Critique of “Exploring Factors in Contributing Student Progress in the Open University”

本文主要是一篇关于“在开放大学探索促进学生进步的因素”的paper范文。文章主要从调查报告的数据进行研究分析并进一步引出作者的观点，对于这些收集和整理的数据进一步来论证分析。

The research paper “Exploring Factors in Contributing Student Progress in the Open University” is a study of the current continuous studying situation the Open Universities, It has long been suggested that retention in distance educational institutes are lower than that of conventional programs, and the researchers have been studying the reasons of this phenomenon in different contexts and theoretical structures. Although there were several survey conducted before, but they were empirical ones that were conducted mainly in dual mode facilities, not single mode Open Universities (Arifin, 2016, p.29).

The survey had picked undergraduate students enrolled in 2010.1; 2010.2 and 2011.1 of Indonesia Open University. It was conducted in the form of online questionnaire; it has invited 3851 of the students (total number 7686) to join, while the predicted answer rate is only about 30%. The conductors also controlled survey in terms of quality: they purposefully selected students who represented the range of experience, answered best and had the greatest differences. In the end 4 students from the participants were chosen to be the subject representing different groups that were to be analyzed (Arifin, 2016, p.31).
The online survey was carried out through a third-party website, and the data were collected at one point of time specifically. The survey was divided into two sections: the first is about academic profiles, and the second is about attitudes and perceptions. The collection and analysis of the data were also carried out in terms of quantitative and qualitative. Descriptive data and cross-tabulation were used as tools to collect and summarize the data (Arifin, 2016, p.31).
There were 12 predictor variables found in the survey to have important contributions to the predictive model of student progress, in terms of quantitative sector; whereas the in qualitative area, four different themes about the studies—self-motivation, quality of institutional support, interaction, and supporting environment were resulted from cross-case analysis. They all affect the students’ retention rate and other student progresses (Arifin, 2016, p.31).
The quantitative measures and qualitative data were used to produce the results. In the quantitative phase, the researcher used descriptive analysis of scale, logistics regression analysis and demographic information. In the qualitative phase, the four themes’ effects were presented to demonstrate the results. However, the result of logistics regression didn’t show any of the 12 variables mentioned above contributed significantly to the predictive ability of the model (Arifin, 2016, p.32).
The study hypothesized 12 predictor variables would have affected the student progress in the Open Universities, the hypothesis was supported by various models and suggestions listed by former researchers. The author interpreted the results into two recommendations to enhance student progress in Indonesian Open University—develop a need-based support system and develop technical tools. The author admitted that the study was only conducted in one single institute, which is limited, and that the future studies should be focused on exploring student progress at various open universities in the world in order to get a complete factor results (Arifin, 2016, p.33).
The subject of this study is very similar to one institute in China, which is called “Television University”. It is a kind of institute that offers undergraduate and graduate studies by broadcasting them on TVs. The students are required to turn on the TVs at certain time and switch them to certain channel to study certain courses they have chosen, and there would be a nationwide test at the end of each semester. The study conducted here can be also used to conduct surveys on the students of Television Universities of China, so that they can find similarities between two kinds of institutes, and the similar factors affecting their student progress.
The survey can be conducted in another institute in a different country or region. Take Chinese Television Universities as an example, the subjects can be chosen from the students of this institute. The survey can be conducted through televisions since the students get education mainly from this media. The survey can cooperate with the authorities of the Television University to collect data through internet, and they can design this as a homework that everyone should participate. The questions can still be divided into two phases—quantitative and qualitative, but questions considering the facts in China should be added into both sectors.
This study is a bit biased, since the author himself was graduated from the institute that he conducted the survey. Although the research has been peer reviewed by other fellow researchers, the attitude of this study is still, more or less, subjective to a certain extent. The author also did not mention his colleagues and their basic status in the survey, which has left us concerns on the objectivity of the study. Perhaps his conditions are limited, but the optimal choice for him should be cooperating with a team from multiple countries and conduct surveys on an institute that he had not studied until the survey commences. These elements mentioned above are also the limitations that the author did not put in his study, and should be corrected in future studies as much as possible.
References

Arifin, M. H. (2016). Exploring Factors in Contributing Student Progress in the Open University. New York. International Journal of Information and Education Technology

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。