1. Jeremiah A. Gilbert, Ph.D. Faculty Chair, Mathematics San Bernardino Valley College

2.  Course studied: Elementary Algebra  Location: Southern California community college  Study conducted over three years  Summer sessions excluded  Students broken into those aged “less than 24” and those aged “24 or older”

3. Alternate course formats are on the rise: FormatFall 2005Spring 2008 Traditional80.0%66.7% Alternate20.0%33.3% Alternate Formats: Online Weekend Short-term Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI)

4. Percent of students taking alternate formats by age: FormatLess than 2424 or older Traditional78.4%66.9% Online4.7%14.0% Weekend3.7%11.3% Short-term7.3%4.8% CAI5.9%3.0% Noticeable increase of students 24 or older taking online and weekend formats.

5.  Retention Rate – The ratio of the number of students receiving a non-W grade in a course to the total number of students enrolled at census.  Total of 4496 unique students enrolled during the timeframe of the study.

6. Retention rate by course format: FormatRetention Traditional70.3% Online62.9% Weekend70.6% Short-term85.4% CAI54.2% Highest Retention: Short-term Lowest Retention: CAI

7. Retention rate by format and age: Highest Retention (Less than 24): Short-term Highest Retention (24 or older): Weekend FormatLess than 2424 or older Traditional70.6%69.8% Online55.2%66.7% Weekend68.0%71.9% Short-term86.1%64.0% CAI51.6%61.8%

8.  Alternate formats showing the highest retention rates were weekend and short-term.  These courses: Offer the structure and instructor contact that can be lacking from an online course. Meet less often than a traditionally formatted course. Call on students to establish goals and locate resources. Require students to evaluation their progress.

9.  Online and computer-assisted instruction courses had lower retention rates than traditionally formatted courses.  Possible reasons: Lack of computer knowledge or access to a computer off-campus. Limited contact with instructor and fellow students. Lack of interaction may cause students to feel isolated, frustrated, and discouraged. Requires self-directed learning.

10.  Student Performance – The grade-point average, on a 4.00 scale, of students within a course or age level.  Grades of W and I were excluded.  Total of 3115 students received an included grade during the timeframe of the study.

11. Student performance by course format: FormatPerformance Traditional2.09 Online1.28 Weekend2.25 Short-term1.62 CAI2.39 Highest Performance: CAI Lowest Performance: Online

12. Student performance by format and age: Highest Performance (Less than 24): CAI Highest Performance (24 or older): CAI FormatLess than 2424 or older Traditional1.902.43 Online0.721.43 Weekend1.742.96 Short-term1.461.98 CAI2.033.18

13.  Alternate formats showing the highest performance were weekend and CAI.  Possible reasons: Adult students perform better when given directions and structure. These courses offer students in-class guidance and direction. An instructor is present to assist with technology problems.

14.  Online and short-term courses had lower student performance than traditionally formatted courses.  Possible reasons: Online courses can leave students feeling isolated and alone. Short-term courses necessitate a shorter amount of time to process the material presented in class. Both formats rely on the students’ ability to manage their personal and situational circumstances.

15.  While CAI courses revealed the highest student performance, this format also revealed the lowest student retention.  It is possible that this format weeds out lower performing students.  Students that persist in this format may receive a fuller understanding of the material.

16.  Whether technology is used to assist in instruction (CAI courses) or to delivery the entire course (online instruction), it is still just a tool that cannot replace effective teaching.  Regardless of format, student-faculty contact in and out of classes is an important factor in student motivation and involvement.

17.  In terms of age, this study found that students aged 24 or older consistently outperformed those students aged less than 24.  Such students may value their education more than their younger counterparts or more fully understand the commitment required to succeed.