A survey on student dropout rates and

dropout causes concerning the students in

the Course of Informatics of the Hellenic
Open University
Michalis Xenos a,*, Christos Pierrakeas a, Panagiotis Pintelas b
a
Hellenic Open University, 16 Saxtouri Str, GR 26223, Patras, Greece
b
Department of Mathematics, Patras University, GR 26500, Rio, Patras, Greece

Abstract
This paper focuses on university-level education offered by methods of distance learning in the field of computers and aims at the
investigation of the main causes for student dropouts. The presented study is based on the students of the Course of “Informatics”, Faculty
of Science and Technology of the Hellenic Open University and investigates the particularities of education provided through the use of
computers and technology in general. This paper presents information about the students’ profile, the use of computer technology, the
percentage of dropouts, as well as a classification of the reasons for dropouts based on interviews with the students. The study shows that
dropouts are correlated to the use of technological means and, based on this fact, the Hellenic Open University implemented interventions
in the use of such means. It also proves that correlation exists between dropouts and students’ age, but not gender, although female
students are more reluctant to start following a course. However, it is also shown that female students’ commitment to a course is stronger
and thus, they do not drop out as easily as male students do. Furthermore, the results of this study strongly correlate dropouts to the
existence of previous education in the field of Informatics or to working with computers, but not to the degree of specialisation in
computers. Finally, the paper presents the reasons provided by the students for drooping out, with the main reasons being the inability to
estimate the time required for university-level studies and the perceived difficulty of the computers course.

Keywords: Open and distance learning; Open University; Computer Science; Dropout rates

1. Introduction
This paper presents the results of a survey investigating the reasons for student dropouts in the field of computers in
university-level distance education, as provided by the Hellenic Open University. It focuses on students dropping out of the
Course of “Informatics”, Faculty of Science and Technology of the Hellenic Open University. The investigation of factors
related to dropout rates and dropout causes can assist all staff involved in open and distance learning in specifying dropout-
prone student groups. This will enable tutors to handle high-risk groups more efficiently and minimise student dropouts.
This paper focuses on the behaviour of students in the Course of Informatics, Faculty of Science and Technology of the
Hellenic Open University and emphasises on the particularities of such studies deriving from the use of computers in the
educational procedure. Nevertheless, many of the conclusions presented could interest a great number of University
Departments involved in open and distance learning. The paper presents the data collected and the experience gained during
the first two academic years of operation of the Hellenic Open University and the conclusions deriving from this survey,
aiming at the improvement of the educational procedure. It should be noted that some of the results of this study have already
lead the Hellenic Open University to the implementation of interventions.
The following section presents a literature review regarding student dropouts in university-level distance education.
Section 3 includes information about the particular case, the design of information to be collected, the data collection and
analysis method adopted by the authors, as well as general information concerning students’ profiles. Section 4 discusses the
findings related to the particularities of Informatics and the use of technological means by the students. Section 5 presents
and discusses information concerning the dropout students, the correlation of dropout occurrence to certain factors and the
reasons for dropouts, as provided by dropout students themselves. Finally, section 6 summarises the results of this study.

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 610 361490; fax: +30 610 361410. E-mail address: xenos@eap.gr

Published at Computers & Education 39 (2002) 361–377 1

 M Xenos, C Pierrakeas, P Pintelas

2. Dropouts in distance education

It is a fact that student dropouts occur quite often in institutions providing education using open and distance learning
methods (Eisenberg & Dowsett, 1990). Dropout rates in university-level open and distance learning are definitely higher than
those in conventional Universities and vary depending on the education system adopted by the institution providing distance
learning, as well as the selected subject of studies (Narasimharao, 1999). In Europe, dropout rates range from 20% to 30%
(Rumble, 1992), while in Asian countries these percentages may be as high as 50% (Shin & Kim, 1999), (Narasimharao,
1999).
Dropouts occur due to a number of reasons related to numerous factors and, although sometimes dropout can be a healthy
choice for a distance student (Munro, 1987), limiting dropouts is one of the major goals of an institution offering distance
education. It is essential to identify the factors that are related to dropouts so that special assistance is provided to dropout-
prone students (Ostman, 1988). Relevant studies have shown that one of the major factors affecting dropouts is the number
of modules completed by a student (Parker, 1999) and dropout students are –in most cases– students that stopped registering
after their first or second module (Chyung et. al, 1998).
The historical factors affecting university-level distance-learning dropouts can be categorised as follows: a) internal
factors related to students perception and locus of control, b) factors related to the course and the tutors and c) factors related
to certain demographic characteristics of the students.
Internal factors that can be used as dropouts predictors are the course difficulty as perceived by the students, the
motivational levels and the persistence levels (Chacon-Duque, 1987), although such factors are abstract and difficult to
measure. Locus of control has been considered as an important factor related to dropouts (Whittington, 1995) and the Locus
of Control scale (Rotter, 1966) has been used to predict students’ persistence (Parker, 1999). Other factors that could
influence students’ perception are also family and intrapersonal influences (Bull et. al, 1990).
Moreover, course and tutor-related factors affecting dropouts have been reported to be the quality and extent of student
support (Kaye & Rumble, 1991), the media and the tutor contact (Whittington, 1995), the modules’ workload (Garg et. al,
1992) and the number and difficulty of written assignments (Baath, 1994). Surveys have also related certain students’
demographic characteristics to dropouts, such as age (Kerka, 1996) and gender. Age has also shown limited, yet significant
results (Cooper, 1990), while a slight trend towards females as persisters has been measured (Martin, 1990).
The literature survey had indicated that depending on the particularities of each course, a certain profile of dropout-prone
students can be defined and efforts towards better support of these students can aid in reducing dropout rates.

3. Research Design
3.1 Case description
The Course of ‘Informatics’ is a 4-year course that comprises of 12 modules and leads to a Bachelor Diploma in
Informatics. Each student may register in one up to three modules per year. It should also be mentioned that each module is
equivalent to 3 or 4 conventional university-level lessons, depending on the module’s difficulty. Similar courses are offered
in many Open Universities (Lupo & Erlich, 2001).
The total number of registered students in the Course of Informatics in the Academic year 2000-2001 was 510. In 2001-
2002 this number increased to 720. In their 1st year of studies, all students may register in one up to three of the modules
offered by the Course. These modules are the following: a) INF10 ‘Introduction to Informatics’, b) INF11 ‘Introduction to
Software Engineering’ and c) INF12 ‘Mathematics I’. The student handbook of the Course of Informatics advises students to
include INF10 in the selected modules. As a result, 498 students or 97.7% of the 2000-2001 students and 718 students or
99.7% of the 2001-2002 students selected the specific module. INF11 was selected only by 180 students or 31.4% of 2000-
2001 students and 274 students or 38.0% of 2001-2002 students, while INF12 was selected by 177 students or 34.7% of
2000-2001 students and 125 students or 17.4% of 2001-2002 students. This fact enabled the authors to focus on INF10 and
collect data only from the tutors involved in this module, for practical reasons, since the overall registration percentage was
98.9%. It should also be noted that the module ‘Introduction to Informatics’ is equivalent to four conventional university
lessons, namely a) Introduction to Information Science, b) Programming Techniques, c) Data Structures and d) Programming
Languages I.

3.2 Design of information to be collected

Having in mind that dropouts usually occur to students that have not successfully completed at least one or two modules
(Chyung et. al, 1998), emphasis was given in predicting dropout-prone students among students attending one up to three
first year modules. Since a true picture of attrition cannot be developed without a review of variables such as age, gender,
family status and number of hours of employment (Parker, 1999), emphasis was initially given to this type of data that could
be used at an early stage to identify dropout-prone students. Conformance of this case with reported in the literature
correlation could offer to the tutors of the Hellenic Open University the ability to focus on dropout-prone student groups.
Moreover, considering the particularities of an Informatics Course, it was necessary to focus on Informatics-particular
data in order to aid in detecting high-risk groups in this Course. Such data include the means of communication, the use of
computers in the students’ working environment, the existence of previous vocational training, etc. Finally, a qualitative
survey had to be contacted in order to identify the perceived reasons offered by dropout students, to analyse the dropout
causes and to implement interventions that would restrict such reasons.

Published at Computers & Education 39 (2002) 361–377 2

 M Xenos, C Pierrakeas, P Pintelas

3.3 Data collection and analysis methods

The research method included four different techniques for collecting data that stemmed from four distinct sources, as
presented in table 1.

Source Type of data

Student Registry
Tutors’ records
Questionnaire-based survey
Telephone interview
Age, gender, family status, number of selected modules, etc.
Use of e-mail for communicating with the tutor, participation in the optional meetings,
fulfilment of obligations (such as written assignments), etc.
Previous studies related to Informatics, ownership and use of computer, use of computers
at work, relationship with the tutor, opinion about studies in the Hellenic Open University,
etc.
Reasons for dropping out, students’ opinion about their co-operation with the tutors and
the Hellenic Open University in general
Table 1. Techniques for data collection

The data were collected on the basis of a descriptive research design. Data collected using the first two techniques came
directly from the Student Registry of the Hellenic Open University and the records of the tutors. This enabled the authors to
collect data concerning almost all students; i.e. this part of the research is based on data for 89% of the students. Data of the
third technique was collected by means of a printed self-report questionnaire, which was handed out to the students to fill in
and returned responses from 61% of the student population. The questionnaire included fixed choice questions (with ordinal
and nominal answers) and open-ended questions. As far as open-ended questions are concerned, content analysis was
performed to categorise students’ answers. Finally, the last technique was conducted by means of telephone interview that
lasted from 2 to 5 minutes, during which almost the entire dropout student population (97%) was interviewed. The
interviewer asked every student a set of pre-set open-ended questions in a predetermined order, following which content
analysis of the given answers was performed. The type of distribution was examined for all data and analysed using
multivariate methods (Anastasi, 1997) as well as correlation analysis associating the factors that were examined. The main
statistical tests used to test the possibility of correlation between variables were x2 - test and Spearman rank order correlation
coefficient. The resulting correlation and differences between variables were assumed statistically significant when p<0.05
(Anastasi, 1997), (Siegel, 1988).

3.4 Partial students profile

With regard to the data collected from the Student Registry of the Hellenic Open University, a common feature of most
Faculties of Science and Technologies was confirmed: the low percentage of female students; a phenomenon that
characterises this Course of Informatics as well. The male-female ratio in the total of 1230 (510 + 720) students of this
Course, for the Academic years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, was 72%-28%. Table 2 shows the number of students that
registered in one, two or three modules. It is noted that the majority of students selected only one module, fewer selected two
and even fewer selected all three offered modules. This hesitance is typical of students who attend a University running its
first years of operation.

Academic Years Family Status Men Women Total

# Modules Total
2000-2001 2001-2002 Unmarried 535 60% 217 64% 752 61%
3 Modules 87 17% 98 14% 185 15% Married no children 131 15% 25 7% 156 13%
2 Modules 151 30% 203 28% 354 29% Married 1 child 111 12% 43 13% 154 12%
1 Module 272 53% 419 58% 691 56% Married 2 children 106 12% 49 15% 155 13%
Married over 2 children 10 1% 3 1% 13 1%

Table 2. Modules selected by the students Table 3. Students’ family status

According to the data collected in the framework of this research, the average students age is 31.1 and follows a normal
distribution. It must be noted that no students under the age of 24 can be accepted according to the regulation of the Hellenic
Open University, since it is considered that such students could easily attend conventional Greek Universities. Table 3
illustrates the family status of the students of INF10, based on gender. This research showed that, even though the ratio of
unmarried-married men is 60%-40% correspondingly, for women this ratio drops to 64%-36%. Moreover, it should also be
noted that the percentage of married women without children is quite low and is measured only 7%, when the corresponding
number for men is double: 15%. On the other hand, women with children take the decision to study using open and distance
learning methods more easily than those without children; this is due to the fact that women of the latter category keep in
mind that they may soon have to face a possible child breeding decreasing significantly their study time.
4. Particularities of education in Informatics
Studies in Informatics are characterised by particularities mainly related to the use of information technologies in the
educational procedure. Given the fact that the authors had to deal with students in their 1st year of studies in both academic

Published at Computers & Education 39 (2002) 361–377 3

 M Xenos, C Pierrakeas, P Pintelas

years presented, they emphasised on the ownership or use of a computer, as well as the use of e-mail. It should be noted that
during the first two academic years of operation of the Hellenic Open University presented, no web-mail facility was offered
to students, while for the modules of the 1st year, the ownership of a computer was not a requirement although it was strongly
encouraged. Fig. 1 presents student distribution based on the ownership or use of a computer. This analysis is not concerned
with where the computer was used, as similar works have done (Palmer, 2000). The data presented was collected by means
of the questionnaire-based survey and the relevant answers were: a) the student owned or used a computer before the
commencement of his/her studies, b) the student did not own or use a computer initially, but acquired or had access to one at
some point during his/her first year of studies, and c) the student studies without using a computer. It should be stressed that
only 4.1% of the students continue their studies in the Course of Informatics without using a computer.

4,1%
10,6% 15,9%
Yes, before start Always
Not initialy - Yes now 6,5% Yes, but not always
Not yet Never

77,6%
85,2%

Figure 1. Use of computers before and during studies Figure 2. Use of e-mail for submission of written assignments

The use of communication techniques by students is very important in distance learning. Many of the students have
already created, on their own initiative, and use fora, discussion lists and bulletin boards. Of course, the most important
means of communication between students and tutors is the e-mail. The majority of students can read e-mails even if they do
not have a computer at home. It is, however, noticeable that certain students who use both a computer and e-mail at home
prefer to send their written assignments using regular mail. This is partly due to the fact that submission by post office is
considered as more ‘official’ than by e-mail. Fig. 2 illustrates the student distribution with regard to the use of e-mail for
communicating with the tutor and sending the written assignments and confirms the widespread use of e-mail.

400

350

300

250
Men
200
Women
150

100

50

Never use a Limited use of Work based on

computer computers computers

Figure 3. Professional activity involving the use of computers

A fact that this research examined was the previous –post high school– education of students in the field of Informatics.
As far as this issue is concerned, the fact that this information was provided by the tutors and not the students themselves was
an asset for the research, since more or less all students claimed to have received some kind of education related to
Informatics in the past, even though in many cases reality did not confirm such claim. The case of a student who admitted,
while responding to an open-ended question, that: “…before coming here I thought I had studied everything about
Informatics, but when I registered in this Course I found out that I knew very few!” is a characteristic example of the above
fact. However, a significant number of students had already received some kind of education related to Informatics.
Specifically, 76.7% have attended at least a seminar (of 100 hours or more) on Informatics after high school and only 23.3%
have not.

Published at Computers & Education 39 (2002) 361–377 4

 M Xenos, C Pierrakeas, P Pintelas

The findings of this research with regard to students’ professional activity were just as interesting. Fig. 3 presents
students distribution based on professional activities involving the use of computers. It should be noted that the percentage of
students with professions not related at all to computers is as low as 4.0%. The percentage of students making limited use of
computers at work is 40,4%; such use involves software packages, such as word processors, however not any programming
or deep knowledge of the object. Finally, 55.6% of the students’ work is based on computers and knowledge of Informatics,
namely their work is closely related to the object of their studies. Such cases include programmers, employees in data
processing departments, etc.
Summarising, the findings of this research led to the conclusion that the majority of students owns or uses the –what is
considered to be– basic equipment (computer), uses technological means (e-mail) to communicate with the tutor, has
received some type of post-high school education related to Informatics and uses (to a certain extent) a computer at work.

5. Results regarding dropouts

This section presents the results deriving from this study and discusses the reasons for dropouts. At this point, it should be
noted that the percentage of students who fail in all the selected modules is not necessarily equal to the percentage of students
that drop out of their studies in the Open University in general, since the Hellenic Open University allows students to repeat a
module which they did not complete successfully. To make this fact clear, students are divided in 4 categories:
A) Students who registered but never started their studies and did not re-register in the following year.
B) Students who started their studies and successfully completed some assignments or even some modules but
decided to drop out for various reasons.
C) Students who did not successfully complete some or all of the modules but decided to continue their studies
and repeat these modules in the following year.
D) Students who successfully completed all the selected modules during their first year of their studies.
Fig. 4 presents the percentage of students continuing their studies compared to those who dropped out. The
aforementioned categories will be called categories A, B, C and D. It should be noted that the students under both categories
A and B are considered as dropout students.

7,9%

20,5%

A. Never started
54,5% B. Stopped
C. Failed but continued
D. Continue
17,2%

Figure 4. Categorisation of students (categories A and B are dropouts)

As shown in fig. 4, a significant percentage of students (7.9%) did not start following any module at all. At this point, the
authors would like to clarify that according to the regulations of the Informatics Course, any student who did not deliver 2
out of the 6 written assignments of the academic year 2000-2001, or 2 out of the 4 written assignments of the academic year
2001-2002 for each module, automatically loosed the right to participate in the written examinations of this module. Such
students are considered as dropout students only if they do not register in the module again and confirm that they are not
willing to continue their studies in the Hellenic Open University. There are also cases that the student did not deliver any
written assignments at all. These are normally students who received the educational material, went through it and decided to
drop out. In such cases, the authors consider that the student is not willing to commence the studies at all and classify him or
her under category A.
The first part of this section (5.1) presents the results related to student dropout and their correlation to data about
students collected in the framework of this research. The second part of this section (5.2) discusses the reasons given by the
students themselves, while being interviewed by the authors, for dropping out of the Course.

5.1 Student dropouts in relation to student profiles

Fig. 5 illustrates the distribution of students based on their age and whether they started or not (category A) their studies
in the Course. The analysis of the resulting percentages leads to the conclusion that students between 29-35 years of age are

Published at Computers & Education 39 (2002) 361–377 5

 M Xenos, C Pierrakeas, P Pintelas

more likely to decide not to start their studies. For students younger than 29, this percentage is almost half, while for students
older than 40 it is approximately one third of the percentage corresponding to students between 29-35. The differences
presented in fig. 5 are statistically very significant (x2=128.4, DF=3, p<0.0001). The interviews with the dropout students
revealed that the reason for such a comparatively high percentage –namely 9.5%– is based on the fact that students at the age
of 29-35 often have to face exceptional workload and frequent changes of work.

94,6% 93,0% 96,2%

100% 14%
90,5%
90%
12%
80%
70% 10%
60% Started 8%
50%
Not Started 6% Dropout %
40%
30% 4%
20%
5,4% 9,5% 7,0% 3,8% 2%
10%
0% 0%
<29 29-35 35-39 >40 None 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Figure 5. Distribution of students who never started based on age Figure 6. Dropouts percentage in relation to the number of written
assignment delivered to the tutor

Fig. 6 presents an example of student dropout rates in correlation to written assignments, based on the 6 written
assignments to be submitted within the 1st year of the INF10 module of the Course of Informatics. Based on the data
presented in fig. 6, it is easily concluded that the majority of students who deliver the first two of the written assignments are
very likely to continue their studies.

56,5%
70% 60%
49,6%
60%

50%
<29 40%
40% 29-35 Men
30% 35-39 21,6% 17,6% 20,7% Women
>40 20%
20% 12,0% 15,7%
6,2%
10%

0% 0%
Categ. A Categ. B Categ. C Categ. D Categ. A Categ. B Categ. C Categ. D

Figure 7. Age distribution of students among Figure 8. Gender distribution of students among
categories A, B, C and D categories A, B, C and D

The investigation of the age distribution of students in relation to student categories (A, B, C and D), illustrated in fig. 7
leads to an interesting conclusion. Although the figure itself is quite self-explanatory, the numbers deriving from it make the
conclusion more obvious: for students less than 29 years, the percentage of dropouts (categories A and B) is 24.4%. As far as
the age of 29-35 is concerned, the percentage of dropout students is 29.5%, while for students at the age of 35-39 the
corresponding percentage is 31.8%. Finally, for students older than 40 years, the dropout rate increases to 34.2%. The data
presented in fig. 7 could lead to the assumption that older students are more likely to drop out than younger ones, even
though the differences are not statistically significant (x2=15.6, DF=9, p=0.07, marginally NS). This correlation should be
further investigated; however, it would be advisable for tutors to pay special attention in older students so as to encourage
them to continue their studies.
Another interesting fact is the correlation between dropouts and gender. This research showed that generally female
students are more likely not to start their studies (category A) than male; namely, the percentage for women is 12.0% while
for men this percentage drops to 6.2%. On the other hand, it is derived that female students are more persistent and do not
drop out as often as male students; the corresponding percentages for category B are 17.6% for women and 21.6% for men.

Published at Computers & Education 39 (2002) 361–377 6

 M Xenos, C Pierrakeas, P Pintelas

These differences in percentages are statistically very significant (x2=18.9, DF=3, p<0.001). It should also be mentioned that
the total percentage of female students who do not continue their studies (both categories A and B) is 29.6%, while the
corresponding percentage for men is 27.8%. These results are illustrated in fig. 8. However, considering the fact that the
derived differences are not statistically significant (x2=0.4, DF=1, NS), the correlation between dropouts and gender should
be further investigated with the first impression being that overall dropout rates are similar in men and women.
Another interesting fact is related to student dropouts and their marital status. This research showed that dropout rates are
independent of the students’ marital status (R=0.011, NS). Namely, it is just as possible for a married student with 2 children
to drop out as for a single student with no children. This is probably due to the fact that the marital status and the time
required for family obligations is known and has been taken under consideration prior to the commencement of the studies.

17,8%

34,4%

Yes Yes
No No
65,6%

82,2%

Figure 9. Use of computers by dropout students Figure 10. Use of e-mail by dropout students

As expected, this research confirmed the feeling that student dropouts and the use of technology (a quite important factor
for any Course of Informatics) are correlated. Fig. 9 illustrates that the percentage of dropout students who did not use a
computer (17.8%, as shown in fig. 9) is much higher than the percentage of those who continue their studies without using a
computer (4.1%, as presented in section 3, see corresponding fig. 1). These differences are statistically very significant
(x2=73.4, DF=1, p<0.0001). Similar results were derived as far as the use of e-mail is concerned. These results are presented
in fig. 10. Namely, the total percentage of students that continue their studies and still do not use e-mail is 15.9% (see
corresponding fig. 2), while the percentage of dropout students who did not use e-mail is 34.4% as presented in fig. 10. The
differences are also statistically very significant (x2=68.7, DF=1, p<0.0001).

75,1% 73,5% 71,2%

80% 80%

60,2% 58,8%
60% 60%
41,2%
39,8% Continue
Yes 40%
40% 28,8% Drop out
No 26,5%
24,9%
20%
20%

0%
0% Never use a Limited use Based on
Continuing Students Dropout Students computer of computers computers

Figure 11. Dropouts in relation to previous vocational training Figure 12. Dropouts in relation to professional activity

Finally, the results regarding the correlation between student dropouts and previous education related to Informatics are
presented. It should be noted that in this research the term ‘education’ includes any type of Training Centre, public or private
institute of vocational training, as well as any organised seminar of more than 100 hours relevant to Informatics. The results
are illustrated in fig. 11 and show that out of the total number of students who have received some type of education in the
past, 75.1% continue their studies (categories C and D), while 24.9% have dropped out (categories A and B). On the other
hand, out of the total number of students who have not received some type of previous education related to Informatics,
60.2% continue their studies (categories C and D), while 39.8% have dropped out (categories A and B). These differences

Published at Computers & Education 39 (2002) 361–377 7

 M Xenos, C Pierrakeas, P Pintelas

are statistically very significant (x2=23.4, DF=1, p<0.0001) and prove that the percentage of dropouts clearly increases in
cases where the students have not received any previous education. Fig. 12 illustrates the correlation between dropouts and
the involvement of students in professional activities related to Informatics, using the same categorisation as in fig. 3. The
impressive percentage (41.2%) of dropout students whose professional activity was not related to Informatics indicates the
statistically significant correlation of student dropouts to involvement in professional activities related to Informatics
(R=0.428, p<0.0001). On the other hand, it turned out that although a job involving computers is correlated to dropouts, the
nature of this related-to-Informatics job (i.e. direct or indirect relation to Informatics) is not related in any way to dropout
rates; for example it is not important whether the student works as a programmer or a technician using a computer. The
differences (26.5% to 28.8%) are not statistically significant (x2=5.1, DF=2, NS).

5.2 Reasons for student dropouts

In order to investigate the reasons due to which students dropped out of the Course of Informatics, an interview-based
survey was conducted in the context of this study. Almost the entire dropout student population (97%) was interviewed
during this phase of the survey. Only a small number of students were not contacted by the interviewers and this was due to
changes of their telephone numbers that had not been recorded by the Hellenic Open University after their dropout. The
students were contacted by telephone and were asked to present their opinion on three major issues related to their studies: a)
the reasons for dropping out, b) their opinion about their tutor and c) their opinion about the Hellenic Open University in
general. All three issues were brought up to the students in a predetermined order during the discussion with the interviewers
and content analysis was performed for all open-ended questions in order to categorise students’ responses.

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Professional Academic Family Health-related Personal

Figure 13. Categorisation of reasons for dropouts

The reasons provided by the students for dropping out of the Course of Infomatics can be grouped in 5 major categories:
Professional, Academic, Health, Family and Personal reasons. Fig. 13 illustrates the distribution of these reasons. It should be
mentioned that students were allowed to offer more than one reason for dropping out, however, most of them offered only
one or two reasons. The average number of reasons provided by dropout students is 1.44. As shown in fig. 13, the majority
of students (62.1%) claimed that the reasons for dropping out were related to their profession, while many (46.2%) admitted
that they dropped out due to academic reasons, followed by those who mentioned family reasons (17.8%), health reasons
(9.5%) and personal reasons (8.9%). Table 4 presents in further detail all the reasons provided by the students, as derived
after the performance of content analysis.

Dropout reason as provided by dropout students Category Percentage

Bad estimation of the time required for the students’ profession and consequently decrease of the Professional
52.7%
time left for studying.
Students admitted that they did not feel confident that they were qualified enough to pursue Academic
27.8%
university-level studies and that lack of confidence caused them to drop out.
Child birth or other reasons related to child breeding, including spending time with the children. Family 16.6%
Occurrence of a major change at work (either a transfer, or a promotion that changed work Professional
9.5%
requirements).
Lack of assistance from the tutor’s part, or less assistance than initially expected by the student. Academic
9.5%
Students claimed that, although they were able to understand the Course material sent to them, they Academic
8.9%
could not fulfil their obligations related to the written assignments and had to drop out.
Other reasons than the above mentioned that students characterised as personal and were not willing Personal
8.9%
to discuss with the interviewer.
Health problems of the student. Health-related 5.3%
Health problems of another member of the student’s family (husband, wife, children). Health-related 4.1%
Decease of a family member. Family 1.2%

Table 4. Reasons for student dropouts as resulted from content analysis

Published at Computers & Education 39 (2002) 361–377 8

 M Xenos, C Pierrakeas, P Pintelas

When asked about their opinion about the tutor, the vast majority of dropout students (81.7%) mentioned that they had no
problems at all with their tutor and felt that they were offered all the assistance possible. The remaining 18.3% answered that
they had some kind of problem with their tutor. These problems, as mentioned by this 18.3% of the students, are presented in
fig. 14. Specifically, most of these students felt that the tutor did not help them enough to understand the assigned material
and complete the written assignments. Others reported inability of the tutor to support them to overcome non-academic
difficulties. Some reported communication problems with the tutor such as slow response time to their letters, difficulty to
reach by telephone, etc. Fewer of these students claimed that the tutor did not convince them that he/she had the required
knowledge or the communicability to teach at university-level. Finally, even fewer claimed that the tutor could not
successfully handle face-to-face meetings.

50%
40,0%
40%
25,0% 23,3%
30%

20%
6,7% 5,0%
10%

0%
No assistance with Lack of support Communication Lack of knowledge Unsuccesful
material problems meetings

Figure 14. Problems with the tutor as reported by the non satisfied 18.3% of dropouts

It is worth to mention that although the Hellenic Open University is a newly established institution, 95.3% of the dropout
students believe that it was founded to cover an existing need of the Hellenic community and consequently think positively
of it. Table 5 presents a categorisation of the responses provided by the dropout students when asked to consider the fact that
they dropped out of their studies and give their opinion about the studies offered by the Hellenic Open University.

Opinion about the Hellenic Open University considering the fact that they dropped out Percentage
Good organisation of studies by the Hellenic Open University, but for various reasons (not related to the studies or the
66.9%
tutors) the students felt that they could not continue.
Many improvements should be made to the quality of the studies offered. 17.8%
The education offered is useful, but is addressed to students that are already related in some way to the subject of the
13.6%
studies.
Negative opinion about the education offered by the Hellenic Open University. 1.8%

Table 5. Dropout students’ opinion about the Hellenic Open University

6. Conclusions
This paper presented a research on university-level education in the field of computers, based on the behaviour of the
students of the Course of Informatics and the particularities deriving from the use of technological means. It was shown that
95.9% of the students that continue their studies in the Open University own or use a computer (either at home, or at work, or
both), while 84.1% uses e-mail to communicate with the tutor and submit their written assignments. The above percentages
lead to two important conclusions: a) the majority of students who choose to be educated in ‘Informatics’ are already familiar
with this field, at least to the point of owning or using a computer and e-mail, and b) it is very difficult for a student who does
not own or use a computer and e-mail to follow even the first year of the Course of Informatics. It should also be stressed that
the results of this survey have lead the Hellenic Open University to adopt changes in the requirements of the first year
modules, such as to make the use of e-mail obligatory for all students, but also to ensure the availability of e-mail to all
students (by offering e-mail services to those that do not already have any). In addition, it has lead to the development of web
services, such as discussion lists, fora and bulleting boards that will be available to the students of the academic year 2002-
2003.
As far as dropouts are concerned, this research has shown that 7.9% of the students did not even start following the
Course of Informatics. It should be noted that this percentage is 12.0% for women and 6.2% for men. The age of the majority
of dropout students ranges between 29-35 years, an age that is characterised by intense working activity. The aforementioned
percentage (7.9%) increases, if the percentage (20.5%) of those students who started but, for some reason, dropped out is
added; thus, the total percentage of dropouts reaches 28.4%, as opposed to 71.6% who continue. It is important to mention
that the great majority of students dropped out without completing the 1st or 2nd written assignment. As a consequence, it is

Published at Computers & Education 39 (2002) 361–377 9

 M Xenos, C Pierrakeas, P Pintelas

safe to conclude that the great majority of students who deliver the first two assignments of a module will complete the
module and be entitled to participate in the final examinations.
Another fact presented is the existing, but not statistically significant, correlation of dropouts to students’ age: the older
the students are, the more increased is the possibility of dropping out, leading to the conclusion that older students need more
encouragement from the part of the tutor. On the contrary, the correlation between dropouts and gender is not as important,
but it exists: it seems to be more difficult for women to decide to start following a course, but they do not drop out as easily
as men do. As a total, however, women and men almost have equal chances to complete their studies (the percentage for
women dropout is 29.6% as opposed to 27.8% for men; this number derived after adding those who did not start at all to
those who dropped out).
According to this research, student family status is not related to dropout rates. However, a strong correlation exists
between dropouts and the existence of previous education in the field of Informatics (which proved to be very helpful, as
expected), as well as the involvement in professional activities requesting the use of computer. As far as the latter is
concerned, it was also indicated that those who work in the field of Informatics (programmers, employees in data processing
departments, etc.) have the same possibilities of dropping out as those who simply use a computer at work.
With regard to the reasons provided by the students for dropping out, more than half of the dropout students claimed that
they were not able to estimate precisely the time that they would have to devote to their professional activity and as a result,
the time dedicated to their education decreased unexpectedly. The second reason offered by approximately one out of four
students was their feeling that their knowledge was not sufficient for university-level studies. Other reasons offered by less
students were the birth of a child, a major change at work, health problems (of the student or a supported member of the
family), failure to complete the written assignments and meet the deadlines, not enough assistance from the tutor and other
personal reasons.
To summarise, this paper presented a two-year survey on student dropouts occurring in university-level education in the
field of computers. The correlation between student dropouts and student profiles was examined and the reasons for student
dropouts were investigated and presented. Such results could be valuable as reference in similar open education programs in
the field of computers using distance learning methods.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the students, tutors and personnel of Hellenic Open University for their assistance in the
research, as well as the anonymous referees for their careful review and suggestions.

References
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S., (1997). Technical and methodological principles. In: Psychological testing, Ed. (7th) Prentice
Hall, New Jersey.
Baath, J., (1994). Assignements in Distance Education – An Overview, Epistolodidaktika, No. 1, pp. 13-20.
Bull, K.S. et al., (1990). ACRES At-Risk Task Force: Dropout Survey, Annual Conference of the American Council for Rural
Special Education, Tuscon, pp. 18-23.
Chacon-Duque, F.J., (1987). A Multivariate Model for Evaluating Distance Higher Education, College Park: Pennsylvania
State University Press.
Cooper, E., (1990). An Analysis of Student Retention at Snead State Junior College, Nova University.
Eisenberg, E., & Dowsett, T. (1990). Student drop – out from a distance education project course: A new method of analysis,
Distance Education – An International Journal, Vol. 11, No 2.
Garg et. al, (1992). A Preliminary Study of Student Workload for IGNOU Physics Elective Courses, Indian Journal of Open
Learning, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 19-25.
Kaye, T., & Rumble, G. (1991). Open Universities: A Comparative Approach, Prospects 21(2): 214-216.
Kerka, S., (1996). Distance Learning, the Internet and the World Wide Web, ERIC Digests, ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED395214.
Lupo, D., & Erlich, Z., (2001). Computer literacy and applications via distance e-learning, Computers & Education, 36(1),
333-345.
Martin, L., (1990). Dropout, Persistence and Completion in Adult Second and Pre-vocational Education Programs, Adult
Literacy and Basic Education, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 159-174.
Munro, J., (1987). The Discourse of Dropout in Distance Education: A Theoretical Analysis, Annual Conference of the
Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education, Alberta, Canada.
Narasimharao, B., (1999). Issues in Preparing Open University Learners for Open University System. Available at the web
site http://www.cemca.org/ignou-icde/paper23.html.
Ostman, R. et al., (1988). Adult Distance Education, Educational Technology and Drop Out. The New Zealand Technical
Correspondence Institute’s Management Courses. Studies in Education, No. 48.
Palmer, S., (2000). On– and off–campus computer usage in engineering education, Computers & Education, 34(1), 141-154.

Published at Computers & Education 39 (2002) 361–377 10

 M Xenos, C Pierrakeas, P Pintelas

Parker, A., (1999). A Study of Variables that Predict Dropout from Distance Education, International Journal of Educational
Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 1-10.
Rotter, J., (1966). Generalized Expectation for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcements, Psychological
Monographs, No. 80, pp. 1-28.
Rumble, G., (1992). The Management of Distance Learning Systems, Paris, UNESCO / IIEP.
Shin, N., & Kim, J., (1999). An exploration of learner progress and drop-out in Korea National Open University, Distance
Education – An International Journal, Vol. 20, No 1.
Siegel, S., Castellan, NJ., (1988). Measures of Association and Their Tests of Significance. In: Nonparametric statistics for
the behavioral sciences, Ed. (2nd) McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc. New York.
Whittington, L.A., (1995). Factors Impacting on the Success of Distance Education Students of the University of the West
Indies: A Review of the Literature, Review, University of West Indies.

Published at Computers & Education 39 (2002) 361–377 11