You are here:

Characterization of the Reasons Why Brazilian Science Teachers Drop Out of Online Professional Development Courses
ARTICLE English

, Laboratório de Avaliação em Ensino e Filosofia das Biociências - Instituto Oswaldo Cruz ; , Laboratório de Avaliação em Ensino e Filosofia das Biociências - Instituto Oswaldo Cruz Fundação Cecierj ; , Fundação Cecierj ; , Laboratório de Avaliação em Ensino e Filosofia das Biociências - Instituto Oswaldo Cruz

IRRODL Volume 19, Number 5, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press

Abstract

Teachers face different challenges and opportunities through distance education. We used a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches to investigate the factors leading in-service science teachers to quit online courses. No differences were found between persistent and drop-out teachers based on their sociodemographic data and their technological skills. The dropout rates were unrelated to courses’ contents or duration. A follow-up procedure revealed that a heavy workload and technological issues accounted for most of the reasons teachers left courses. We conclude that financial incentives and reduced workload are key factors that could minimize attrition and increase persistence among Brazilian teachers.

Citation

Luz, M., Rolando, L., Salvador, D. & Sousa, A. (2018). Characterization of the Reasons Why Brazilian Science Teachers Drop Out of Online Professional Development Courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(5),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved December 19, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, Needham, MA. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf
  2. Ballet, K., & Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Struggling with workload: Primary teachers’ experience of intensification. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1150–1157.
  3. Bersin, J. (2005). The four stages of e-learning: A maturity model for online corporate training. Oakland, CA: Bersin & Associates.
  4. Borman, G.D., & Dowling, N.M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367–409.
  5. Fishman, B., Konstantopoulos, S., Kubitskey, B.W., Vath, R., Park, G., Johnson, H., & Edelson, D.C.(2013). Comparing the Impact of online and face-to-face professional development in the context of curriculum implementation. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 426–438.
  6. Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1), 19–42. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v11/n1/factors-associated-with-student-persistence-in-an-onlineprogram-of-study-a-review-of-the-literature
  7. Ingersoll, R. & Perda, D. (2009). The mathematics and science teacher shortage: Fact and myth. CPRE Research Reports. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/51
  8. Karsenti, T., & Collin, S. (2013). Why are new teachers leaving the profession? Results of a Canada-wide survey. Education, 3(3), 141–149.
  9. Kember, D. (1989). A longitudinal-process model of drop-out from distance education. The Journal of Higher Education, 60(3), 278–301. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1982251
  10. Kennedy, D., & Powell, R. (1976). Student progress and withdrawal in the Open University. Teaching at a Distance, 7, 61–75.
  11. Lapo, F.R., & Bueno, B.O. (2003). Teachers, disenchantment in the profession and quitting the public schools. Cadernos de Pesquisa, (118), 65–88.
  12. Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2011). A review of online course dropout research: implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59 (5), 593–618.
  13. Lykourentzou, I., Giannoukos, I., Nikolopoulos, V., Mpardis, G., & Loumos, V. (2009). Dropout prediction
  14. Macdonald, D. (1999). Teacher attrition: A review of literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(8), 835–848. Http://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00031-1
  15. Meister, J. (2002). Pillars of e-learning success. New York: Corporate University Exchange.
  16. National Research Council. (2007). Enhancing professional development for teachers: Potential uses of
  17. Rolando, L.G.R., Salvador, D.F., & Luz, M.R.M.P. (2013). The use of internet tools for teaching and
  18. Russell, M., Carey, R., Kleiman, G. & Venable, J.D. (2009). Face-to-face and online professional
  19. Salvador, D.F., Crapez, M.A.C., Rolando, R.F.R., Rolando, L.G.R., & Magarão, J.F.L. (2010). An overview
  20. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  21. UNESCO. (2008). ICT competency standards for teachers. Paris, France.
  22. Veletsianos, G., & Sheperdson, P.A. (2016). Systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical MOOC literature published in 2013–2015. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 198-221. Http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2448
  23. Villani, A., Almeida-Pacca, J.L., & Freitas, D. (2009). Science teacher education in Brazil: 1950-2000.
  24. Yukselturk, E. (2010). An investigation of factors affecting student participation level in an online discussion forum. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 24–32. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/55661/

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.