By Shelly Gussis

The blog post examines the effects of emailing students on retention. Several studies using different methods are reviewed. Results of the different studies indicate that the nature of the email, as well as frequency and timing, influence retention.

Attrition rates of online universities are significantly higher than those of face-to-face universities, as documented by Rahmani et al. (2024). Putulowski and Crosby (2019) assert that the attrition is between 20% and 40% higher. Additionally, graduation rates in distance education programs are significantly lower than those in traditional face-to-face programs. For example, the University of London International Programmes reported a graduation rate of 15.7% for its distance students compared to 61.5% for face-to-face students (Inkelaar and Simpson, 2015).  A wide range of factors contribute to this, including demographics, course design, technology, motivation, and support (Rahmani, et al., 2024). Instructors do not have control over many of these factors, but to support retention they can provide motivation and support for students.

I have encountered numerous retention policies and practices in my online teaching career, and virtually all include emailing at-risk students as part of the instructor’s responsibilities. It got me wondering how impactful emailing can be in relation to retention, so I started a mini-research project to email all students after grading units that feature written assignments in College Composition I and II. Missing assignments serve as early warning signals of student disengagement, and can quickly drop grades.

After grading, students whose overall grades are above 70% get motivational emails with reminders of how to keep their grades high. Students below 70% get emails to motivate and advise them about how to improve their grades. To gauge the effectiveness of these emails, one of my classes during the term does not receive any retention emails. After two terms, there was no significant difference between the classes that got retention/motivational email and the one that did not. After reviewing my results, I researched existing studies on retention emails to determine whether emailing has any effect, and looked for other potential methods related to emailing students to increase retention.

Putulowski and Crosby (2019) emailed students personalized messages weekly. They examined whether the emails affected student perceptions of course quality and social integration. Their results found that up until midterm, students reported being more motivated, but this effect diminished by the end of the course. In addition, students got a greater sense that the instructor was engaged and felt less isolated at the beginning of the course, but, again, all effects seemed to diminish over time. The authors speculate that this is due to habituation and conclude that regular emails have limited effects on retention. However, students did have a greater sense of instructor commitment, especially in the first half of the course. Putulowski and Crosby (2019) speculate that personalized, non-formulaic emails highlighting individual achievements and challenges may have a greater impact on students.

Inkelaar and Simpson (2015) explored using motivational emails as a means of retention. They used Keller’s ARCS model of motivation:

• Attention: Engage and capture student interest
• Relevance: Relate messages to student needs and goals
• Confidence: Encourage a belief that students can succeed
• Satisfaction: Provide a sense of achievement

They provided study advice and motivational anecdotes as well as a “friendly” tone. The results showed a statistically significant retention increase of 2.3%. Inkelaar and Simpson (2015) suggest additional methods, such as counseling students to set reminders to complete coursework and use goal-setting techniques. In addition, instructors can send reminders to submit assignments using timed intelligent agents in Brightspace.

Robb and Sutton (2014) also used the ARCS model, sending five motivational emails to students during a course. They saw a 24% increase in successful course completion rates over a control group that did not receive the motivational emails. Students reported being more motivated, sensing that the instructor cared, and feeling comfortable communicating with the instructor.

The existing research on emailing and retention points to conflicting results, but the most significant factor to success using this strategy apparently relates to the content and frequency of the emailing. This has helped me think about how to further pursue my mini-research project to see if I get better results. I did notice that 3% of students who received my emails responded to the email in a positive fashion, often stating they appreciated the message. To further answer questions about the emails and their effects, I plan to create a questionnaire at the end of the course to get a better sense of student attitudes toward the emails and the strategy’s impact on student motivation,

References

Inkelaar, T., & Simpson, O. (2015). Challenging the ‘distance education deficit’ through ‘motivational emails.’ Open Learning, 30(2), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2015.1055718

Putulowski, J. R., & Crosby, R. G. (2019, January 1). Effect of personalized instructor—student e-mail and text messages on online students’ perceived course quality, social integration with faculty, and institutional commitment. Journal of College Student Retention, 21(2), 184–201.

Rahmani, A. M., Groot, W., & Rahmani, H. (2024). Dropout in online higher education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00450-9

Robb, C. A., & Sutton, J. (2014). The importance of social presence and motivation in distance learning. Journal of Technology, Management & Applied Engineering, 31(1–3), 1–10.