Retaining the Online Learner: Profile of Students in an Online MBA Program and Implications for Teaching Them

CYBER DIMENSIONS Retaining the Online Learner: Profile of Students in an Online MBA Program and Implications for Teaching Them JOE BOCCHI Kennesaw State University Kennesaw, Georgia JACQUELINE K. EASTMAN Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia CATHY OWENS SWIFT Georgia Southern University Statesboro, Georgia O 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 (Katz- Stone, 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 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 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

246 Journal of Education for Business 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 program 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

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 lowbandwidth 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. 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. 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 Business Management Travel experience experience per week Age (years) (years) (years) (hours) Cohort 2 (N = 25, n = 24) M 33.90 11.80 6.20 8.13 SD 6.01 6.94 6.00 8.44 Cohort 3 (N = 35, n = 35) M 32.37 10.00 5.76 14.19 SD 10.00 7.66 6.66 15.22 Cohort 4 (N = 29, n = 29) M 33.40 10.78 5.17 9.21 SD 7.56 6.88 5.32 12.54 Note. SD = Standard deviation. 248 Journal of Education for Business

TABLE 2. Highest- and Lowest-Ranked Reasons for Joining the WebMBA Program: Cohorts 3 and 4 Cohort 3 Cohort 4 Reason for joining WebMBA M SD M SD Highest-ranked I want to attend an accredited program. 5.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 It fits my work schedule. 4.83 0.45 4.86 0.44 I seek personal as well as professional growth. 4.83 0.51 4.66 0.61 It provides 24/7 access. 4.71 0.52 4.66 0.72 It fits my career growth plans. 4.66 0.54 4.90 0.31 It fits my family life demands. 4.40 0.85 4.45 0.69 Travel to a school for evening or weekend courses 4.40 0.95 4.34 0.77 is not an option for me. I like controlling when I learn; I have no time for physical boundaries. 4.26 0.92 4.59 0.73 Lowest-ranked My employer sees the online MBA as a more 3.17 0.62 3.08 0.80 applied learning experience. My employer considers an online MBA as 3.15 1.08 3.00 0.96 equivalent or better in quality compared with a campus-based program. I live within an hour s drive of my home school. 3.06 1.85 2.48 1.79 I work within an hour s drive of my home school. 2.91 1.85 2.29 1.67 My employer recommended the program. 2.03 1.10 2.21 1.15 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 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 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 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 Cohort 4 Top expectations of the program M SD M SD Arranged by C3 ratings Ease of use of courseware 4.80 0.41 4.52 0.87 Consistent faculty responsiveness and contact 4.69 0.53 4.62 0.56 Learning concepts that can be applied on the job 4.66 0.48 4.86 0.44 Access to support materials to help with learning concepts 4.63 0.55 4.48 0.74 Effective and available technical support 4.62 0.55 4.31 0.85 Faculty intervention to help me understand concepts 4.57 0.61 4.45 0.63 Learning relevant to my current or future position/industry 4.49 0.82 4.69 0.54 Efficient/effective application process 4.46 0.70 4.48 0.74 Efficient/effective administration processes 4.43 0.65 4.66 0.55 Learning from other students 4.43 0.81 4.17 0.71 Working with faculty members experienced in working in companies or as consultants 4.23 0.77 4.31 0.89 Efficient/effective registration process 4.23 0.88 4.52 0.74 Arranged by C4 ratings Learning concepts that can be applied on the job 4.86 0.44 4.66 0.48 Learning relevant to my current or future position/industry 4.69 0.54 4.49 0.82 Efficient/effective administration processes 4.66 0.55 4.43 0.65 Efficient/effective registration process 4.52 0.74 4.23 0.88 Ease of use of courseware 4.52 0.87 4.80 0.41 Access to support materials to help with learning concepts 4.48 0.74 4.63 0.55 Efficient/effective application process 4.48 0.74 4.46 0.70 Faculty intervention to help me understand concepts 4.45 0.63 4.57 0.61 Effective and available technical support 4.31 0.85 4.62 0.55 Working with faculty members experienced in working in companies or as consultants 4.31 0.89 4.23 0.77 Learning from other students 4.17 0.71 4.43 0.81 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 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 respondents 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- 250 Journal of Education for Business

TABLE 4. Levels of Experience With Online Learning: Cohorts 3 and 4 Cohort 3 Cohort 4 Learning modes M SD M SD Company intranet 3.26 0.98 3.72 0.53 CD-ROM 3.06 0.87 3.41 0.78 Web-based course 2.80 1.08 3.24 0.99 Asynchronous, self-based course 2.80 0.99 2.89 1.13 Teleconferencing 2.74 0.85 3.00 0.80 Completely virtual learning 2.54 1.09 2.82 1.02 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 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 maintained 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 distance- March/April 2004 251

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.

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: Mary Ann Liebert. Pethokoukis, J. M. (2002, June 24). E-learn and earn. U.S. News and World Report 132(22), 36. Ramos, G. P. (2001, October 8). E-learning not effective for everyone. Computerworld Philippines, 1. Rice, D. (2000). E-learning study has surprising results. IT Support News, 20(11), 22. Rosenbaum, D. B. (2001, May 28). E-learning beckons busy professionals. ENR, 246(21), 38 42. Ross, I. (2001). Trend toward online learning. Northern Ontario Business, 21(10), 18. Ryan, S. (2001). Is online learning right for you? American Agent and Broker, 73(6), 54 58. Smith, L. J. (2001). Content and delivery: A comparison and contrast of electronic and traditional MBA marketing planning courses. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 35. Svetcov, D. (2000, September 11). Ask the students. Forbes, 50 54. Terry, N. (2001). Assessing enrollment and attrition rates for the online MBA. THE Journal, 28(7), 64 68. Thomas, K. Q. (2001). Local colleges providing online learning programs. Rochester Business Journal, 16(43), 28. March/April 2004 253