1. Evidence of Serving Predominantly
Black Minority Students in Online Classes

2. Presented by
Dr. Tilokie Depoo, Dean & Professor of
Management, Director of E-Learning
Ms. Davinder Kaur, Undergraduate Program
Coordinator & Adjunct Faculty
School for Business, Metropolitan College of New York
Presented at ACBSP Region 1 Conference
San Juan, Puerto Rico
October 9-11, 2013

3. Objectives of Presentation
1. Implementation of DL programs
2. Present findings of student
engagement, academic progress and
student satisfaction at MCNY, a
predominantly minority-serving
institution
3. Addressing the digital divide

4. Presentation Outline
• School for Business
– Unique curricula
– Purpose-Centered Education & Constructive Action
• Literature Review
• Planning and Implementation distance learning
(DL) course offerings
• Presentation of Research Findings
– Satisfaction measured through registrations
– Passing and withdrawal rates as indicators of growth
– Overall student satisfaction
• Results &Conclusions
• Q&A

5. School for Business
Metropolitan College of New York
School for Business
Associate of Scien ce
Bach elors in Bu sin es s Ad min ist rat ion
BBA in Health care System s Man agemen t
MBA Gen eral Man agemen t
MBA Fin an cial Servic e s
MBA Med ia Man agem en t
School for Human Services
School for Public Affairs & Administration
Total Student Enrollment: 1287 (Office of Institutional Research)

6. Metropolitan College of New York
o Student Characteristics
o Ethnicities
o Learning culture
o Attitude to technology
o Working Adults
o Educational Philosophy
o Uniqueness of Purpose-Centered Education
o Strength of the Cohort Model

7. Student Demographics
3%
4%
Race
21%
Black
Hispanic
White
Non-resident Alien
72%

8. Purpose-Centered Education &
Constructive Action
PURPOSE 1
Constructive Action
CLASSROOM
SKILLS
PURPOSE
SELF/
OTHERS
Self & Others
SYSTEMS
Systems
FIELD COMPONENT
Skills
Learning through the application of knowledge
• Human Biology
• Principles of Business
• Computer
Applications
Purpose 2
Values &
Ethics
• Critical Thinking &
Writing
Purpose 3
Purpose 4
Constructive
Action
VALUES/
ETHICS
• Developing Career
Goals

9. Literature Review
Need for DL Offerings
• Increased enrollment in colleges of minority students
• Rise of online course offerings (Conway, 2013)
• Student Needs (Howell, n.d.)
– Flexibility & options
– Growing population
– Growth of minority learners
• 30% of students in higher education take at least one
course online (Allen, 2010)
– Continued and projected growth in online enrollments

10. Literature Review
Minority Students in Higher Education
• Significant increase of African-American
students (Howell, n.d.)
• “College enrollments in the fall of 2008
increased at rates not yet seen in the past 40
years, led by growth in community
colleges, increased enrollment of minority
students and the rise of online classes”
(Conway, 2013, pg. 1)

11. Literature Review
Minority Students Completion Rates
• Focus on disparities in minority populations
(Fairlie, 2007)
– Digital divide with minority (African-American)
students (Conway, 2013)
– African American students fared more poorly in online
courses (Lederman, 2013)
• Not accounted for was quality of the online
courses
• Conflicting findings show that that every group
fared less well in an online environment
(Lederman, 2013)

12. DL Implementation
• Fully DL Courses
– Launched spring 2010 term
• Contributing Factors:
– Faculty Committee
– Course Identification
– Course Fit for DL delivery
– Transitioning to revised curriculum
– Purpose-Centered Education & Consistency

13. Challenges
Challenges:
– Institutional support
– No prior program-level DL courses offered
– College perceptions of students skills
– Ensure support for students, faculty & staff
– Transition to new curriculum and LMS (Moodle)

14. Development Strategy
•
•
•
•
Consistency across courses
Syllabi minimal standards
Standardization of course layout
Quality Assurance – Quality Matters Rubric
Standards

15. Quality Assurance
Quality Matters Rubric Standards 2011-2013*
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Course Overview and Introduction
Learning Objectives
Assessment and Measurement
Resources and Materials
Learner Engagement
Course Technology
Learner Support
Accessibility
*The Quality Matters

16. Research Methods
• Analysis of Enrollment Data
– Measure satisfaction & growth
• Analysis of Passing Rates
– Measure academic performance
• Feedback Surveys
– Measure student satisfaction

17. Three Major Trends
1. Enrollment
2. Passing & Withdrawal Rates
3. Student Satisfaction

18. Analysis of Enrollment Data
Spring 2010 – Spring 2013
Sp '10
Su '10
Fa '10
Sp '11
Su '11
Fa '11
Sp '12
Su '12
Fa '12
Sp '13
% Change
Registrations
120
217
280
277
254
364
423
458
532
524
337%
Unique Student Count
79
128
164
172
159
209
236
250
353
343
334%
Dropped Courses
64
45
66
72
43
84
96
80
186
161
152%
Unique Dropped Courses
37
29
46
51
32
68
77
62
142
127
243%
National trends in Distance Learning
•HBCU grad rates=36%,
•national average for Afro-Americans =below 45%
•Recent report: online and incomplete
connection, community colleges

19. Total Enrollment “DIST” Courses
Spring 2010 – Summer 2013
Unduplicated Students
Linear (Unduplicated Students)
400
353
350
287
300
250
208
200
164
128
150
100
50
0
79
232
187
302
343
286

20. Total Undergraduate Enrollment “DIST” Courses
Spring 2010 – Spring 2013
Unduplicated Students
Linear (Unduplicated Students)
400
359
350
278
300
250
210
200
151
150
100
50
0
86
163
158
153
256
344

21. Total Graduate Enrollment “DIST” Courses
Spring 2010 – Spring 2013
Unduplicated Students
Linear (Unduplicated Students)
250
202
200
154
150
117
100
50
0
66
34
119
101
173
145
180

22. Enrollment “DIST” Courses
Spring 2010 - Spring 2013
600
500
400
Registrations
300
200
Unduplicated Student
Count
100
Dropped Courses
0
Unduplicated
Spring
2010
Summer
2010
Fall 2010
Spring
2011
Summer
2011
Fall 2011
Spring
2012
Fall 2012
Spring
2013
Registrations
120
217
280
316
278
367
460
532
524
Unduplicated Student Count
79
128
164
208
187
232
287
353
343

23. Total Undergrad Enrollment “DIST” Courses
Spring 2011-Spring 2013
344
350
300
278
250
218
200
158
151
150
92
86
100
51 55
50
50
30
58
34
79
44
Registrations
60
Unduplicated Student Count
Dropped Courses
Unduplicated
0
Spring 2010 Spring 2011 Spring 2012 Spring 2013
Spring 2010
Spring 2011
Spring 2012
Spring 2013
Registrations
86
158
278
344
Unduplicated Student Count
51
92
151
218
Dropped Courses
55
50
58
79
Unduplicated
30
34
44
60

24. Total Graduate Enrollment “DIST” Courses
Spring 2011 – Spring 2013
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
180
145
125
119
85
80
34 28
67
38 33
22 17
9 7
82
Registrations
Unduplicated Student Count
Dropped Courses
Spring
2010
Spring
2011
Spring
2012
Spring
2013
Spring 2010
Spring 2011
Spring 2012
Spring 2013
Registrations
34
119
145
180
Unduplicated Student Count
28
80
85
125
Dropped Courses
9
22
38
82
Unduplicated
7
17
33
67
Unduplicated

25. Overall Passing Rates: 2010 – 2011 (fall)
75.2%
80.0%
70.0%
75.1%
63.6%
62.0%
57.7%
60.0%
53.0%
50.0%
2010
40.0%
2011
30.0%
2012
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2010
Distance Courses
53.0%
Onsite Courses
57.7%
2011
62.0%
63.6%
2012
75.2%
75.1%

26. Overall Passing Rates:
Same Online & Onsite Courses
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2010
2011
2012
80.0%
74.4%
73.0%
54.1%
56.1%
60.8% 61.5%
58.2%
83.8%
57.4%
45.9%
35.2%
2010
2011
2012
Distance
Undergrad
45.9%
54.1%
56.1%
Onsite
Undegrad
58.2%
60.8%
61.5%
Distance
Grad
73.0%
35.2%
57.4%
Onsite Grad
80.0%
74.4%
83.8%

27. Average Passing Rates: Undergraduate and Graduate
Courses 2010 – 2012 (Fall)
84.6%
100.0%
80.0%
65.5%
63.4%
56.3%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
Onsite
Distance
Undergraduate
65.5%
63.4%
Graduate
56.3%
84.6%
Onsite
Distance

28. Passing Rates:
Fall 2010 vs. Fall 2012
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Fall 2012
Fall 2011
Fall 2010
19%
18%
14%
15%
13%
14%
Fall 2012
Fall 2011
Fall 2010
Distance
19%
18%
14%
Onsite
15%
13%
14%

29. Overall Withdrawal Rates:
Same Online & Onsite Courses
35.0%
31.4%
30.0%
25.0%
25.9%
22.5%
20.1%
20.0%
19.2%
20.8%
20.0%
19.4%
20.8%
16.3%
15.0%
12.2%
2010
8.8%
10.0%
2011
5.0%
2012
0.0%
2010
2011
2012
Distance
Undergrad
22.5%
20.1%
19.2%
Onsite
Undegrad
25.9%
20.8%
19.4%
Distance
Grad
12.2%
8.8%
31.4%
Onsite Grad
20.0%
20.8%
16.3%

30. Student Satisfaction by Semester
Spring 2010 –Fall 2012
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.65
3.52
3.48
3.5
3.70
3.48
3.49
3.44
3.13
3.0
3.26
2.95
3.13
3.06
3.35
3.21
3.25
3.06
2.86
2.69
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Spr 2010
Sum 2010
Fall 2010
Spr 2011
Sum 2011
Fall 2011
Spr 2012
Sum 2012
Did the course meet your expectations of a Distance Learning course?
How did this course comapre to other similar courses you have taken in traditional classroom settings?
Fall 2012

31. Results
Enrollment in DL Courses
1.
2.
3.
Steady increase in national trend
Continued and project overall growth of minority learners online
Consistent with Conway, 2013
Passing Rates (DL versus Onsite)
1.
2.
Relatively even when compared to onsite courses
Inconsistent with findings suggesting Black student’s grades falling
significantly more in online courses (Lederman, 2013)
Withdrawal Rates (DL versus Onsite)
1.
2.
No significant deviation between DL and onsite courses
Lower withdrawal rates for quantitative courses vs. non-quantitative
courses
Overall Student Satisfaction
1.
2.
Relatively positive
As indicated by expectations and comparison to onsite courses

32. Conclusions
1. Minority students are receptive and adaptive
to online (DL) courses
2. There is no significant differences in
withdrawal rates (onsite vs. online courses)
3. Students are performing similar to onsite
courses (passing rates)
4. Students are satisfied with DL courses

33. References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: online education in the united
states, 2010.
Conway, K., Wladis, C., & Hachey, A. (2013). Minority student access in the
online
environment. (Master's thesis, Borough of Manhattan Community
College)Retrieved from http://www.hets.org/journal/articles/68-minoritystudent-access-in-the-online-environment
Fairlie, R. (2007, Octorber 24). Explaining differences in access to home computers and
the internet: A comparison of latino groups to other ethnic and racial groups.
Retrieved from http://people.ucsc.edu/~rfairlie/papers/published/ecr 2007 latino technology.pdf
Howell, S. L., Williams, P. B., & Lindsay, N. K. (n.d.). Thirty-two trends affecting distance
education: an informed foundation for strategic planning.
Lederman, D. (2013, February 25). Study finds some groups fare worse than others in
online courses. Retrieved from www.insidehighered.com

34. Thank You
Dr. Depoo: tdepoo@mcny.edu
Ms. Kaur: dkaur@mcny.edu
QUESTIONS?