. Participants reported that the interaction




between the instructors and participants decreased as the semester pro-gressed, leaving the students with a greater sense of isolation. Keith said:

It is kind of like leaving home for the first time and Mom and Dad aren’t goingto help you . . . you learn it on your own . . . you figure it out . . . you are onyour own. And that is how I felt . . . Good luck!

The void in student-to-student connections. Participants explained thatthey had little or no contact with other students in their HRC classrooms.There was no chance to hear the perspectives of others, no opportunity tolearn from each other. Geraldine summarized the importance of student-to-student connections, “I think the interaction among students is everything!”David echoed the value of student-to-student connections and said, “Notonly are you learning from yourself, from the manual, from the instructor,but you are also learning from the other people in the class.” What our par-ticipants found was aptly described by Samantha as follows: “No interactionbetween the students, student interaction is nonexistent! I know nothingabout these people!” They had no sense of community within the HRCs, nopeer interaction. Geraldine remarked, “I was just sort of on this island, all bymyself.” David echoed her sentiments when he said, “I felt like, specificallyin that [HRC] class, I was alone and adrift.” For some participants, the needto have a student community was in David’s words “ultimate”, and for otherslike Julie “a huge obstacle to try to overcome.” The void in student-to-studentinteraction intensified the sense of isolation felt by our participants.

The possibility of a different experience. Through their experiences inother online classes, many participants realized virtual classrooms could bevibrant, interactive, and filled with life. Participants knew there were ways toreduce the feelings of isolation that ran rampant throughout the HRCs. Theremedy for their isolation was human interaction. Participants saw theinstructor–student interaction and student-to-student connections as the conduitto reduce the isolation and bring life to their virtual classrooms. When they didnot find the human element within their HRCs, their feelings of isolationbecame an important aspect of their experience.

Academic Challenge

Academic challenge articulates the sometimes overwhelming feelingsparticipants faced as challenges were posed by course content and delivery.




For many participants, expectations for their HRCs were not realized. Inmost cases, they believed the academic content would be easy to understand.Instead, they often found course material unfamiliar, complex, and nonintu-itive. In addition, participants reported that the content of the HRCs wascumulative. To progress, participants often needed to grasp and understandthe content in sequential order. The way HRCs were organized affected thelearning experience of participants. In addition, technology hurdles surfacedfor many participants throughout their HRC experience. The nature andextent of the problems varied. Academic challenge emerged as a structuraltheme defined by four areas in participants’ experience: unrealistic expecta-tions, academic content, course organization, and technology frustrations.

Unrealistic expectations. The participants’ unrealistic expectations framedtheir experience of academic challenge within the HRCs. Many participantsbelieved it would be easy to understand course content and navigate theonline environment. For example, Alyson was very direct about her unreal-istic expectations: “Honestly, I didn’t know how difficult it was going to be.”David made a similar observation when he said, “I didn’t know that the HRCwas going to be so tough for me . . . I didn’t have a clue . . . I didn’t reallyknow what I was getting into.” Participants entered the HRCs thinking, asJulie did, that the course “would be a breeze.” Instead they found that theclasses were far more complex and difficult than they had expected.

Academic content. Participants were challenged by the academic contentof their HRCs, and this was evident in four respects. They struggled withnew terminology, nonintuitive content, sequential content, and in somecases, a disdain for the course. As Helen expressed, “It is hard . . . when youdon’t understand what the words mean. So, that was a big problem for me.”Without a background in the subject matter or a context in which to groundnew information, some participants struggled to understand course content.The absolute, nonintuitive content also was difficult for some participants tomaster. Tom described this aspect of academic challenge when he said thefollowing:

With the HRC course . . . there is only one way to do it. There is a right or awrong way . . . when you are taking an online course, it is very difficult todetermine what [that] is.

The cumulative nature of the course content was problematic when partic-ipants did not focus on thoroughly learning the material in sequence. They




were unable to complete advanced material when they did not master foun-dational content. Sandy, who completed two HRCs, said, “If I hadn’t donewell at the beginning, I know I definitely would not have been able to graspthe end.” Finally, several participants entered their HRCs with a distinct dis-dain for the subject matter. Carly commented, “HRC and me do not getalong.” Keith echoed, “HRC and me, we just don’t play nice together.” Helenwas anticipating the challenge of her HRC and said, “I think that is why Ihave avoided it.” She was clear about why she saved her HRC for last: “TheHRC was the hard course . . . it is my least favorite. Anything dealing withHRC . . . I avoid the things I don’t know, and what I am afraid of. I just hateHRC.” The sentiments from Carly, Keith, and Helen expressed the discor-dant attitudes of some participants toward their HRC. The lack of interest inthe content presented a barrier to their learning.

Course organization. For some participants, the organization of the HRCsalso adversely affected their learning experiences. In some cases, HRCs thatwere condensed into a shortened summer-semester format advanced at a rapidpace. The condensed summer semester was especially challenging for someand simply beyond the capability of others. As David pointed out, “Do yourealize you are taking a 16-week class inside of 10 weeks, and you are takingit online? Do you know what kind of time that is going to be?” The sequenceof course content presented additional obstacles. Even during semester-longcourses, participants were challenged to maintain interest in the subject matterwhen practical applications were delayed until the later portion of the course.Participants described some HRCs as beginning with a great deal of theoryand little practical application. They had difficulty maintaining interest in thecourse when they were unable to connect the material to meaningful applica-tions. The lack of clarity of course assignments was also noted by partici-pants. Inaccurate directions, confusing assignments, and misinformationwithin some of the HRCs further complicated an already ambiguous virtualenvironment, adding to the academic challenge of the courses.

Technology frustrations. Our participants told us that a myriad of technol-ogy hurdles surfaced throughout their HRC experience. Some related to aca-demic assignments and others to more general issues concerning softwareand hardware. A challenge for some was simply navigating the course man-agement system. Participants were especially vulnerable when technologyissues occurred in the beginning of the semester. Technology concerns leftthem feeling anxious, and this threatened their ability to keep pace with the




course. These difficulties caused frustration among participants, adding tothe other areas of academic challenge that they were experiencing.The academic challenge experienced by participants as they attempted to

learn the academic content left them surprised by their unrealistic ideas ofwhat to expect in the course. They were overwhelmed by the difficulty of thecontent, inundated and confused by aspects of the course organization, andfrustrated by technology challenges.

Ownership

On the other hand, ownership explains how some participants prized theirHRCs and how they embraced the demands of the course. Although the expe-rience of ownership was not always associated with success, it usually was,and it was less common with those students who failed or withdrew from theirHRCs. Participants demonstrated their HRC ownership in two ways: a posi-tive stance toward the HRC and the investment made in the class. The posi-tive stance of participants was reflected as they described their motivation,commitment, independence, self-direction, and resourcefulness. Participantsinvested in their HRCs through preparation and a commitment of their time,effort, focus, and organizational skills. Participants’ personal stances towardtheir HRC, combined with their investment in the course, enabled them toprize and own their experience.

A positive stance toward the HRC. Participants illustrated their positivestance by explaining how their motivation, commitment, independence, self-direction, and resourcefulness enabled them to survive and in some casesthrive in their HRCs. As Kay said, “It takes a lot of motivation to take timeaway from your kids after not seeing them all day.” Keith described his com-mitment to his HRC in his statement, “I started it andI had to finish it.” The independence described through several voices pro-pelled the self-direction and resourcefulness of HRC participants. Samanthaarticulated independence when she said, “I am independent by nature any-way, so it’s not a huge thing for someone to say, here is the book, you needto learn this.” Although some participants perceived working alone as adebilitating feature of the HRC (as mentioned above in the discussion of thestructure of isolation), others like Samantha were also motivated by thisindependence.Our participants also articulated the need to be self-directed learners

within their HRCs. To complete the HRCs, they needed to teach themselves.




Tim described his learning experience as “having to piece it all togethermyself.” He went on to say, “It was basically something that was all goingon with me.” Sandy added that her instructor was not “linking the materialvery well. I remember things if I write them down. So, every chapter I wouldoutline and then go through all of the problems. I thought that it was a lot ofteaching myself.” Alyson described a similar perspective and observed thefollowing:

I like being self-driven . . . I like to work on my own instead of having some-one stand over me and tell me OK, this is what you are doing. I just like forthem to say, OK, this is what you need to do, and leave me alone.

Resourcefulness also emerged as a personal quality that contributed to thepositive stance of participants within their HRC experience. Geraldineshared, “one thing I learned by taking an HRC was, really, what you need tolearn, if you are patient enough, you can usually find your answers on yourown.” We found that those who were resourceful in finding the help theyneeded to solve problems independently were able to progress in the course.Participants equipped with a positive stance toward their HRCs—a stancemarked by motivation, commitment, independence, self-direction, andresourcefulness—completed their courses. Those without such personalqualities did not.

The investment made in the class. Personal investment, the second dimen-sion of ownership, describes how participants allocated the resourcesrequired to meet the demands of their HRCs. Many participants were sur-prised by the time and effort required to complete their courses. Theydescribed how they invested the extra time, extra effort, and total focusrequired by the HRCs. Most participants were experienced students. Theywere well aware that a certain amount of time, effort, and sacrifice wasrequired to complete any class. Some participants had online class experi-ence, and they knew this environment often required extra resources. Whatcame as a surprise to many, however, was that the HRCs required even moretime and effort than they anticipated. With lives already filled with commit-ments, they had to make adjustments and reallocate personal resources totheir HRCs. Tim described this part of his experience when he said, “I thinkit was just that this needed extra effort. And I couldn’t even allow myself tobe distracted. I just needed to attack this for a long period of time.” Alysonshared a similar observation when she stated the following:




An online course as difficult as my HRC would take twice as much time as itwould in a campus setting . . . because you spend more time trying to teachyourself how to do the certain problems . . . once I understood that, I knew thatI had to spend more time.

Participants also described how their approach to preparing, organizing,and managing their resources contributed to their HRC experience. Theyfound that their HRCs required more time and effort than they planned toinvest. To comprehend the material, participants had to “work it and work itand work it” as Alyson described and as Keith said, “repeat things, andrepeat things, and repeat things.” Kay articulated how she invested her timeand effort,

When I actually . . . started reading the book, you couldn’t just read it like itwas a book. You had to really read it and do the exercises . . . and think aboutit critically as you are going through the whole chapter.

The investment of extra time, effort, and focus was required to excel in theHRC experience. Participants who were able to demonstrate ownershipthrough their personal stance and their investment in their HRC advanced intheir course and completed it with a positive outcome. For some, completingthe HRC meant more than added credits to their transcript. They wereempowered by the experience to realize their goals and change their lives.

Acquiescence

Acquiescence emerged as a structure that described the subtle ways partic-ipants submitted to their HRC and slowly surrendered to their experience. Theexperience of acquiescence was not always associated with a student’s failureor withdrawal in the HRC, but this was usually the case. Acquiescence wasseen in three ways: silent submission, compromise, and loss.

Silent submission. Silent submission was experienced and representedthrough the quiet self-acknowledgement of lost motivation, a sense of dimin-ishing returns, lackluster commitment, and a realization that there was nogoing back to a time without the HRC experience. For example, Davidvoiced how he lost motivation and commitment for the course when he said,“I honestly believe it was a much harder challenge for me to do the HRC. I




found the time that I was putting into it was less enjoyable.Yes, that certainlyhas an effect on my motivation.” Similarly, Julie stated, “Motivation is a verybig issue for me. I did not have the motivation.” Some were not able to adjustto the independence and self-direction required to complete their HRCcourses. Julie also offered,

Learning from other students as well as from what the instructor is providingfor you, and the textbook. To me, that is a huge learning thing . . . and a hugeobstacle to try to overcome . . . with not having contact with other students.

The retreat to acquiescence was imminent when participants’ investmentin their HRC did not reap tangible rewards. This led to erosion in personalcommitment to the HRC and a sense that the effort invested was not produc-ing the desired returns. David explained this aspect of his experience whenhe said “It was just taking me a lot of time. That was a growing source offrustration for me because I knew the more time that I was putting into HRC,the worse my grade was getting . . . the more important that time was to meto be able to put into other [classes] where I was strong.”When participants realized that their effort was not rewarded with

satisfactory learning and good grades, they began to see the experience as alosing proposition and pulled back in their effort and commitment. Whetherevidenced by a lack of motivation, a sense of diminishing returns, or lacklus-ter commitment, students recognized that the HRC was not what they bar-gained for and they responded by silently submitting to the requirements ofthe course and their experience.

Compromise. Compromise represents an element of acquiescence experi-enced by those participants who completed their HRCs but who made con-cessions to survive the experience, if not the course. They settled for anundesirable experience as the cost of completing a requirement or earningcredit. Keith shared, “I know I like college. I like to learn. I like the class-room. I did not have a positive experience. I could tell you, yea, I learnedthis, I learned that. But it wasn’t what I like.” Geraldine, disappointed by thelack of interaction in her HRC, summed up her experience: “That is the pricethat you pay for the convenience of not having to go to school.” Scott’s focuson earning his degree propelled him to complete his HRC despite his disap-pointment in the course. He was disappointed in the lack of interaction in the




class and the way in which the content was presented. He described thisexperience as “kind of lame.” He went on to say “maybe it was because I hadfive or six other classes. And I have way more interest in other subjects thanlearning HRC.” Scott compromised his standards by pursuing a class that hefelt was uninspiring because he needed the course to complete his degree.The HRC was a convenient way for him to complete a degree requirement.

Loss.Although the encounter with acquiescence was brief for these partic-ipants, their concessions were lasting. The silent submissions and subtle com-promises left some participants with a sense of loss that they expressedthrough feelings of defeat, shame, and resentment. As Carly described, “I gotmyself in deeper, where I couldn’t catch up.” As the withdrawal dateapproached, she realized it was beyond her to succeed and finish. Participantsshared their shame and how withdrawal from the HRCs, in Julie’s words, was“devastating.” The challenges they experienced left them feeling humiliatedand embarrassed.Julie voiced feelings echoed by several other participants when she said,

“I was embarrassed . . . when I withdrew from the HRC, I was reallyashamed.” David was painfully aware of his loss and said, “I knew that I hadpaid for it, I knew I didn’t have the money to pay for it, and I didn’t want toface the failure of, oh yeah, you wimped out, you washed out.” Resentmentalso emerged in participant voices when the promise of access presented bythe HRC was not fulfilled. Participants enrolled in their HRCs with highhopes of making progress toward their educational goals through theseonline opportunities. But, some lost hope when they had to withdraw. Juliestated that at the beginning of the semester, “I was excited to see [the HRC]there. Once I had taken it, I was like, why do they offer that online?” Whenshe withdrew from her HRC, her hopes of completing her degree online wereshattered. David voiced his resentment about the advice he received to takethe HRC online. He said, “I spoke to three different counselors for differentthings, and they all saw what I was taking and none of them were like, solet’s talk it out, you know, what have you got going on? . . . What are youthinking?”He added, “I feel resentful in that [the college] is just saying, give me your

money!” Some of the HRC participants escaped acquiescence through theirresolve. Some participants realized they needed to accept the concessionsthey made as the price for the convenience of their HRCs. A few learned thatthey needed to make adjustments to complete other HRCs in the future.




Others realized that they were not suited for online learning and indicatedthat in the future, they would only enroll in campus classes.

Delicate Engagement

The four structural themes of isolation, academic challenge, ownership, andacquiescence framed the HRC student experience. These structures interplayedin positive and negative ways that led participants to survive or surrender to theHRC experience. We characterized survivors as either empowered or compro-mised. Empowered survivors successfully completed their HRCs. They perse-vered through the experience of isolation and academic challenge andresponded by successfully taking ownership of the courses. Compromised sur-vivors also successfully completed the HRCs but did not respond positively tothe isolation. Although they took some degree of ownership of the HRC, theirexperience also was characterized by acquiescence.We characterized surrenderers as either reluctant or misplaced.

Surrenderers did not complete their HRCs successfully. Reluctant surrender-ers responded positively to their experience of isolation but were unable tomeet the academic challenge posed by the HRC. They did not exhibit own-ership and ultimately demonstrated their acquiescence to the experience ofthe HRC. Misplaced surrenderers responded negatively to both isolation andacademic challenge and, in the end, only exhibited acquiescence, thereforeleading us to conclude that of all four groups, these were the students whonever should have enrolled in the HRC. They were truly misplaced. Table 1illustrates the ways in which participants responded to the four structures ofthe phenomenon under study.The subtle ways the structures of isolation, academic challenge, owner-

ship, and acquiescence intermingled formed a delicate engagement, theessence of their HRC experience. Delicate engagement speaks to the strengthand resilience of participants who brought ownership to their experience andembraced the isolation and academic challenge of the HRCs. Delicateengagement also describes the fragility and vulnerability of those whoretreated to acquiescence, unable to overcome the isolation and academicchallenge of the HRCs, and ultimately surrendered to their HRC experience.In addition, delicate engagement also describes the vulnerable threads ofacademic and social connection that permeated the experience of HRC par-ticipants. It represents how only some were able to persevere with a lack of




contact with others. For many, this void adversely affected the quality andsatisfaction of their learning experience. Our participants valued interactionwith fellow students and with their instructors, and without such meaningfulassociations, many participants expressed dissatisfaction. Connection to theHRCs was fragile, and for some the engagement was too delicate to retaintheir involvement.

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Online learning is rapidly expanding in community colleges. It is also a rel-atively new form of distance education delivery, and relatively little is knownabout the community college student experience in online courses. The litera-ture reports high rates of student withdrawal and failure in community collegeonline courses. This study focused on how one group of community collegeonline students experienced their HRCs. To be sure, this research cannot begeneralized to a larger population of community college students. But, ofcourse, this was not our objective in conducting a phenomenological inquiry.Instead we sought to understand if in-depth interviews with a small group ofstudents might help illuminate an overarching experience that was shared bythose who were and were not successful in completing an online HRC. Ourfindings indicate that for these students at one community college, a sharedexperience did reflect a discernable phenomenon. Insights gained from thestudy allowed us to offer recommendations for practice and future research.


Table 1Delicate Engagement

Survivors Surrenderers

Empowered Compromised Reluctant MisplacedStructure Survivors Survivors Surrenderers Surrenderers

Responded positively to Yes No Yes Noisolation

Responded positively to Yes Yes No Noacademic challenge

Exhibited ownership Yes Yes No NoExhibited acquiescence No Yes Yes Yes



Recommendations for Practice

In our study, we examined the experience of HRC students who com-pleted their courses and those who did not. By looking at both groups ofstudents, we were able to gain a holistic understanding of this shared expe-rience for both completers and noncompleters. This was an essential featureof our study. The following are recommendations for practice and areintended to aid all students who might enroll in HRCs, that is, those who arewell prepared and those who are not:

1. Identify HRCs and develop targeted retention programs for studentsenrolled in them.

2. Provide prospective students with orientation sessions that alert them tothe course expectations and the personal investment of time, effort, andfocus required to complete the HRC.

3. Examine institutional policies and practices to ensure student services andacademic support programs are prepared for a range of students enrolledin HRCs.

4. Provide mentoring for HRC instructors and require participation in profes-sional development that promotes best practices in instructional design anddelivery of online courses.

The recommendations above are only some of the ways online opportuni-ties for community college students can be maximized and obstacles mini-mized. Continued assessment of courses and services can provide communitycollege administrators and faculty members additional strategies to enhancethe student experience.

Recommendations for Future Research

The findings of our study demonstrated a need for additional research andwe suggest inquiry along the following lines:

1. There is a need for research examining how community colleges canmitigate the isolation experienced in HRCs while also enhancing studentownership.

2. There is a need for research examining online teaching strategies alongwith associated high and low completion rates in HRCs. Such studiescould identify both effective and ineffective teaching strategies.




3. There is a need for research examining how student advising, learningcommunities, and other student learning and support strategies affectretention and positive completion in HRCs.

4. There remains a need for research examining the relationship betweenenrollment in HRCs and degree completion and successful transfer.

Conclusion

In this research we provided a forum for participants to share their per-spectives of what worked for them in their HRCs and a chance for themto voice their ideas on what can be improved in HRCs. Their willingnessto share their experiences provides a valuable contribution to the future ofcommunity college online learning. The importance of these student expe-riences was heard through their voices as they shared why they enrolled.For some, the HRCs and other online classes were their only access tohigher education. For others, these classes afforded the chance to bettermanage their many obligations and responsibilities. The insights gainedthrough the voices of HRC participants offer all of us an opportunity toidentify ways that might improve the quality of the online learning expe-rience for future community college students.

References

Aljarrah, A. A. (2000). Distance education: Community college student perspectives and atti-tudes toward online course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University,Fort Collins.

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2006, November). Making the grade: Online education in theUnited States, 2006. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved May 29, 2007,from http://www.sloan-c.org.

Bangurah, F. M. (2004). A study of completion and passing rates between traditional andweb-based instruction at a two-year community college in northeast Tennessee.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City.

Berge, Z. L., & Mrozowski, S. (2001). Review of research in distance education, 1990 to1999. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(3), 5-19.

Carr, S. (2000, February 11). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping thestudents. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved March 11, 2002, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v46/i23/23a00101.htm




Cox, R. D. (2005). Online education as institutional myth: Rituals and realities at communitycolleges. Teachers College Record, 107, 1754-1787.

Crabtree, L. F. (2000). A comparison of community college student performance, retention,and demographics in online and onground courses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Missouri, Columbia.

Dalziel, C. (2003). Community colleges and distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G.Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 663-671). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Dupin-Bryant, P. A. (2004). Pre-entry variables related to retention in online distance educa-tion. American Journal of Distance Education, 18, 199-206.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text.In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp.645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harbeck, J. D. (2001). Community college students taking on-line courses: The student pointof view. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity, Blacksburg.

Kennedy, C. M. (2001). The experiences of online learning at a community college in SouthTexas: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, CollegeStation.

Kozeracki, C. (1999). Scratching the surface: Distance education in the community colleges.In G. Schuyler (Ed.), Trends in community college curriculum (New Directions forCommunity Colleges, No. 99, pp. 89-99). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Morris, L. V., Wu, S., & Finnegan, C. L. (2005). Predicting retention in online general educa-tion courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 23-36.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: Vol. 2. A third decade

of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Pedone, M. D. (2003). A qualitative analysis of student learning experiences in online com-

munity college undergraduate education courses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Central Florida, Orlando.

Reed, T. E. (2001). Relationship between learning style, internet success, and internet satis-faction of students taking online courses at a selected community college. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb.

Schilke, R. A. (2001). A case study of attrition in web-based instruction for adults: UpdatingGarland’s model of barriers to persistence in distance education. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb.

Schreck, V. (2003). Successful online course retention at Marylhurst University: Constructinga model for online course retention using grounded theory. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion. Portland State University, Oregon.

York, D. L. (2003). Falling through the net: Implications of inherent characteristics in studentretention and performance at a community college. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Missouri, Columbia.

Young, J. R. (2008, July 8). Gas prices drive students to online courses. The Chronicle of HigherEducation. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from http://chronicle.com/free/2008/07/3704n.htm




Cynthia S. Bambara is vice president of student success at Lord Fairfax CommunityCollege, Middletown, VA.

Clifford P. Harbour is an associate professor in the Department of Adult Learning andTechnology at the University of Wyoming.

Timothy Gray Davies is a professor in the School of Education at Colorado State University.

Susan Athey is an associate dean for undergraduate programs in the College of Business atColorado State University.




Delicate Engagement: The Lived Experience of Community College Students Enrolled in High-Risk Online Courses

Documents