Journal of Further and Higher Education

ISSN: 0309-877X (Print) 1469-9486 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

Student retention in higher education: what role

for virtual learning environments?

Celayne HeatonShrestha , Steve May & Linda Burke

To cite this article: Celayne HeatonShrestha , Steve May & Linda Burke (2009) Student retention
in higher education: what role for virtual learning environments?, Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 33:1, 83-92, DOI: 10.1080/03098770802645189

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03098770802645189

Published online: 06 Mar 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 678

View related articles

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjfh20

Download by: [Universidad Nacional Colombia] Date: 22 April 2017, At: 14:33
Journal of Further and Higher Education
Vol. 33, No. 1, February 2009, 8392

Student retention in higher education: what role for virtual learning

environments?
Celayne Heaton-Shresthaa, Steve Mayb* and Linda Burkec
a
University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom; bKingston University, Kingston-Upon-
Thames, United Kingdom; cSt Georges University of London, London, United Kingdom

Ways in which aspects of the student experience associated with first-year

retention at university are likely to be influenced by the use of virtual learning
environments (VLEs) are explored here through structured interviews with
academic staff and students at one institution (Kingston University). This
research finds that some assumptions made about the value of VLEs in aiding
communication between students and providing flexibility in modes of learning
are not supported, but that retention is likely to be aided by the ways in which
they can enhance confidence and provide a sense of control and ownership. The
findings also indicate that students tend to be more positive than staff about the
role of the VLE in enhancing their overall performance and experience and as
such provide an impetus for further developments with the expectation of
improved student retention, performance and satisfaction.
Keywords: student retention; virtual learning environment; institutional case
study

Introduction
Two pressing issues for UK higher education institutions (HEIs) are student
retention and the use of information communication technologies (ICTs). In recent
years, numerous claims have been made concerning the cost reduction and
efficiencies brought about through the introduction of online learning (Twigg
2003); at the same time, the expectation on the part of students has been,
increasingly, that ICTs would be part of their learning experience (e.g. Fielden 2002).
The governments widening participation agenda, meanwhile, has intensified the
ongoing HEI concern with student early departure, as pressure to attract greater
numbers of students from non-traditional backgrounds has grown (e.g. Johnston
2002). This article brings these two concerns together, assessing the claims that have
been made for the role of ICTs in aiding student retention, and, in particular,
exploring how a virtual learning environment (VLE) can support the engagement
and retention of undergraduate students in the context of mixed-mode courses,
where students are expected to attend campus and e-learning materials are designed
to support face-to-face provision rather than replace it.
In the year 2000 Kingston University started to use Blackboard, one of the most
widely adopted VLEs in the UK Higher Education sector. An evaluative research
project looking into its use to support students from diverse backgrounds to progress
to, and succeed in, higher education (Edirisingha et al. 2005) found that it was
used in a variety of ways by lecturers and students (Heaton-Shrestha et al. 2005;

*Corresponding author. Email: s.may@kingston.ac.uk

ISSN 0309-877X print/ISSN 1469-9486 online

# 2009 UCU
DOI: 10.1080/03098770802645189
http://www.informaworld.com
84 C. Heaton-Shrestha et al.

Heaton-Shrestha et al. 2008), meaning that they would have encountered a range of
pedagogies and diversely structured learning environments. The way in which
students used the VLE was shaped by subject matter and discipline area (Linsey,
Katsifli, and Gipps 2005) and by ease of access to computers. For this reason, the
research considered the features of the VLE experienced by all students, such as
continuous access to a range of learning materials and information, communications
with a broader network of students through discussion boards or email, and the
importance of anonymity. This article explores how a VLE could support processes
and factors known, through institutional and wider research, to play an important
role in the decision to withdraw. The focus is on first-year students on courses that
were largely taught face to face on campus but were supported by a VLE. The
qualitative data collected from staff and students have been analysed to give us a rich
interpretation of its underlying causes and potential implications.

Literature review
The recent audit of student retention in England (National Audit Office 2007) found
there to be scope for improvements in retention and that actions taken to address
this will become increasingly important as widening participation brings in more
students likely to need support; it emphasises a need to go further than simply
addressing learning deficits.
Perhaps the most influential model developed to account for the early departure
of students from HE is that of Tinto (e.g. Tinto 1987), according to which, the
student decision to persist or withdraw is closely associated with the extent to which
he or she has succeeded in becoming both socially and academically integrated into
the institution. This has been adapted by Forbes (2008) to take more account of the
needs of part-time student and include external factors such as the need for paid
employment. In doing so, this new retention model emphasises the importance of
peer interaction to aid retention, through both academic acculturation and social
adjustment, and of appropriate and accurate information being given to potential
students before enrolment. This is corroborated by research at KU which found the
prime reported reasons for student withdrawal, particularly in the first semester, to
be linked to unmet expectations and financial pressures (May and Bousted 2003).
Thomas (2002) identified instances of good practice including the provision of peer-
assisted learning schemes and targeted services for minority groups and, similarly,
research at KU (May and Bousted 2004; Hodgson, May, and Marks-Maran 2008)
found that social engagement and peer support were key factors for first-year
students in their decisions to remain on courses. A comprehensive review of the use
of ICT in widening participation and retention initiatives conducted by the
Universities of the North East (Dodgson and Bolam 2002) reported its increasing
use to provide support and guidance online. A key contribution to student retention
was thought to be its potential role in improving social integration by offering
enhanced means of communication and interaction. ICTs were also considered to
play a role in enhancing student retention by allowing for more flexible learning
patterns, allowing students to access resources and services without the need to
physically attend and to do so outside traditional opening hours. They comment that
these universities believe that developments in flexible learning will decrease the
likelihood of a student dropping out of university (Dodgson and Bolam 2002, 3).
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 85

However, empirical studies assessing the role of ICTs in improving retention rates in
campus-based undergraduate courses have been singularly lacking. This is all the
more regrettable since the combination of flexibility with opportunities for social
interaction in blended learning (i.e. combining face-to-face and electronic media)
may lead us to expect higher retention rates on blended-mode programmes.

Research method
Interviews were conducted with 12 male and 11 female members of academic staff at
KU, including lecturers, professors, educational technology champions, pastoral
care staff and workshop leaders. These were drawn from across the humanities,
social sciences, business and technology disciplines and included staff ranging from
the advanced Blackboard user to the non-user.
In addition, 43 interviews were carried out with students from four schools
within the university (computing, sociology, modern languages, and business), as
shown in Table 1. These, with the exception of the School of Modern Languages,
were selected in consideration of their relatively high proportion of non-
traditional students (i.e. other than those from the A-level/GCSE route) and
because they provided contrasting subject areas. In each school, a core module
was selected so as to ensure that the cohort would be the same from semester 1 to
semester 2. Equal numbers of students with high and low scores in the deep
approach to learning were selected for interview from the overall sample who had
completed a Learning and Studying Questionnaire (Hounsell and McCune 2002)
in the first semester.
Data were collected through two individual, face-to-face, semi-structured
interviews with each student over two semesters. The aim was to document how
they used the VLE, their learning style preferences and their approaches to studying.
A detailed analysis (Heaton-Shrestha et al. 2007) has shown that a VLE could
accommodate a variety of learning style models and approaches, including activist
and reflective styles (Honey and Mumford 1992) and approaches to learning and
studying described by Entwistle (2003). However, in their critical review of the
literature, Coffield et al. (2004) highlight the range of concepts of learning style and
the variety of instruments to measure them and recommend that the use of some of
the most widely used instruments in research and practice be discontinued because of
serious weaknesses, for example low reliability, poor validity and negligible impact
on pedagogy (138). While we used the approaches-to-learning categories from the
Learning and Studying Questionnaire (Hounsell and McCune 2002) to inform the
selection of interviewees, the analysis involved a much broader method, both
generating study style categories from the interview data and elaborating those pre-
existing across a range of learning style models.
In the first interview a series of statements were printed on cards and interviewees
asked to respond, first by stating whether they felt these were like me or not like
me, then to rank the statements if possible, and then to elaborate on this
categorisation by giving an example. This approach was used in previous studies to
help teachers articulate their implicit theories of learning (Gipps, McCallum, and
Hargreaves 2000) and models of assessment (Gipps et al. 1995). The second interview
also solicited students evaluation of the usefulness of the VLE in carrying out
various learning-related tasks, after two semesters of use. Both sets of interviews

Table 1. Profile of interviewed students.
University school
Modern languages
(n510)
Computing (n514)
Business (n57)
Sociology (n512)
86 C. Heaton-Shrestha et al.
Gender Family background Entry qualifications
Not available
Male
1st in generation into HE
Not 1st in generation into HE
Access course
Non-UK qualification
Work-based qualification
Advanced vocational certificate
Female
Mix A-level/GNVQ
4 6 5 5 9 0 1 0 0 0
8 6 10 4 9 1 0 2 1 1
5 2 5 2 6 1 0 0 0 0
4 8 6 6 8 1 0 3 0 0
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 87

lasted between 40 minutes and one hour; were one to one and audio recorded, and
took place on campus.
Staff were interviewed about their experiences of using the VLE as part of their
teaching on first-year undergraduate courses. Here their attitudes and views towards
Blackboard and the ways in which they felt it had affected teaching and its impact on
students were explored. The interviews lasted between 60 and 100 minutes and were
audio recorded. The tapes were transcribed in full and entered into the qualitative
data analysis software NVivo2.

Findings
The following themes were generated by relating an analysis of date from interviews
with students and staff to factors associated in the literature with student retention.

Performance
The VLE was intended to support the retention of less-well-performing students by
ensuring, through the development of key skills modules and, more generically,
making learning materials easily accessible, that occasional non-attendance did not
lead to their falling behind.
Staff views on the impact of Blackboard were mixed and impressionistic: some
felt the ability of students to access materials as suited them had a positive effect on
performance, while others did not, even though they recognised that it did allow for
students to be better prepared. For example:
[Weblinks in Blackboard] helps them to become effective as it gives them access to
material that they would not necessarily go and find themselves or find simply. (Lecturer M)
In contrast to staff, the students interviewed were almost unanimously positive about
the effects of the VLE on their own performance. They felt it to have enhanced their
effectiveness in a variety of ways: by making materials, notes, hints, tips, and
websites easily accessible; by allowing for further practice and reinforcement of
course material; by maintaining awareness of whats going on; and by allowing
better organisation and tracking of their own learning.

Engagement with the course

Staff views concerning the role of Blackboard in getting and keeping students
engaged with the course were mixed. For example:
They are triggered to do something because they have received a message it might be a
reminder about a coming assessment and then they panic [and] they come and see
you. So you are getting more people coming out of the woodwork because of a chance
encounter with Blackboard. (Lecturer B)
The lecturer making this last comment was ambivalent about the role of the VLE in
enhancing students engagement with their courses. Later in the interview, he
expressed a concern that Blackboard might also keep what he termed semi-
detached students in that state, rather than re-engaging them. He explained that
they think they can get away with looking at Blackboard slides.
Students responses were also equivocal, with 50% reporting that the VLE had
helped them to feel actively involved in their studies. The others tended to feel that
88 C. Heaton-Shrestha et al.

involvement was derived from an internal drive, rather than from extrinsic factors,
and that using the VLE was a passive experience.

Enhancing social integration

When the Blackboard communications tools were used, it was most frequently
between students and staff. Sixty-five per cent of students reported that the VLE
had not made relating to others easier; while only 19% felt that it had. But while
respondents were almost unanimous in their view that the VLE had contributed
little to exchange and communication among themselves, their view of its role in
promoting a sense of community was more positive, providing them with a sense
of belonging and commonality. These students emphasised that it achieved this
effect by imparting a sense that were all in the same boat, or by providing
a common talking point. This is consistent with Preeces (2000) observation
concerning the value of lurking or peripheral involvement, and its ability to
foster a strong sense of belonging to the community despite a lack of direct
interaction.
It does [make you feel part of a community] because youre all level one; its all pretty
much the same students you do feel you belong to a group, and youre part of
something. (Student H)

Control and ownership

Students were asked how they felt towards the statement: Blackboard helps me to
feel I am in control of my learning and studying. More than two thirds agreed. This
represented the highest proportion of positive responses to questions about the
VLEs role in learning and studying. In other words, while the contribution of the
VLE to students learning might have been uncertain in many other respects, it
played an undeniable role in enhancing students sense of control over the learning
process. Reasons given for these views related either to the access to greater
information about the programme (contents and lecturer expectations) or to the
ability of the VLE to give students the choice of how, when and where to learn and
study.
[I agree] because youre able to be active you can log onto Blackboard yourself
you dont need to ask or go through any other means you are in control. (Student A)
Most staff were less positive about this feature, expressing a concern that it might
empower students to make the wrong choice (e.g. not to attend lectures, or not to
read and research broadly, limiting themselves to materials provided through
Blackboard).

Confidence and motivation

Staff did not identify a specific role for the VLE in increasing student confidence and
had mixed views on the ways in which and extent to which it affected motivation.
I worry that it may actually have the opposite effect decreasing social interaction
between people which may demotivate [students]; [hampering] getting the excitement of
the lecturer across [and the] danger of people becoming isolated and no longer [part
of] a social system. (Lecturer J)
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 89

Students were more positive. Fifty-seven per cent found that it had helped them feel
more confident, and forty-one per cent that it had helped them feel percent better
motivated. The main factor in each of these cases was accessibility of resources,
which allowed them to gauge their level of understanding through looking at
contributions to the discussion boards, and permitted them to read about lectures in
advance, and also enabled them to keep on track or not lose sight of their studies.
Seeing other peoples ideas [on the discussion board] can highlight areas, which other
people may have missed that youve picked up on; that instils confidence when you
think that youve spotted something that others havent. (Student L)
Where motivation was not associated with course provision, but stemmed from
within (e.g. personal ambition, interest in the course or academic success) and from
the social environment (pressure from peers), access to a VLE was found to make
little difference.
All students felt that while confidence was related to a range of factors (personal,
coursework completion, grades, etc.) it was not undermined by the VLE. The fact
that 57% explicitly identified the VLE as raising their confidence level therefore
represents an important finding.

Study styles
We found that the way in which students prefer to study shaped the way they made
use of the VLE, and that it neither discouraged nor encouraged any particular
learning style, whether identified through a learning style model or developed from
the data. Seventy per cent reported that Blackboard had allowed them to study
according to my preferred way of studying. The reasons given related mostly to
issues of flexibility for example, by allowing them to work in a quiet place, at home
and at their own pace, or by providing a useful alternative to books or their notes
taken in lectures. This variety, commented one student, helped me to find my own
preferred way. Others found that since Blackboard only provided outlines, it was
possible for them to use it in number of ways.
Most of those who felt that Blackboard did not help them to study in their
preferred manner simply felt that it had not played any specific part. I do that
anyway, explained one student. Some also said that they had not been able to access
a computer and that Blackboard was too structured for them.

Discussion
The findings show there to be a divergence between the perspectives of staff and
students in relation to some aspects of VLE use in teaching and learning, particularly
in relation to the issues of student performance and the extent to which it increased
their control and ownership. Most students felt that Blackboard had enhanced their
effectiveness, while staff, on the other hand, were much less certain. They were
concerned that the VLE posed a threat to their efforts to engage students and that it
might actually lead to disengagement. In its current strategic plan, Kingston
University (2005) reiterates its commitment to:
continue to develop new approaches to the flexible delivery of courses, for example,
through e-learning and blended learning, in order to improve the student experience and
meet the needs of a more diverse student body. (12)
90 C. Heaton-Shrestha et al.

This makes it all the more important that staff are in touch with individual and
overall student perceptions in order to develop the VLE and maximise its positive
aspects. A survey of VLE usage in a school at the University of Sydney (Peat et al.
2001) also found differences between staff and student views of the usefulness and
engagement of computer based-resources, concluding that:
The staff who teach in these large first year courses need to be more informed of the
characteristics of the student cohort and to remember that the student body requires
a variety of learning experiences that not only embrace the electronic world but are also
anchored in the more traditional offerings. (478)
The importance of listening to and acting on the student voice is being prioritised at
KU through the introduction of annual student surveys and the setting up of a
dedicated high-level Student Experience Group.
Some of the issues associated with enhanced student experience and retention in
the literature, and used in the coding of the data, did not accord with the experience
of the KU students. Enhanced flexibility and communication with peers and the
university were not flagged up as particularly significant by students and the VLE
was not except for the few for whom it imparted a sense of belonging a primary
means of social integration, nor did it play a significant role in helping students meet
or establish networks of support. Other elements in interviews with students suggest
that this may be due to the plethora of avenues for social interaction in blended-
learning courses, and preference for these alternatives (non-university webmail,
chatrooms, mobile phones and face-to-face meetings). Similarly, the attendance
requirement of blended-learning courses meant that the students were less likely to
exploit the flexibility afforded by a VLE; the majority used the VLE most between
lectures and while on campus, even when they had the facilities to do so outside these
times and places.
While the opportunity for pedagogical innovation (e.g. rethinking modes of
assessment), better and faster feedback to students, and the flexibility of distance
modalities of learning were not significant contributors of the VLE to the student
experience; the student-driven roll-out of Blackboard in the university (see Heaton-
Shrestha et al. 2005) and the positive comments concerning the ways in which it
improved communication between lecturers and students leave little doubt of its
overall value. The findings illustrate ways in which its contribution to retention may
be seen in terms of the models of Tinto (1987) and later Forbes (2008), through its
enhancement of academic integration: it accommodated learning style well, helped
increase confidence and the students sense of control, and enhanced the student
experience by providing support from the institution.
The resource function of the VLE was key both to overcoming the staff
student mismatch in perception through clarifying expectations and in addressing
students need for a clearer structure, organisation and sense of direction in their
studies. The very positive responses to questions in this study concerning the
ability of the VLE to bestow a sense of control over the learning process, and the
finding that Blackboard accommodates diversity in learning styles, is evidence of a
mechanism that could better enable students, increasingly from diverse back-
grounds, to counter any perceived or actual lack of fit and thereby improve
retention rates. While the precise impact of VLE use on student retention rates
awaits elucidation through further and large-scale quantitative studies, the
evidence suggests that it is a worthwhile complement to institutional initiatives
 Journal of Further and Higher Education 91

to help student retention and satisfaction and thus has implications for HEI
managers and policy makers, given, for example, the increasing significance of
student evaluation for the HE sector (e.g. the National Student Satisfaction
Survey).
Finally, when considering the findings from this research, it is important to bear
in mind that it was conducted at the very outset of the implementation of a VLE, at a
time when staff were still familiarising themselves with the technology and having to
make changes to their teaching. This suggests that it might offer different benefits at
different stages of its implementation, and that further research would do well to
explore ways in which it affects student retention in settings where VLE use by staff
has had time to mature.

Notes on contributors
Celayne Heaton Shrestha is a research fellow in the anthropology department of the
University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. She is working on a research project under the LSE-based
and ESRC funded Non-Governmental Action Program, exploring the nature of public action
under conditions of civil conflict and post-conflict contexts. Prior to this, she had worked as
research fellow on the WAS project at Kingston University (2002-2005) (e-learning to support
non-traditional students preparation for HE and for undergraduates development of deep
approaches to learning).
Steve May is a senior institutional researcher at Kingston University UK. Formerly a lecturer
in the further education sector, his work focuses on planning, monitoring and evaluating
initiatives designed to support the transition of non traditional students into higher education
and their subsequent progression through to graduation and employment.
Linda Burke is the associate dean for practice education, head of undergraduate nursing and
reader in nursing, in the Faculty of Health and Social Care Sciences, Kingston University and
St Georges, University of London. She has teaching and management experience gained from
working in senior positions in the Department of Health, and within NHS and higher
education organisations. She has published in a number of areas, notably regarding student
support in higher education, health care education, and exploring the relationship between
education policy and its impact in practice.

References
Coffield, F., D. Moseley, E. Hall, and K. Ecclestone. 2004. Learning styles and pedagogy in
post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research
Centre.
Dodgson, R., and H. Bolam. 2002. Student retention, support and widening participation in
the north east of England. Regional widening participation project. Sunderland:
Universities for the North East.
Edirisingha, P., C. Heaton-Shrestha, T. Linsey, M. Hill, C. Gipps, and R. Gant. 2005.
Widening access and success: Learning and new technologies in higher education. Kingston
University, Kingston-Upon-Thames.
Entwistle, N. 2003. Concepts and conceptual frameworks underpinning the ETL project.
Occasional Report 3. School of Education, University of Edinburgh. http://www.etl.
tla.ed.ac.uk//docs/ETLreport3.pdf.
Fielden, J. 2002. Costing e-learning: Is it worth trying or should we ignore the figures? The
Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. http://www.obhe.ac.uk/index.html.
92 C. Heaton-Shrestha et al.

Forbes, A. 2008. A new retention model. Paper presented at the Higher Education Academy
Annual Conference, 1 July 2008, Harrogate, UK.
Gipps, C., B. McCallum, and E. Hargreaves. 2000. What makes a good primary school teacher?
Expert classroom strategies. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Gipps, C., B. McCallum, S. McAlister, and M. Brown. 1995. Emerging models of teacher
assessment in the classroom. In Evaluating authentic assessment, ed. H. Torrance.
Buckingham: Open Univ. Press.
Heaton-Shrestha, C., P. Edirisingha, L. Burke, and T. Linsey. 2005. Introducing a VLE into
campus-based undergraduate teaching: Staff perspectives on its impact on teaching.
International Journal of Educational Research 43, no. 6: 37086.
Heaton-Shrestha, C., C. Gipps, P. Edirisingha, and T. Linsey. 2007. Learning and e-learning
in HE: The relationship between student learning style and VLE use. Research Papers in
Education 22, no. 4: 44364.
Heaton-Shrestha, C., S. May, P. Edirisingha, T. Linsey, and L. Burke. 2009, in press. From
face to face to e-mentoring: Does the e add any value for mentors? International Journal
of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 20, no. 2.
Hodgson, D., S. May, and D. Marks-Maran. 2008. Promoting the development of a
supportive learning environment through action research from the middle out.
Educational Action Research 16, no. 4: 531544.
Honey, P., and A. Mumford. 1992. The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey.
Hounsell, D., and V. McCune. 2002. Teachinglearning environments in undergraduate
biology: Initial perspectives and findings. Occasional Report 2. School of Education,
University of Edinburgh. http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/ETLreport2.pdf.
Johnston, V. 2002. Improving student retention by accident or design? Exchange 1, no. 1:
911.
Kingston University. 2005. Kingston University Strategic Plan 2005/06 to 2009/10. Kingston
University, Kingston-Upon-Thames.
Linsey, T., D. Katsifli, and C. Gipps. 2005. The costs and benefits of implementing a
university-wide VLE: Some real data. Journal of Science Education 6 (Special Issue):
2729.
May, S., and M. Bousted. 2003. Shall I stay or shall I go? Students who leave Kingston
University in semester one. Educational Developments 4, no. 2: 1921.
May, S., and M. Bousted. 2004. Investigation of student retention through an analysis of the
first-year experience of students at Kingston University. Widening Participation and
Lifelong Learning 6, no. 2: 4248.
National Audit Office. 2007. Staying the course: The retention of students in higher education.
London: The Stationery Office. http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/06-07/
0607616.pdf.
Peat, M., S. Franklin, A. Lewis, and R. Sims. 2001. Staff and student views of the usefulness of
information technology materials within an integrated curriculum: Are these educational
resources effective in promoting student learning? Proceedings of the 18th Annual
Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Tertiary Education, 47180,
University of Melbourne. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pdf/
papers/peatm2.pdf.
Preece, J. 2000. Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester:
Wiley.
Thomas, L. 2002. Student retention in higher education: The role of institutional habitus.
Journal of Education Policy 17, no. 4: 42332.
Tinto, V. 1987. Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Twigg, C.A. 2003. Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning.
Educause Review. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0352.pdf.