Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.79.4.245-253

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Retaining the Online Learner: Profile of Students
in an Online MBA Program and Implications for
Teaching Them
Joe Bocchi , Jacqueline K. Eastman & Cathy Owens Swift
To cite this article: Joe Bocchi , Jacqueline K. Eastman & Cathy Owens Swift (2004) Retaining
the Online Learner: Profile of Students in an Online MBA Program and Implications
for Teaching Them, Journal of Education for Business, 79:4, 245-253, DOI: 10.3200/
JOEB.79.4.245-253
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.79.4.245-253

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 213

View related articles

Citing articles: 35 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]

Date: 12 January 2016, At: 23:24

CYBER DIMENSIONS

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:24 12 January 2016

Retaining the Online Learner:
Profile of Students in an Online
MBA Program and Implications
for Teaching Them
JOE BOCCHI
Kennesaw State University
Kennesaw, Georgia

nline learning is growing, with
enrollments increasing 33% per
year (Pethokoukis, 2002) as part of an
estimated $2 billion business (Thomas,
2001). The overall market was estimated at 2.3 million students in 2002 (KatzStone, 2000). There are approximately
17,000 courses available online, with
more than 50% of Western universities
offering some type of online course
(Lowe, 2000). Currently almost 200 institutions offer online graduate degrees
(Pethokoukis, 2002).
Lankford (2001), in referring to
Peterson’s Annual Guide to Distance
Learning Programs, noted that online
MBA courses are among the fastestgrowing fields of study in education.
Mangan (2001) remarked that although
there is a definite market for online
MBAs (which currently compose 2.5%
of the total MBA market), such programs will need more time to develop
than originally thought. Many schools

jumped into offering online MBA programs without much planning. Schools
that have had trouble in the online MBA
market typically underestimated the
costs and overestimated the initial
demand (Mangan, 2001). However,
Smith (2001) suggested that although
the number of traditional MBA students
significantly exceeds the number of
online MBA students, there is significant growth in the online market

O

JACQUELINE K. EASTMAN
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, Georgia

ABSTRACT. Research regarding student cohorts entering the Georgia
WebMBA® program (an online MBA
program in the University System of
Georgia) shows consistent demographic characteristics as well as students’ reasons for joining the program,

experience with online learning, and
perceptions of teamwork. The program has a high retention rate, and in
this article the authors focus on retaining online learners. They discuss the
profile of program students and the
teaching approaches that have been
successful in addressing potential
attrition issues with these learners. To
retain virtual learners, the program
provides a cohort- and team-based
learning experience with extensive
faculty feedback and interaction to
address isolation concerns, provide
application-based content and activities, and help students meet expectations for personal and professional
growth. The authors also stress the
need to offer a well-managed program
and faculty members who are both
interested and competent in teaching
in the online learning environment.

because students working full time are

the fastest growing segment of the student population and they bring corporate tuition dollars with them.
The literature suggests that the
growth in online courses is based on attracting a new and different base of students rather than cannibalizing current
on-campus programs (Mangan, 2001;
Thomas, 2001). It is estimated that five

CATHY OWENS SWIFT
Georgia Southern University
Statesboro, Georgia

of six online students are employed and
would not be able to attend traditional
classes (Thomas, 2001). With the current
economic situation in the United States,
there are many managers who cannot
afford to leave their current jobs for a fulltime or on-campus program (Mangan,
2001). Furthermore, the rapid pace of
technological changes makes it necessary
for adults to continuously upgrade their
knowledge and skills to stay competitive

in the job market (Devi, 2002). Finally,
rural areas or even other countries may
offer limited options for students interested in earning an MBA (Smith, 2001).
Thus, the online market has the potential
to create a much larger geographic market for students, particularly for smaller
universities (Smith, 2001).
Although some researchers have
found that the effectiveness of online
learning equals or exceeds that of classroom learning (Rice, 2000; Rosenbaum,
2001), the quality of online programs is
still being debated (Hongmei, 2002). In
general, quality has improved since the
days when distance learning programs
were known for being easy courses with
no team interaction (Lankford, 2001).
Rigor is just as possible online, because
students are judged by their ability to
communicate electronically and must
demonstrate understanding of the
course material on assignments other

than closed-book tests (Smith, 2001).
March/April 2004

245

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:24 12 January 2016

Some researchers have suggested, however, that a degree obtained online will
not result in the types of job offers that
come with traditional MBAs because
most of the programs are run by forprofit universities that do not have a
track record (Dash, 2000). Aron (1999)
suggested that the ease of access, low
cost, and initial evidence of superior
educational effectiveness are persuading business firms to provide more of
their corporate training online. Thus,
although online education is a growing
market, there are ongoing concerns that
need to be addressed.
A major concern for institutions is the

cost of online education, because it is
expensive to prepare and teach each
course (Ross, 2001). Furthermore, most
of this cost is incurred up front (in technology, course design, and course
release) because faculty members need
training to develop and teach online
courses (Smith, 2001).
Additional costs come from the higher drop rate for online courses compared
with traditional courses (Carr, 2000).
Diaz (2000) reported a drop rate of
13.5% for online students versus 7.2%
for traditional students. There are a variety of reasons for this higher attrition
rate, including students’ feelings of isolation (Dyrud, 2000), difficulty adjusting to a self-directed approach (Svetcov,
2000), and their finding that such courses are more rigorous than anticipated
and that faculty members and students
lack experience with online learning
(Terry, 2001). Therefore, although the
online student can be a significant market, it is an expensive one to serve. To
successfully reach that market, administrators and faculty members need to
understand its identity clearly.

According to Terry (2001), few articles have focused on characteristics of
the online student and how to manage
enrollment and retention effectively.
Specific research is needed to profile
online MBA students and their needs.
Findings can lead to implications for
faculty members and institutions seeking to develop online MBA courses and
programs. In this article, we first discuss
the literature regarding online students’
needs, concerns, and characteristics.
Then we present the profile of the associates in the Georgia WebMBA® pro246

Journal of Education for Business

gram to illustrate who the online MBA
students are. Additionally, we discuss
retaining the online learner and the
implications for faculty members interested in teaching online courses.
Literature Review
In examining the literature on online

students, Lewis and Orton (2000) suggested that a problem with determining
online students’ needs, concerns, and
characteristics is that students themselves may not have enough of an understanding about online education to determine which attributes are salient to them
and what their preferences are. Although
the literature may not be able to identify
all the salient issues, we discuss several
significant ones in detail.
Online Student Needs and Concerns
According to Smith (2001), Internetbased MBA programs are growing primarily because of improvements in
delivery technology and students’ needs
for flexibility. The major needs of online
students are convenience, access, flexibility, availability, and anytime/anywhere learning (Devi, 2001; Ryan,
2001). Moskal and Dziuban (2001)
found that the top three reasons students
enrolled in online courses were flexibility, curiosity about or desire to try online
courses, and scheduling conflicts with
traditional classes. McEwen (2001)
additionally noted a major concern with
time management, because students are
juggling classes, work, family, and travel commitments.

The quality of the online program is a
concern, as students want their degree to
be credible both to their employers and
to other universities. Having an accredited program may help institutions deal
with worries about the prestige of the
program (Dash, 2000). Students are concerned about the quality of the administration of online courses and programs,
functions that include ordering textbooks
and registering for classes. The ease of
technology used in the course is also
important to potential students. Although
administrative glitches are always inconvenient, they can be especially onerous
for online learners who are physically
isolated from others. Finally, students are

concerned about the teaching approaches
used by the faculty members. Professors
need to be proactive, encourage feedback, and make adjustments as needed.
Thus, for online learning to be successful, schools need to address not only content and technology, but also student support mechanisms and the learning
process (McBain, 2001, p. 20).
To prevent students from feeling isolated, online courses must provide students with opportunities for interaction
with faculty members, other students,
and course content. Faculty members
need to provide a constructive learning
environment in which everyone learns
from each other. Successful courses have
a high level of faculty involvement
(Hongmei, 2002). Online courses may be
even more interactive than traditional
ones (Mangan, 2001; Rosenbaum,
2001), because they may make it easier
for shy students or those who need more
response time to participate (Smith,
2001). Online courses need to give students the opportunity both for team
building with their classmates and for
community building (Ramos, 2001).
Online Student Characteristics
Although online courses offer major
advantages such as flexibility, they are
not for everyone (Devi, 2001; Kearsley,
2002). Students need to understand their
own learning styles and the level of
interaction that they need to sustain
their interest in a class (Devi, 2001).
Those who thrive on the social aspects
of the traditional classroom or who
enjoy face-to-face lectures may have
difficulties with online learning (Jana,
1999; Ramos, 2001).
There are four major categories of
online courses: (a) self-paced independent study, (b) asynchronous interactive
learning, (c) synchronous learning, and
(d) a combination of online and inperson learning (Devi, 2001; Ryan,
2001). With synchronous classes, students typically are required to attend
online chats and stick to a framework of
specific deadlines (Jana, 1999). The
more asynchronous a course is, the more
self-motivated a student needs to be
(Ryan, 2001). A benefit of asynchronous
approaches is that there may be more significant participation by all students than

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:24 12 January 2016

would occur in a classroom, which is
constrained by time (Cassiani, 2001).
To be successful as an online learner,
one needs to have the self-discipline, initiative, motivation, commitment, time
management skills, and organization
skills to work independently and to finish
the job without need of prompting (Devi,
2001; Jana, 1999; Kearsley, 2002). Selfmotivated and self-disciplined students
are most likely to succeed in online
learning (Hongmei, 2002, p. 37). Although an online course saves students
the time of commuting and sitting in
class, they still must spend approximately 10 to 12 hours per week on an online
graduate course. It is a misconception to
think that a student can learn the online
course material in less time than would
be required in a traditional class (Ryan,
2001) or that online classes are less intellectually demanding than traditional
classes (Jana, 1999). Finally, students
must be willing to participate in the
online class (Ramos, 2001).
To succeed in an online class, students must be able to express themselves clearly and succinctly in written
form and have a basic competency with
computer technology (Devi, 2001;
Ryan, 2001). Students also must be
comfortable reading a large portion of
the materials, such as discussion posts,
onscreen. Ramos (2001) encourages the
use of printed materials, instead of digital texts, to reduce eye strain. Specific
technical requirements include computer access, a fast Internet connection
speed, sound, and some software; firewalls may interfere with accessing an
online course (Kearsley, 2002; Ryan,
2001). Finally, a student must have a
quiet study space (Ryan, 2001).
In terms of personal characteristics,
Kader (2001) noted that online learning
may be more suited to men, because
they are more likely to use the Internet;
however, women’s use of online learning may increase because online learning requires logic and detail, areas in
which women may have an advantage.
Moskal and Dziuban (2001) found that
more female students were enrolled in
online courses than men (at a ratio of
3:1) and that the online student was typically older (a mean age of 30 years,
compared with 24 years for the student
attending face-to-face classes). They

also learned that online students tended
to be working students who lived farther
away from campus and that 92% of
online students had taken other online
courses (Moskal & Dziuban, 2001).
MacGregor (2000) found that online
students were more serious, more accepting, more worried, more conservative,
more introverted, more self-controlling,
and more accommodating than traditional students. The same study also showed
that online students perceived their classes as having a higher workload. They
anticipated lower grades than traditional
students but reported similar levels of
satisfaction.
In fact, satisfaction has been linked to
experience with online learning: The
more experience students have with online learning, the more satisfied they are
with online course delivery (Arbaugh &
Duray, 2002). Moskal and Dziuban
(2001) found a higher satisfaction rate
with online courses (85%) than with
courses that combined online with faceto-face learning (77%). They also determined that 89% of online students
would take another online course.
Arbaugh and Duray (2002), however,
noted that larger class sizes decreased
online course satisfaction.
Retaining the Online Learner
A study at the University of Central
Florida found that women were 8% more
likely than men to succeed in online
courses by completing the course with a
grade of C or better (Moskal & Dziuban,
2001). Additionally, consistently fewer
females withdrew from online courses.
However, online courses had higher
withdrawal rates than face-to-face or
combination courses—about 8% of men
and 6% of women withdrew (Moskal &
Dziuban, 2001).
Kearsley (2002) noted the importance
of offering well-designed courses and
providing feedback to students to retain
them. Course design can be problematic
when faculty members have little experience or support in developing online
courses. Miles (2001) suggested that
instructors need to maintain flexibility,
address isolation concerns, include elements of asynchronous learning, develop learning objectives that relate to the
students’ business goals, and use low-

bandwidth materials that any student can
access. Hipwell (2000) noted the need
for basic marketing techniques to attract
and retain online learners as administrators introduce and promote the program,
register initial users, and develop ways
to maintain and increase usage. Finally,
effective management of online programs is needed to retain students
(Kearsley, 2002).
The Georgia WebMBA® Online
Student and Program
The Georgia WebMBA® program, a
lock-step online MBA offered by five
regional AACSB-accredited universities in the University System of Georgia, consists of 10 courses and admits
up to 35 students per cohort. Each university staffs two courses and accepts
seven students per cohort. Under the
operating structure, individual students
apply to and are admitted through one
of the five home institutions: Georgia
College and State University, Georgia
Southern University, Kennesaw State
University, State University of West
Georgia, and Valdosta State University.
Each institution has its own admissions criteria based on its traditional
MBA program.
The Georgia WebMBA® has maintained an average retention rate of 89%
for all three of its cohorts begun prior to
fall 2003. The fourth cohort was
launched in August 2003. To date, 100%
of the students in the first two cohorts
have graduated. The third cohort is
expected to graduate in summer 2004.
Establishing an accurate profile of
associates who are most likely to enroll
in the WebMBA® program, function successfully, and graduate on schedule helps
target applicants. Additionally, understanding the associates’ perceptions of
teaming and learning assists us in structuring the learning experience. Research
has examined associates’
• characteristics, such as age, years of
business experience, and time spent
traveling;
• reasons for joining the program;
• expectations for the program;
• levels of experience in working with
online learning media;
• frequency of serving on various types
of on-the-job teams; and
March/April 2004

247

• views on team-based learning and
on factors contributing to work team
success.
The profile of the typical WebMBA® student will help other schools that are
offering online graduate programs.

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:24 12 January 2016

Method
The Georgia WebMBA® has begun
four cohorts since its implementation in
January 2001. All associates must attend
a 2-day orientation to be eligible to
enroll in program courses. Although
limited profile information was collected from the first cohort, the program initiated a pre-orientation survey for the
second cohort. Twenty-four of the 25
new students in that cohort, from all of
the five participating schools, completed
the survey and returned the completed
instrument to the program director via
e-mail attachment.
We later refined the survey instrument used with cohort 2 and delivered it
to the third and fourth cohorts. Associates in those cohorts used the “survey”
function on the WebCT-based orientation site to respond to the survey at the
beginning of their respective orientation
residencies, which were held on the
campus of one of our universities. All
new associates, from all five universities, in cohort 3 (N = 35) and cohort 4
(N = 29) completed the survey.
It is important to note that responses
from the limited number of associates
who later withdrew from the program
were not removed from the data sets. The
program’s high retention rate suggests
that the initial profiles are indicative of
the typical online associate who remains
with the WebMBA® program.
We present results from entrance surveys with cohort 3 (C3) and cohort 4
(C4), although we briefly address results
from the first two cohorts when survey
items are comparable with those in the
instrument used for C3 and C4.
Results
Associate Profile
According to the survey data collected
from the four cohorts, Georgia Web
MBA® associates are on average 30 to 35
years old and typically have undergraduate degrees in business-related fields.
248

Journal of Education for Business

Approximately one third are women.
Minority representation has typically
been low—less than 10% per cohort. All
associates reported that they were
employed at the time that they entered
the program.
Although all associates in the first
cohort lived in Georgia, subsequent
cohorts reflected a more national home
base for many associates. In C4, for
example, one third of the associates lived
outside of Georgia.
One program requirement is that
associates have a minimum of 2 years
of professional business experience. On
average, they actually had more than 11
years of business experience, with 6
years of management experience.
Across all cohorts, the largest percentage of associates worked in manufacturing (approximately 25%); the next
largest percentages, in rank order,
worked in utilities, finance, consulting
and health services, and accounting and
information systems. The associates
had significant traveling requirements
associated with their work: For example, C2, C3, and C4 associates traveled
on average about 10 hours per week.
(Travel requirements, however, varied
widely by individual.)
In terms of age, business and management experience, and travel time, averages across cohorts 2 through 4
remained relatively consistent, indicating a stable profile among cohorts. However, standard deviations for variables

within each cohort indicate a diverse
population in each group (see Table 1).
Reasons for Enrolling
All four cohorts were asked their reasons for joining the WebMBA® program.
Associates across all four cohorts typically reported the following key reasons:
accreditation, accessibility, convenience, and fit with career and personal
growth plans.
C3 and C4 associates completed a survey that asked them to rate, on a fivepoint Likert-type scale, their degree of
agreement or disagreement with each of
23 possible reasons why they joined the
program. Clearly evident was their desire
to join an accredited program: One hundred percent of both groups strongly
agreed that attending an accredited program was their reason for enrolling in the
WebMBA® program. C3 and C4 respondents also were consistent in rating these
additional reasons for joining the program (see Table 2):
• “Fits my work schedule.”
• “Fits my career growth plans.”
• “I seek personal as well as professional growth.”
• “It provides 24-7 access.”
Both groups’ least important reasons for
deciding to enroll were identical (listed
here beginning with the least important):
• “My employer recommended the
program.”

TABLE 1. Characteristics of WebMBA® Associates in Three Cohorts

Cohort 2
(N = 25, n = 24)
M
SD
Cohort 3
(N = 35, n = 35)
M
SD
Cohort 4
(N = 29, n = 29)
M
SD

Age (years)

Business
experience
(years)

Management
experience
(years)

Travel
per week
(hours)

33.90
6.01

11.80
6.94

6.20
6.00

8.13
8.44

32.37
10.00

10.00
7.66

5.76
6.66

14.19
15.22

33.40
7.56

10.78
6.88

5.17
5.32

9.21
12.54

Note. SD = Standard deviation.

TABLE 2. Highest- and Lowest-Ranked Reasons for Joining the
WebMBA® Program: Cohorts 3 and 4
Cohort 3
M
SD

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:24 12 January 2016

Reason for joining WebMBA®
Highest-ranked
I want to attend an accredited program.
It fits my work schedule.
I seek personal as well as professional growth.
It provides 24/7 access.
It fits my career growth plans.
It fits my family life demands.
Travel to a school for evening or weekend courses
is not an option for me.
I like controlling when I learn; I have no time for
physical boundaries.
Lowest-ranked
My employer sees the online MBA as a more
applied learning experience.
My employer considers an online MBA as
equivalent or better in quality compared with a
campus-based program.
I live within an hour’s drive of my home school.
I work within an hour’s drive of my home school.
My employer recommended the program.

• “I work within an hour’s drive of
my home school.”
• “I live within an hour’s drive of my
home school.”
• “My employer considers an online
MBA to be equivalent or better in
quality compared with a campus-based
program.”
• “My employer sees the online MBA
as a more applied learning experience.”
High standard deviations suggest that
some of the individual associates’
employers may have been more knowledgeable than others about the quality
and application-based learning of online
MBA programs. Furthermore, although
the popular conception is that most
online students choose such programs
because of geographic distance from
campus-based programs, many of the
associates work or live within an hour’s
drive of their admitting institution.
These findings suggest that proximity is
part of a more complex decision-making process that includes not only geographic accessibility, but also travel
requirements for work, fit with personal
and professional goals, and employer
perceptions of an online MBA’s quality.
The implication for recruiting geographically with target companies that

Cohort 4
M
SD

5.00
4.83
4.83
4.71
4.66
4.40
4.40

0.00
0.45
0.51
0.52
0.54
0.85
0.95

5.00
4.86
4.66
4.66
4.90
4.45
4.34

0.00
0.44
0.61
0.72
0.31
0.69
0.77

4.26

0.92

4.59

0.73

3.17

0.62

3.08

0.80

3.15

1.08

3.00

0.96

3.06
2.91
2.03

1.85
1.85
1.10

2.48
2.29
2.21

1.79
1.67
1.15

corporate contexts. For example, the
WebMBA® program uses its 2-day faceto-face orientation course for team building and for education on the benefits of
and processes for virtual learning. We
guide associates in assessing their learning styles, personal profiles (DiSC), and
team role profiles (Parker Team Player).
Select faculty members “preview” their
courses and discuss expectations of how
associates should function within their
teams and across the learning community. As associates actually move through
the sequence of courses within their
learning teams, they experience consistent interaction, responsiveness, and
guidance on the part of the faculty members, who reinforce the value of online
team-based learning.
Expectations for the Program

require extensive travel is evident.
Given that about two thirds of the associates received either full or partial
tuition reimbursement, we are hopeful
that employer interest in online programs will remain high.
A surprising result of the survey of
C3 and C4 associates related to their
view of learning in a team and in an
online environment. We had expected
that associates would choose an online
program such as the WebMBA® because
they understood the value of learning in
teams and they routinely used online
learning as part of their jobs. However,
as ranked by mean, three items relating
to learning fell only within the middle
range of importance of reasons for joining the program:
• “My learning style lends itself to
online work.”
• “An online program learning experience better matches the way I work and
learn on the job.”
• “I learn better in teams.”
Professors who are teaching in online
learning settings, especially in cohortand team-based settings, should shape
student expectations carefully and educate students on the value of online learning—in the “classroom” as well as in

Respondents rated their expectations
for the program on a five-point scale
ranging from strongly agree to strongly
disagree. Students ranked “learning concepts that can be applied on the job”
among the top expectations. Although
C3 and C4 associates chose similar
items for their top-rated expectations,
the two groups diverged somewhat with
regard to the importance of those items
(see Table 3). For example, C3 respondents highly rated “ease of use of the
program courseware” and “consistent
faculty responsiveness and contact,” but
C4 respondents expected more “learning
relevant to my current or further position/industry” and “efficient/effective
administration processes.” Differing results on those and other expectation
items (for example, “efficient/effective
registration process”) may reflect the C4
associates’ recent frustrations during the
application and admissions process at
some of the affiliate schools. Ultimately,
though, faculty responsiveness and
applied learning were common expectations for both groups, which points to
the importance of aligning teaching
approaches with associate expectations.
Of special note is that both groups
rated the item “learning from other students” lower than most other items, suggesting the need for faculty members
and administrators in team-based programs to define realistic expectations,
orient students to online learning teams,
March/April 2004

249

TABLE 3. Expectations of the WebMBA®: Cohorts 3 and 4
Cohort 3
M
SD

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:24 12 January 2016

Top expectations of the program
Arranged by C3 ratings
Ease of use of courseware
Consistent faculty responsiveness and contact
Learning concepts that can be applied on the job
Access to support materials to help with learning
concepts
Effective and available technical support
Faculty intervention to help me understand
concepts
Learning relevant to my current or future
position/industry
Efficient/effective application process
Efficient/effective administration processes
Learning from other students
Working with faculty members experienced in
working in companies or as consultants
Efficient/effective registration process
Arranged by C4 ratings
Learning concepts that can be applied on the job
Learning relevant to my current or future
position/industry
Efficient/effective administration processes
Efficient/effective registration process
Ease of use of courseware
Access to support materials to help with learning
concepts
Efficient/effective application process
Faculty intervention to help me understand
concepts
Effective and available technical support
Working with faculty members experienced in
working in companies or as consultants
Learning from other students

and facilitate that learning environment
consistently. These actions should entail
providing associates with information
on types of industries represented by
students in the course—their job titles,
the companies for which they work,
their years of experience, and other
characteristics—to position the course
itself as a resource for learning and networking. For example, as part of the
WebMBA® orientation, associates post
a skills and experience “inventory,”
along with their title, company, and
other relevant information. This allows
associates to begin to form effective
teams that encompass the right mix of
skills and experience.
As the literature shows, students
entering online learning with misguided perceptions of the environment and
of their role as collaborative learners
may become disenchanted and may
250

Journal of Education for Business

Cohort 4
M
SD

4.80
4.69
4.66

0.41
0.53
0.48

4.52
4.62
4.86

0.87
0.56
0.44

4.63
4.62

0.55
0.55

4.48
4.31

0.74
0.85

4.57

0.61

4.45

0.63

4.49
4.46
4.43
4.43

0.82
0.70
0.65
0.81

4.69
4.48
4.66
4.17

0.54
0.74
0.55
0.71

4.23
4.23

0.77
0.88

4.31
4.52

0.89
0.74

4.86

0.44

4.66

0.48

4.69
4.66
4.52
4.52

0.54
0.55
0.74
0.87

4.49
4.43
4.23
4.80

0.82
0.65
0.88
0.41

4.48
4.48

0.74
0.74

4.63
4.46

0.55
0.70

4.45
4.31

0.63
0.85

4.57
4.62

0.61
0.55

4.31
4.17

0.89
0.71

4.23
4.43

0.77
0.81

withdraw from courses. Although team
learning combats isolation, it also
raises issues related to student work
and learning styles.
Experience With Technology-Based
Learning Tools
Previous experience with technology
is one predictor of student comfort in an
online learning environment. To understand the technology-based experiences
and skills that associates bring to the
program, we included items on surveys
taken by C2, C3, and C4 respondents
and that addressed technological expertise and previous online learning experience. C2 respondents were asked to
report the types of online courses that
they had taken before joining the program and their overall proficiency in
using the Internet. C3 and C4 respon-

dents were asked to rate their levels of
experience (high, medium, low, or N/A)
working with common types of online
learning media.
Among C2 respondents, 67% were
proficient in use of the Internet, 80%
had taken at least one type of online or
blended-media course, and 29% had
taken three or more such courses. When
asked about the specific types of online
courses they had taken, 33% of C2
respondents reported using Web-based
learning at least once, 29% said that
they had used intranet-based learning,
and 25% reported having taken courses
that incorporated self-paced, asynchronous learning with specific assignment
deadlines. Twenty-one percent of these
respondents had taken a course completely online.
The C3 and C4 associates were asked
to indicate their levels of experience
working with various online learning
media. Associates in both groups had
had the most experience learning
through their company intranets; this
medium was followed by CD-ROM,
Web-based, asynchronous (self-paced
with deadlines), and teleconferencing
media. Both cohorts rated their experiences with those types of media with
great consistency, although standard
deviations indicate variations within
each cohort. Overall, C4 associates
seemed somewhat more savvy regarding online work than C3 associates (see
Table 4).
Teaming Experiences and Critical
Success Factors
C3 and C4 associates were asked to
indicate the frequency with which they
served on teams with varying team
composition (for example, clients, coworkers, senior management) and with
varying organizational or geographic
locations (for example, within a work
unit, internationally). We asked associates to base their ratings on their professional and work experience during the 3
years prior to their enrollment in the
program. C3 and C4 associates reported
that their on-the-job teams typically
were located within the office, branch,
or unit where they worked.
Associates most often teamed with
others from their divisions or depart-

TABLE 4. Levels of Experience With Online Learning: Cohorts 3 and 4

Learning modes

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:24 12 January 2016

Company intranet
CD-ROM
Web-based course
Asynchronous, self-based course
Teleconferencing
Completely virtual learning

ments. Working on international teams
with co-workers, clients, and companies was the least indicated category.
In essence, most of their team experiences were with others who were geographically close to the respondents.
This result suggests that virtual teams
also may have been infrequent,
although further study is needed to
determine the relationship between
team location and actual communication medium and method (for example,
online and asynchronous).
C3 and C4 associates were also asked:
“What were the main reasons, in your
opinion, that teams you were on succeeded? Indicate the level of influence
of those key items as they contributed to
the team succeeding at accomplishing its
mission.” Respondents indicated that
“having a clear direction/goal” and
“good communication” were the top
success factors. Rated lowest for both
groups were the following:
• “Having the right mix of members
and work styles.”
• “Establishing long-term business
relationships.”
• “Setting team ground rules for
interacting.”
That last item is of particular interest
to us, given the high degree of interaction
required for the WebMBA® online teams.
The need to lead associates through
team-building activities that produce
clear ground rules for interacting is especially important, both at the beginning of
their program experience and throughout
their work in the program. Few of our
teams experience the kind of conflict that
results in attrition, although even moderate levels of interpersonal conflict and
ambiguity of ground rules create high

Cohort 3
M
SD
3.26
3.06
2.80
2.80
2.74
2.54

0.98
0.87
1.08
0.99
0.85
1.09

Cohort 4
M
SD
3.72
3.41
3.24
2.89
3.00
2.82

0.53
0.78
0.99
1.13
0.80
1.02

stress, poor performance, and dissatisfaction with other elements of the program.
Implications for Faculty Members
Online education is not for all students. Nor is it for all faculty members.
Online learning requires professors to
learn a new tool and to spend significantly more time on organization,
preparation, and teaching and monitoring the class compared with traditional
classes (McEwen, 2001). Faculty members may spend more time planning
the course, as all of its aspects need to
be prepared before it is launched
(McEwen, 2001). They also spend more
time during the class on fewer students
(Rosenbaum, 2001). Faculty members
must be willing to put in the time and
effort necessary to make the course successful. If faculty members are not
excited about teaching online, this indifference will be evident to students
(Kearsley, 2002). Additionally, although
cohort profiles for the WebMBA® are
consistent between groups of students,
we have found that there is no one prototypical online student. Thus, faculty
members need to be able to work with a
diverse range of students while targeting
the cohort norm.
Kearsley (2002) and Smith (2001) recommended having no more than 20 students in an online course. Additionally,
online courses require significant institutional support to be successful (Mohamad
& Ismail, 2001). Thus, online classes are
not used best as volume revenue producers (Hongmei, 2002), but they may offer
an opportunity to charge a premium price
(Arbaugh & Duray, 2002).
Although low course enrollments are
recommended, the WebMBA® has main-

tained a high retention rate with an average of 30 students per course. We attribute this retention rate to the team- and
cohort-based approach, as well as to extensive faculty interaction (during orientation, online, and even by phone) with
associates. The Georgia program is not a
volume revenue producer—it limits itself
to one new cohort per year—but it does
charge a premium tuition price that is
competitive with the majority of other
online programs nationwide. Affiliate
schools experience a modest return but
see their mission as providing a viable
alternative to brick-and-mortar programs.
Smith (2001) noted that at the outset,
the costs of an online program—including time and frustration—may outweigh
the benefits for faculty members. Professors must learn new technologies and be
conversant with their frequent upgrades,
not only to help themselves but also to
assist with troubleshooting for students,
as we have found that the ease of use of
the online course is an important element in the course’s success. The University System of Georgia has been
instrumental in supporting faculty members with training and design services,
licensing and hosting our courseware,
and providing technical support services
to students and faculty members.
Extensive preparation is required for
faculty members the first time that they
teach an online course (often while juggling full course loads), and much subsequent work is necessary to revise the
course. During the actual course, professors devote significant time to grading and writing detailed comments to
guide students, which often affects the
faculty members’ ability to do research.
Finally, ensuring home Internet access,
paying for second phone lines or cable
modems, and updating hardware and
software so professors can teach their
online courses from home on evenings
and weekends can constitute a financial
burden (Smith, 2001). All these factors
can affect students’ perceptions of the
responsiveness of faculty members and
the level of interaction in the course.
Professors need to describe clearly
the class requirements and standards for
grading (Ramos, 2001). Given the time
and space separation between faculty
members and students, this clarification
is even more important in distanceMarch/April 2004

251

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:24 12 January 2016

learning courses than in traditional
classrooms. Smith (2001) noted that
reading instructions is not a priority for
students and that professors must repeat
instructions and ideally place them in
several locations in the online course.
Having faculty members present at the
WebMBA® orientation—and walking
associates through their courses—helps
build the confidence that associates
need. Additionally, we invite associates
from the ongoing cohorts to meet with
the new cohort to candidly discuss best
practices and expectations.
We have found that consistent faculty
contact is a vital element for successful
online courses. Faculty members need
to make a connection with students,
either by attending orientation to meet
the students or by calling or e-mailing
them at the beginning of the term. Additionally, as online MBA students tend to
be working managers, the coursework
must be relevant and integrated into
everyday business practices (Rosenbaum, 2001), because we found that
applicability of concepts is a key element for online students. Finally, professors must be flexible and willing to
make changes, if needed, that do not
detract from course quality. For example, many WebMBA® faculty members
routinely solicit associate feedback
throughout the semester, not merely at
the end of the courses.
In the long run, most faculty members probably will not receive enough
additional resources or be released from
enough regular courses to address their
time concerns, but there are potential
benefits to teaching online, particularly
at the MBA level. First, we have
encountered higher-quality students
with diverse, professional backgrounds.
They are not students who returned to
school because they were unable to find
a job; rather, they tend to be working
managers. Second, the quality of student output tends to be higher, as students have to formulate their thoughts in
writing and review their comments
before they are posted (Cassiani, 2001).
Third, professors both teach and learn
from students. In an online course, the
professor is transformed from the
source of all knowledge for his or her
students to something more like a coach
or facilitator. Fourth, online teaching
252

Journal of Education for Business

facilitates more one-to-one contact with
students, and faculty members may
become more familiar with and understand their students better (Jana, 1999).
Fifth, the online learning environment
may provide a more diverse group of
students, as there may be students from
many geographic locations and backgrounds (Cassiani, 2001). Finally, students embrace the online format and
appreciate the faculty members providing it. Because they recognize that they
would be unable to attend classes in a
traditional setting, students are there to
learn (Svetcov, 2000).
Conclusion
Universities that want to reach experienced, motivated students who choose
not to attend face-to-face classes “will
have to accommodate their needs with
courses that are either primarily or completely electronic” (Smith, 2001, p. 35).
Online MBA programs may not have
seen the “dotcom success” that was initially envisioned, but the promise and
demand for online management education has not diminished (Mangan, 2001).
A clear picture of which students are
most likely to succeed in the virtual
environment is emerging. In examining
the associates in the WebMBA® program, we found consistent characteristics in cohorts’ reasons for joining the
program, their learning experiences
online, and the types of on-the-job
teams in which they had participated.
Although individual associate responses
varied, we are confident that we have
identified key factors that must be considered in addressing potential attrition.
The consistency of cohort profiles provides a sound basis for both the administrative and teaching approaches.
MBA programs need to profile their
students in an effort to retain online
learners and to equip them better to
work in virtual teams. Faculty members
need to provide students with feedback
and structured interaction to address
isolation concerns, offer relevant content and activities that help students
meet their personal and professional
goals, and structure applied learning
experiences that effectively develop
their skills. Faculty members play a
central role in all facets of a successful

program, from shaping student expectations as they enter the program to facilitating the right kind of learning environment throughout it. Although the
WebMBA® associates initially tend to
perceive learning from others in an
online team as divorced from their actual work experience, the program and its
faculty members reinforce the key competencies required of lifelong learners in
business contexts.
Kearsley (2002) correctly suggested
that online learning is not for everyone.
Some students prefer the classroom
experience and do not have the selfdiscipline or initiative to succeed in the
online classroom; likewise, not all professors have a teaching style and personality conducive to online teaching
(Kearsley, 2002). A successful online
program requires careful selection of
both the students and the faculty members and significant administrative support for the program’s proper design and
management. Understanding the profile
of students most apt to remain in the
WebMBA® program has helped target
students with previous online learning
experience and with adequate levels of
professional experience.
Although this research provides a
solid basis for recruiting, teaching, and
retaining program associates, there is
more work to be done. A viable followup study of the associates, used to determine the possible impact the program
has on associates’ perceptions of and
practice with team-based learning, will
include administering the survey at various times throughout the associates’
stay with us and as they exit the program. We now have a strong working
concept of key characteristics and perceptions of associates entering the program; the next step will be to define
those characteristics and perceptions as
they evolve over time. Such research
will inform the structuring of the learning experience and may help other
schools as they plan and launch online
MBA programs.
REFERENCES
Arbaugh, J. B., & Duray, R. (2002). Technological
and structural characteristics, student learning
and satisfaction with Web-based courses: An
exploratory study of two online MBA programs. Management Learning, 33(3), 331–347.

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:24 12 January 2016

Aron, L. J. (1999). Online U: More companies
and individuals are turning to virtual classrooms for everything from training to getting an
MBA. Across the Board, 36(8), 63–66.
Carr, S. (2000, February 11). As distance education
comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. Chronicle of Higher Education, 23, A1.
Cassiani, L. (2001, May 21). Student participation
thrives in online learning environments. Canadian HR Reporter, 14(10), 2.
Dash, E. (2000, October 2). The virtual MBA: A
work in progress. Best B-schools report. Business Week, 3701, 96.
Devi, C. (2001, April 30). Qualities of a successful online learner. Computimes Malaysia, 1.
Devi, C. (2002, June 17). Online learning, tool for
the future. Computimes Malaysia, 1.
Diaz, D. P. (2000). Comparison of student characteristics and evaluation of student success in
an online health education course. Retrieved
July 10, 2002, from http://home.earthlink.net
/~davidpdiaz/LTS/pdf_docs/dissertn.pdf
Dyrud, M. A. (2000). The third wave: A position
paper. Business Communication Quarterly,
63(3), 81–93.
Hipwell, W. (2000). Promoting your e-learning investment. Training and Development, 54(9), 18.
Hongmei, L. (2002, March). Distance education:
Pros, cons, and the future. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Western States Communication Association, Long Beach, CA.
Jana, R. (1999, September 13). Getting the most
out of online learning. InfoWorld, 21(37), 119.

Kader, B. (2001, April 16). Gearing women
towards embracing online learning. Computimes Malaysia, 1.
Katz-Stone, A. (2000, January 21). Online learning. Washington Business Journal, 18(38), 35.
Kearsley, G. (2002, January/February). Is online
learning for everybody? Educational Technology, 42(1), 41–44.
Lankford, K. (2001). WebMBAs make the grade.
Kiplinger’s Personal Finance, 55(5), 84–88.
Lewis, N. J., & Orton, P. (2000). The five attributes
of innovative e-learning. Training and Development, 54(6), 47–51.
Lowe, V. (2000, April 10). Reasons for universities turning to online learning. Computimes
Malaysia, 1.
MacGregor, C. J. (2000). Does personality matter? A comparison of student experiences in traditional and online classrooms. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 61, 1696A.
Mangan, K. S. (2001, October 5). Expectations
evaporate for online MBA programs. Chronicle
of Higher Education, 48(6), A31.
McBain, R. (2001). E-learning: Towards a blended approach. Manager Update, 13(1), 20–33.
McEwen, B. C. (2001). Web-assisted and online
learning. Business Communication Quarterly,
64(2), 98–103.
Miles, L. (2001, February 1). Marketers warm to
electronic learning. Marketing (UK), 35.
Mohamad, F. S., & Ismail, J. (2001, August 13).
To advance in online learning. Computimes
Malaysia, 1.

Moskal, P. D., & Dziuban, C. D. (2001). Present
and future directions for assessing cybereducation: The changing research paradigm. In L. R.
Vandervert, L. V. Shavinina, & R. A. Cornell
(Eds.), Cybereducation: The future of long-distance learning (pp. 157–184). New York: Mar