Session Information
02 SES 14 B, Pathways and Transitions III: Disengagement and Dropout
Paper Session
Contribution
Dropout can be initially approached as a moment of individual educational behavior. This moment is subject to processes of societal transformation (Schäffter 2001). These processes are not bound to individuals and their individual lifestyles, but rather illustrate a complex societal situation. Sociological theories (e.g. Beck 1986; Nachtwey 2016) direct their attention to the macrosocial dimension and allow for the discovery of the structures affecting individuals while simultaneously uncovering feedback loops.
Understanding dropout as individual educational behavior allows it to be seen within the context of the sociological theories as a macrosocial issue with short-, medium-, and long-term effects on political, economic, and cultural levels. Dropout becomes especially problematic in cases where an existing educational interest can no longer be realized.
Accordingly, dropout can be understood as a key issue in adult education science. Nevertheless, the interaction of the factors influencing dropout has not yet been sufficiently theoretically or empirically clarified in adult education science. In the German-speaking world, scientific studies of this topic were mostly conducted in the 1980s (i.a. Gruber 1985; Schrader 1986); only a handful of studies have been published in the last 30 years (i.a. Lingkost 1996; Egloff 2011). Whereas there has been extensive research into dropout in secondary and vocational education science (i.a. Stamm 2012; Forsblom 2015). International research on this topic is also characterized by a range of perspectives (i.a. Garisson 1988; Bariso 2008; Park & Choi 2009). If the studies are considered in detail, the challenge for theory building seems to lie in the connection between the individual and the institution.
Dropout is viewed in precisely this context in the project „Analysis of Dropout in Continuing Education (Prevalence, Influencing Factors, Consequences)”, funded by the German Research Foundation and conducted at the University of Tübingen (Prof. Dr. Bernhard Schmidt-Hertha, Dr. Veronika Thalhammer) as well as at the Humboldt University of Berlin (Prof. Dr. Aiga von Hippel, Stefanie Hoffman (M.A.), associated: Dr. Claudia Kulmus, Dr. Maria Stimm) from October 2017 to September 2019. Beyond that, though, the following is emphasized: Dropout is a behavior of course participants, with which they respond to current individual, institutional, situational, and (socio)structural determinants [influencing factors], which are continually interacting with societal developments.
In recognition of the interwoven nature of the individual, institutional, situational, and (socio)structural factors, the project aims to comprehensively
(a) understand dropout processes,
(b) identify explanatory factors for dropout decisions, as well as to
(c) develop a model thereof, in support of developing a theory of continuing education behavior which includes dropout.
Focus is placed here on (b) the identification of factors explaining dropout decisions, which are not mutually exclusive, but are subject to the tension between diverging individual, institutional, situational and (socio)structural influencing factors amid societal developments.
This results in the following basic research question: Which reasons decisively determine dropout?
These reasons, which reflect the previously mentioned influencing factors, can be systematized along macro, meso, and micro sociological levels. This classification is based on statements made by Cross (1981), who systematized obstacles to adult learning. However, it is to be expected that Cross’s systematization will be filled with different contents in this project and that the definitions will also change.
The intended research design picks up on this point, going beyond examining the reasons given in the survey material in order to expand on models about dropout that have previously been criticized. The broadening and differentiation of representations of reasons for dropout is intended to reflect their diversity and dependencies, so that the negotiated complexity of dropout becomes visible as a moment of educational behavior in uncertain times.
Method
The implementation of the research project requires a multimethod approach, which integrates various perspectives and consists of the following analytical approaches: (a) secondary analysis of existing data sets of the National Education Panel, (b) expert interviews with representatives of educational institutions and continuing education associations, (c) problem-centered interviews with individuals who have dropped out of continuing education courses. This three-stage process enables a multifaceted treatment of dropout: The secondary analyses (Blossfeld, Rossbach & von Maurice 2011) use regression analyses to provide important evidence of common configurations of dropout behavior. Combined with the findings from the qualitatively evaluated expert interviews, these quantitative results help specify the further course of action in the project. The research continues with problem-centered interviews (Witzel 2000) with individuals who have discontinued continuing education courses. This discontinuation is considered dropout whenever a person enrolls in a course of one or more sessions, pays any required fees, participates in the course initially and then ceases participating after a certain point. With the help of the problem-centered interviews, the subjective meaning of dropout in interaction with various mentioned influencing factors are to be worked out by means of the Grounded-Theory-Methodology (Strauss & Corbin 1996). Besides proceeding according to theoretical sampling, the sampling of the problem-centered interviews will also be influenced by plausible assumptions (i.a. gender, continuing education participation) and with reference to already available theoretical, as well as empirical, studies (i.a. Reich-Classen 2010; Schmidt-Hertha 2011). Finally, case-by-case and cross-case analyses enable the reconstruction of dropout constellations, culminating in the development of a typology (Kluge 1999). The topics to be addressed and the ensuing categorization of dropout reasons will initially be based on the expert interviews (Bogner, Littig & menz 2009). These were conducted nationwide (in Germany) with representatives from general, work-oriented, union-based, political, and religious educational institutions/ continuing education associations and evaluated according to structuring content analysis (Mayring 2010). In reference to the distinction from Bogner et al. (2009), the experts in this research project are approached as carriers of exclusive practical and experiential knowledge. Context knowledge obtained in this way creates hypotheses for structuring the reasons for dropout. These perspectives are expanded with subjective meaning by the results of the interviews with individuals who have dropped out. In this way – and according to the multimethod approach – educational research of the type conducted here takes action-governing assumptions from the field and consolidates them within a scientific perspective.
Expected Outcomes
Taken as reasons for dropout, the abovementioned individual, institutional, situational and (socio)structural factors can serve as analytical parent categories for approaching the transcript material from the interviews with experts and dropouts. The categories are to be differentiated with the aid of inductively derived subcategories. It is however clear, that an ordering of reasons to one specific subcategory is not always sufficient, but rather it can be beneficial to categorize a portrayal under more than one category: “Lack of information, for example, could be an institutional barrier if one assumes that institutions should assume the responsibility for making their offerings known; it could be a situational barrier if one assumes that residents of a low-cost housing development rarely receive information about adult education courses, or a dispositional barrier under the assumption that adults who are not favorably disposed toward learning will make little effort to inform themselves about opportunities” (Cross 1981, S. 99-100). This way of categorizing makes it possible to establish relationships, emphasizing the complexity of the constellation of reasons, and fulfilling the presentation’s goals: (a) multiperspective differentiation of the reasons for dropout, (b) integration of the various perspectives and (c) the development of a relational network between the reasons for dropout. This representation is then reintegrated into the overall project context to develop a theoretical perspective of dropout in continuing education activities, not just of theoretical benefit, but also offering a basis for professional action, such as in the areas of program planning and course development. Such practical fields are always embedded in social contexts and are necessarily subject to changes accompanying societal developments and upheavals. Individuals and society influence each other and find a possible contact area in the field of adult education, in which consequences of personal as well as societal uncertainty and risk are iteratively (re)negotiated.
References
Bariso, E. U. (2008). Factors affecting participation in adult education: a case study of participation. Studies in the Education of Adults, 40(1), 110-124. Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft - Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Blossfeld, H.-P., Rossbach, H.-G. & von Maurice, J. (eds.) (2011). Education as a lifelong process: The German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS), Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 14, 19-34. Bogner, A., Littig, B. & Menz, W. (eds.) (2009). Experteninterviews. Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungsfelder. Wiesbaden: Springer. Cross, P. (1981). Adults as learners. Increasing Participation and Facilitating Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Basss. Egloff, B. (2011). Kurs ohne Übergang? Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer an Alphabetisierungskursen. In B. Egloff & A. Grotlüschen (eds.), Forschen im Feld der Alphabetisierung und Grundbildung. Ein Werkstattbuch (pp. 175–190). Münster: Waxmann. Forsblom, L. (2015). Lehrvertragsauflösung und die Rolle des Organisationsklimas im Ausbildungsbetrieb. URL: https://doc.rero.ch/record/256072/files/ForsblomL.pdf [Download: 06.06.2016]. Garrison, D. R. (1988). A deductively derived and empirically confirmed structure of factors associated with dropout in adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 38 (4), 199–210. Gruber, C. (1985). Determinanten des Kursabbruchs in der Erwachsenenbildung. Linz: BWP. Kluge, S. (1999). Empirisch begründete Typenbildung – Zur Konstruktion von Typen und Typologien in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Opladen: Leske+Budrich. Lingkost, A. (1996). Teilnahme und Nichtteilnahme an Funkkolleg-Begleitkursen: Eine qualitative Studie zur Drop-out-Forschung. Analysen für Erwachsenenbildung. URL: http://www.die-frankfurt.de/esprid/dokumente/doc-1996/lingkost96_01.pdf (Download: 26.08.2017). Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz. Nachtwey, O. (2016). Die Abstiegsgesellschaft: über das Aufbegehren in der regressiven Moderne. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Park, J.-H. & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors Influencing Adult Learners´ Decision to Drop Out or Persist. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207-217. Reich-Claassen, J. (2010). Warum Erwachsene (nicht) an Weiterbildungsveranstaltungen partizipieren. Einstellungen und prägende Bildungserfahrungen als Regulative des Weiterbildungsverhaltens. Münster: LIT Verlag. Schäffter, O. (2001). Weiterbildung in der Transformationsgesellschaft. Zur Grundlegung einer Theorie der Institutionalisierung. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. Schmidt‐Hertha, B. (2011). Ursachen und Bedeutung von Dropout in der Erwachsenenbildung. Education Permanente, (3), 44-45. Schrader, J. (1986). Teilnahmeverhalten und Teilnehmerschwund in Volkshochschulkursen. Frankfurt am Main: Pädagogische Arbeitsstelle des Deutschen Volkshochschul-Verbandes. Stamm, M. (2012). Schulabbrecher in unserem Bildungssystem. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1996). Grounded Theory: Grundlagen Qualitativer Sozialforschung. Weinheim: Beltz. Witzel, A. (2000). Das problemzentrierte Interview. [25 Absätze]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1), Art. 22, URL:http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0001228 (Download: 26.01.2014).
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.