Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences

Volume 3, Issue 2, 2026, July–September

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

BEYOND DISTANCE LEARNING: UNDERSTANDING THE FACTORS BEHIND

STUDENT DROPOUT IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

PROGRAM.

MÁS ALLÁ DE LA EDUCACIÓN A DISTANCIA: COMPRENSIÓN DE LOS

FACTORES ASOCIADOS AL ABANDONO ESTUDIANTIL EN UN PROGRAMA DE

FORMACIÓN DE DOCENTES DE LENGUAS EXTRANJERAS.

Juan Daniel Martínez Quimbayo

Danna Camila Chaparro Espitia

Blanca Lucia Cely Betancourt

Colombia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2687 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

Beyond distance learning: understanding the factors behind student dropout in a

foreign language teacher education program.

Más allá de la educación a distancia: comprensión de los factores asociados al

abandono estudiantil en un programa de formación de docentes de lenguas

extranjeras.

Juan Daniel Martínez Quimbayo

a,*

danielcisflbdt@gmail.co

https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2898-856X

Blanca Lucia Cely Betancourt

bcely@uniminuto.edu

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8059-5160

Danna Camila Chaparro Espitia

mseedcce@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3931-3893

Correspondence author: danielcisflbdt@gmail.co,

Corporación Universitaria Minuto de Dios-

UNIMINUTO, Colombia

ABSTRACT

This study addresses the phenomenon of student dropout in higher education. It is considered a

multidimensional phenomenon, requiring an understanding of the interaction between various

economic, academic, institutional, occupational, familial, personal and vocational factors. The

study examined the factors associated with academic dropout in a distance-learning Bachelor's

degree program in foreign languages at a private university in Bogotá, Colombia. A mixed-

methods approach with an explanatory sequential design was employed for data collection. In

the quantitative phase, 22 former students completed a survey designed to identify factors

related to their decision to drop out of the program. Subsequently, three participants were

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2688 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

interviewed in more depth to gain a better understanding of their experiences and the

circumstances surrounding their decision. Frequency and percentage calculations were used to

analyze the quantitative data, while thematic analysis was used to examine the qualitative

information. The findings showed that dropping out was not associated with a single factor, but

rather with the convergence of various circumstances. Integrating the quantitative and

qualitative findings also made it possible to identify individual experiences that were not

necessarily apparent in the overall trends, particularly regarding career choices. In conclusion,

dropping out of school in this context cannot be understood solely in terms of the characteristics

of distance learning, but rather through the interplay of economic, employment, institutional,

academic, personal and vocational conditions that shape students’ educational trajectories.

Keywords: academic dropout; higher education; distance learning; student retention; training of

foreign language educators; associated factors.

RESUMEN

Este estudio aborda el fenómeno del abandono estudiantil en la educación superior, concebido

como un fenómeno multidimensional, cuya comprensión requiere considerar la interacción

entre diversos factores de orden económico, académico, institucional, laboral, familiar, personal

y vocacional. El propósito fue examinar los factores asociados con la deserción académica en

un programa de Licenciatura en Lenguas Extranjeras en modalidad a distancia de una

universidad privada en Bogotá, Colombia. e adoptó un enfoque mixto con diseño secuencial

explicativo. En la fase cuantitativa del estudio participaron 22 exestudiantes, quienes

respondieron a una encuesta diseñada para identificar los factores relacionados con su

decisión de abandonar el programa. Posteriormente, se implementaron entrevistas

semiestructuradas a tres participantes con el propósito de profundizar en las experiencias y

circunstancias asociadas con dicha decisión. Para el análisis de los datos cuantitativos, se

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2689 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

implementó la técnica de frecuencia y porcentajes, mientras que la información cualitativa se

examinó mediante el análisis temático. Los hallazgos demostraron que el abandono no se

asoció con un único factor, sino con la convergencia de diversas circunstancias. La integración

de los hallazgos cuantitativos y cualitativos permitió, además, reconocer experiencias

individuales que no necesariamente fueron visibles en las tendencias generales,

particularmente en relación con la elección vocacional. Se concluye que el abandono de la

educación en este contexto no puede comprenderse exclusivamente a partir de las

características de la modalidad a distancia, sino desde la interacción de las condiciones

económicas, laborales, institucionales, académicas, personales y vocacionales que configuran

las trayectorias educativas de los estudiantes.

Palabras clave: deserción académica; educación superior; educación a distancia; retención

estudiantil; formación de educadores en lenguas extranjeras; factores asociados.

Received: September 7, 2026 | Accepted: September 21, 2026 | April: September 22, 2026

INTRODUCTION

When students withdraw from a distance education program, the modality itself may

appear to be an immediate explanation for their decision. Distance learning demands students

to organize their time, engage in autonomous learning, and adapt to forms of interaction that

may differ from those experienced in face-to-face education. In certain instances, these

demands, in conjunction with feelings of isolation, have the potential to impact students'

adaptation to the learning environment and their capacity to maintain their studies.

Nevertheless, it is important to note that student attrition is seldom the consequence of a solitary

event. A multitude of factors, including financial pressures, employment responsibilities, family

commitments, academic demands, personal circumstances, and institutional support, have the

potential to intersect and influence students' ability to continue their education. To comprehend

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2690 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

the phenomenon of attrition in distance higher education, it is necessary to consider factors

beyond the specific modality itself, and to analyze the broader conditions that surround

students' educational trajectories, (Abril et al.,2008).

However, student dropout is a multidimensional phenomenon influenced by the

interaction of academic, personal, institutional, and social factors. Several theoretical models

suggest that students' persistence in higher education depends not only on students' individual

characteristics but also on their ability to adapt to the academic environment and integrate into

university life. This is due to the lack of adequate support, activities, and resources, which have

been identified as key factors contributing to this issue, according to Bravo (2015), the lack of

organizational mechanisms and state and governmental support, coupled with economic

constraints, are among the key drivers of this problem.

Roca-Cuberes (2012) identifies that there are three types of causes of dropping out,

which are: 1) -Personal, which is seen that the individual tends to drop out because of lack of

knowledge or motivation; 2) socio-economic because of lack of students’ resources and income;

and 3) institutional due to lack of opportunities that limit the integration and learning offered by

the institution. In the words of Pérez (2023, p. 5), university dropouts can be related to

personal, social, and academic factors that affect the students’ lives and make it difficult for

them to remain in the educational institution. For his part, the educational psychologist Muñoz &

Martínez (2017), points out that ‘dropping out of university can be a consequence of lack of

motivation, social pressure, economic problems or simply the student's lack of interest in the

career he or she has chosen’. It is important to bear in mind that dropping out of university does

not only affect the student but also has repercussions for society.

Although much of the above literature focuses on higher education, recent Colombian

studies at other educational levels also provide relevant evidence of the multidimensional nature

of dropout. For example, Tamayo et al. (2026) identified socioeconomic, family, academic and

motivational factors associated with dropping out of school in Soledad, Atlántico. They also

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2691 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

highlighted teacher and family support, as well as personal aspirations, as factors that may

encourage students to persist with their education. Similarly, Sánchez Solanar et al. (2026)

emphasized the interaction of socioeconomic, academic, family and motivational factors, and

Aguirre Varelas et al. (2026) identified economic hardship, inadequate educational

infrastructure, transport difficulties, violence and limited institutional support in a rural Antioquia

context. While these studies were not conducted in higher education, they provide recent

Colombian evidence that educational dropout occurs within a broader network of interconnected

personal, socioeconomic, family, academic and institutional conditions.

Thre have been different research and studies that establish the influence of this type of

variable in the decision to abandon. Abello et al. (2012), for example, point out the importance

of relationships with friends and teachers to strengthen the academic adaptation process. For

his part, Corominas (2001) highlights the importance of social integration as a factor of

permanence. Also, the correct academic adaptation, especially measured through performance,

it seems appear as a protective factor against abandonment as has been found in Esteban's

study, Bernardo and Rodríguez-Muñiz (2015)

Some students may show an apparent attitude of total lack of motivation, which may

hide social conflicts and strategies of escape from confrontation with evaluations and group

opinions, Chalacán-Velásquez & Delgado-Portilla, 2020).. According to Deci and Ryan (2001),

they may feel frustrated if the career they have chosen does not convince them as an adequate

means to satisfy their goals, which may lead to a short-term dropout. (Gámez et al., 2008),

factors such as lack of supervision, poor motivation, inadequate course design, and

inexperience of instructors may hinder learning and push students towards dropout. Frankola

(2001), another shortcoming is the lack of vocational orientation program at previous

educational levels, which can lead to students entering university without a real interest in their

chosen career, affecting their motivation and learning. Rinaudo et al. (2003) are just some of the

possible causes of lack of motivation in university students.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2692 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

In the study on life concerns among university students, it is mentioned that financial

difficulties are presented at a very low frequency among the main concerns of students. This

suggests that, at least in the sample studied, financial worries are not a predominant issue

compared to other aspects such as personal problems, adaptation to the new stage of life,

family problems, and interpersonal relationships. According to Cornejo & Lucero (2006). Family

engagement can significantly influence the academic engagement of university students.

Although not always recognized as a relevant factor in studies on academic engagement, the

family can exert a motivational and economic influence on young people, encouraging their

attachment to a university career, promoting good study habits and helping them to persist in

the face of difficulties, Vasquez & Torres (2026). According to Borzone (2017), family support

can be critical to the academic success of university students. Studies such as Rojas (2011)

and Yang & Chang (2010) have highlighted the importance of family support in the motivation

and academic performance of young people.

According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

(2016), dropping out of higher education reduces a country's opportunities for economic and

social development, as it prevents the training of qualified professionals who are committed to

their environment. Foreign language teacher education represents a particularly complex

educational context, as these programs integrate linguistic development with pedagogical,

didactic, research, technological, and intercultural competencies required for future professional

practice (Osorio et al., 2020; Cely-Betancourt, 2023). Despite the existence of prior research

identifying numerous factors associated with student attrition in higher education, comparatively

little attention has been paid to the exploration of how these factors interact in the experiences

of students who withdraw from distance foreign language teacher education programs. The

relevance of this context stems from the fact that students may face several demands and

responsibilities that compete for their time and attention. These include academic demands,

employment obligations, financial constraints, family commitments, and the requirements of

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2693 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

learning in a distance modality. The analysis of the experiences of former students can

therefore provide a more contextualized understanding of the circumstances associated with

withdrawal and contribute evidence for developing more responsive student retention and

support strategies.

Based on the problem identified and the need to better understand the factors

associated with student dropout in the bachelor’s degree in foreign Languages with an

Emphasis on English at a private university in Bogota Colombia, the following research

objective was established to guide this study: To analyze the factors associated with student

dropout in the bachelor’s degree in foreign Languages with an Emphasis on English, offered

through distance education. The research question that guided this study was: ¿What factors

were associated with students’ decisions to withdraw from the bachelor’s degree in foreign

Languages with an Emphasis on English?

METHODOLOGY

The present study employed descriptive explanatory sequential mixed methods design

to examine the factors associated with student attrition in a distance bachelor’s degree in

foreign Languages. The quantitative phase of the study employed a survey to identify the

prevalence of factors associated with participants' decisions to withdraw. After this, a qualitative

phase was initiated, comprising semi-structured interviews. The purpose of this phase was to

explore former students' experiences in greater depth and to provide further insight into the

factors identified in the quantitative phase. Finally, the quantitative and qualitative findings were

integrated to provide a more comprehensive interpretation of the circumstances associated with

student withdrawal.

Setting and Participants

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2694 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

The participants were 22 former students who had been enrolled in the bachelor’s

degree in foreign Languages with an Emphasis on English, offered through distance education

at a private university in Bogotá, Colombia, and who had withdrawn from the program before

completing their studies. Participants were identified through former classmates who had shared

academic spaces with them and had subsequently noticed that they were no longer enrolled in

the program. This situation initially led to an examination of the number of students who had

discontinued their studies, thus arousing the researchers' interest in the examination of the

factors associated with student withdrawal. Potential participants were contacted using contact

information that their former classmates had retained from previous academic interactions. To

be considered for this program, it is necessary to have been enrolled and to have withdrawn

prior to the completion of the program. All 22 former students contacted for the study completed

the survey, and three of them participated in the semi-structured interviews.

Data Collection Instruments

Survey: Quantitative data were collected through a survey designed to examine the

factors associated with participants’ decisions to withdraw from the program. The instrument

consisted of 28 items organized into nine categories: economic, academic, institutional,

vocational/career choice, work and time, family, social/interpersonal, personal/psychological,

and technological/access factors. Participants rated each statement using a five-point scale,

ranging from 1 (the factor did not influence their decision to withdraw) to 5 (the factor was a

determining reason for withdrawal). The survey also included three supplementary questions

addressing the main reason for withdrawal, the institutional support received during their

studies, and their intention to resume their studies.

Semi-structured Interview: Qualitative data were collected via semi-structured

interviews with three former students who had previously participated in the survey. The

interview comprised five open-ended questions, the purpose of which was to explore

participants' experiences in the program and the circumstances that influenced their decisions

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2695 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

to withdraw. The semi-structured format enabled participants to elaborate on their experiences

and provide further insight into factors that could not be fully captured through the survey.

Data analysis

The quantitative data obtained from the survey was analyzed using RStudio. Descriptive

statistical analyses, incorporating frequencies and percentages, were conducted to identify the

factors most frequently associated with participants' decisions to withdraw from the program.

The results were organized according to the categories established in the survey instrument to

facilitate their interpretation.

Thematic analysis was employed to analyses the qualitative data obtained from the

semi-structured interviews, with an open coding process being utilized. The responses given by

participants were subjected to coding and grouping according to recurring patterns related to

their experiences and reasons for withdrawal. These patterns were subsequently organized into

broader themes aligned with the research objectives. In conclusion, the integration of

quantitative and qualitative findings occurred during the interpretation stage, through the

comparison of patterns across both datasets. Areas of convergence, divergence, and

complementarity were examined to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the factors

associated with student withdrawal.

Ethics

All participants were informed about the purpose of the study and the procedures

involved prior to taking part in the research. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent

was obtained prior to data collection. Participants were informed that the information they

provided would be treated confidentially and used exclusively for research purposes. To protect

their identities, no real names were used when reporting the findings. The three interview

participants were identified using the codes P1, P2 and P3. Participants were also informed that

they could withdraw from the study at any time with no negative consequences. The

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2696 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

researchers ensured that the information collected was handled confidentially throughout the

study.

RESULTS

Quantitative Findings

The survey presented below aims to characterize the general aspects of the participating

population, such as age, gender, the semester in which they dropped out of the academic

program, and their occupation at the time of withdrawal. It also presents the results obtained

from the application of a data collection instrument to 22 former students at a private University

in Bogotá. The instrument was structured around nine determining factors associated with

university dropout: economic, academic, institutional, vocational or career choice, work and time

management, family, social or interpersonal, personal or psychological, and technological or

access. Each of these factors included three key questions, designed to systematically identify

and analyze the main reasons that influenced the participants' decision to interrupt their

academic path in higher education.

Table 1.

Note: Table 3 presents the age distribution of the 22 former students who participated in the

survey, which allows for the contextualization of the sociodemographic profile of the population

that withdrew from the academic program.

Table 2.

Participants age

Age

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Under

9,1

20 -24

40,9

50,0

25 -30

22,7

72,7

31- 35

18,2

90,9

Over 40

9,1

100,0

Total

100,0

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2697 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

Participants’ Gender Distribution

Gender

Frequency

Percentage

Valid

Percentage

Cumulative

Percentage

Female

63.6%

Male

36.4%

100.0%

Total

100.0%

Note: The table presents the gender distribution of the 22 former students who

participated in the study. The results indicate a predominance of female participants, who

represent 63.6% of the total sample (n = 14), while male participants account for 36.4% (n = 8).

Figure 1

Semester in which university was abandoned

Student dropouts are predominantly concentrated in the early stages of the academic

trajectory, particularly during the second semester, which accounts for 31.8% of the total

responses. This finding suggests that the transition and adaptation period to higher education

represents a critical phase in which students are more vulnerable to discontinuing their studies.

A second cluster of withdrawals is observed in the third and sixth semesters, each representing

13.6% of the sample. These figures indicate that, beyond the initial adjustment period, dropout

may also occur at intermediate stages of the program, potentially because of increased

academic demands, cumulative workload, or the emergence of external pressures such as

employment or family responsibilities.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2698 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

Additionally, the fifth semester registers 18.2% of the withdrawals, reflecting a notable

proportion of students who discontinued their studies after having progressed through a

significant portion of the curriculum. This pattern may be associated with factors such as

academic fatigue, decreased motivation, or a reassessment of vocational expectations once

students have gained deeper exposure to the program’s academic content.

Lower dropout rates are observed in the fourth, seventh, and eighth semesters, each

accounting for 9.1% of the responses, while the first semester shows the lowest proportion of

withdrawals. This distribution suggests that students who overcome the initial stages of the

program may develop stronger academic integration; however, persistence is not guaranteed,

as personal, academic, and contextual factors may still influence the decision to abandon at

later stages.

Figure 2

Current occupation

A clear predominance of participants who are currently employed, representing 81.8% of

the total sample. This finding suggests that most students who withdrew from the bachelor's

degree in foreign Languages are actively engaged in the labor market, which may have

influenced their decision to discontinue their academic studies. In contrast, 13.6% of the

participants reported being unemployed at the time of data collection. This proportion indicates

that, for a smaller segment of the sample, the absence of stable employment may have

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2699 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

coincided with academic withdrawal, potentially reflecting economic instability or difficulties in

sustaining the financial demands associated with higher education.

The results are organized according to the seven categories established in the survey

instrument: Economic Factors, Academic Factors, Institutional Factors, Vocational Factors,

Work Factors, Family Factors, and Social Factors. Each category is presented separately to

facilitate the analysis and interpretation of the factors that influenced students' decisions to

withdraw from the program.

Table 3 summarizes participants' responses to the 22 items organized into the seven

categories established in the research instrument. To facilitate interpretation, each category is

analyzed separately in the following sections.

Table 3.

Summary of Participants’ Responses to Factors Associated with Student Dropout

Factor

Survey item

Disagreement

(%)

Neutral (%)

Agreement

(%)

Economic

Lack of money

36.4

13.6

50.0

Other financial priorities

31.8

13.6

54.5

Barriers to obtaining a

scholarship

45.5

22.7

31.8

Academic

Unsuitable teaching methods

54.5

18.2

27.3

Heavy academic workload

77.3

9.1

13.6

Lack of vocational guidance

from teachers

68.2

22.7

9.1

Insufficient university resources

72.7

13.6

Institutional

Insufficient university support

50.0

13.6

36.4

Institutional barriers to obtaining

a scholarship

54.5

13.6

31.8

Inflexible schedules

59.1

18.2

22.7

Vocational

Incorrect program choice

72.7

13.6

Loss of interest in the program

72.7

4.5

22.7

Mismatch between personal

skills and program

requirements

77.3

9.1

13.6

Work-related

Lack of time

68.2

4.5

27.3

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2700 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

Long working hours and

inability to attend virtual classes

54.5

9.1

36.4

Difficulty balancing family, work

and study

68.2

4.5

27.3

Family

Lack of family support

90.9

0.0

9.1

Family responsibilities

68.2

4.5

27.3

Family problems or conflicts

63.6

13.6

22.7

Social/interpersonal

Lack of empathy from

classmates

90.9

0.0

9.1

Differences with teachers and

classmates

86.4

0.0

13.6

Lack of belonging within the

student group

86.4

4.5

9.1

Personal/psychological

Lack of motivation

68.2

4.5

27.3

Physical and mental exhaustion

36.4

31.8

Stress or anxiety

50.0

22.7

27.3

Technological/access

Lack of access to a computer

90.9

4.5

Distance between home and

the university

77.3

0.0

22.7

Difficulties using virtual

platforms

90.9

0.0

9.1

Note: 22 for each item. Disagreement combines “Strongly disagree” and “Disagree”; Agreement

combines “Agree” and “Strongly agree”. Minor differences in totals may result from rounding.

The abbreviated item descriptions retain the meaning of the original survey statements.

Economic factors

The economic factors category examined the extent to which insufficient financial

resources, competing financial priorities and difficulties accessing scholarships influenced

participants’ decisions to withdraw from the program. While financial pressures were not

uniformly experienced by all participants, this category contained the two survey items with the

highest proportions of agreement. Regarding lack of money specifically, half of the participants

(50.0%, n = 11) strongly agreed that this was the main reason for withdrawing from their

studies. In contrast, 36.4% (n = 8) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, while

13.6% (n = 3) selected the neutral response.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2701 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

Of the three economic indicators, competing financial priorities presented the highest

level of agreement. Overall, 54.5% of participants (n = 12) agreed or strongly agreed that

competing financial priorities had affected their studies and contributed to their withdrawal.

A different response pattern was observed regarding barriers to obtaining a scholarship.

While 31.8% of participants (n = 7) agreed or strongly agreed that these barriers contributed to

dropping out of university, 45.5% (n = 10) disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 22.7% (n = 5)

selected the neutral response. A different response pattern was observed regarding barriers to

obtaining a scholarship. While 31.8% of participants (n = 7) agreed or strongly agreed that these

barriers contributed to dropping out of university, 45.5% (n = 10) disagreed or strongly

disagreed, and 22.7% (n = 5) selected the neutral response. Overall, the findings suggest that

immediate financial constraints and competing economic priorities were more frequently

associated with withdrawal than difficulties in accessing scholarships.

Academic factors

The academic factors investigated whether teaching methodologies, academic workload,

vocational guidance and the university’s perceived ability to deliver a quality education

influenced participants’ decisions to withdraw from the program. Overall, the responses showed

a predominance of disagreement across the four indicators. Regarding teaching methodologies,

54.5% of participants (n = 12) disagreed or strongly disagreed that the approaches used by their

teachers had prevented them from continuing their studies. In contrast, 27.3% (n = 6) agreed or

strongly agreed with the statement, while 18.2% (n = 4) selected the neutral response.

The strongest concentration of disagreement was found in academic workload. A total of

77.3% of participants (n = 17) either disagreed or strongly disagreed that their decision to leave

the program was influenced by workload. Only 13.6% (n = 3) agreed or strongly agreed, while

9.1% (n = 2) remained neutral. A similar pattern emerged regarding the lack of vocational

guidance from teachers. Here, 68.2% of participants (n = 15) disagreed or strongly disagreed

that insufficient guidance had influenced their decision, while 9.1% (n = 2) strongly agreed. The

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2702 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

remaining 22.7% (n = 5) selected the neutral response — the highest proportion of neutrality

among the four academic indicators.

Participants also tended to reject the statement that the university lacked the necessary

capacity to provide quality education. A total of 72.7% (n = 16) disagreed or strongly disagreed

that this issue had motivated their decision to withdraw. By comparison, 13.6% (n = 3) agreed or

strongly agreed, while another 13.6% (n = 3) selected the neutral response. Taken together,

these findings indicate that academic factors were not predominant explanations for withdrawal

among most participants.

Institutional factors

The institutional factors category investigated whether insufficient university support,

barriers to accessing scholarships and restricted scheduling options influenced participants’

decisions to withdraw from the program. Overall, most participants did not identify these

institutional conditions as the main reasons for leaving their studies. Regarding university

support, 50.0% of participants (n = 11) strongly disagreed that the institution had failed to

provide the necessary assistance for them to continue their studies. In contrast, 36.4% (n = 8)

agreed or strongly agreed that insufficient support from the university had influenced their

decision to withdraw, while 13.6% (n = 3) selected the neutral response.

A similar pattern was observed in relation to schedule flexibility. Overall, 59.1% of

participants (n = 13) disagreed or strongly disagreed that inflexible schedules had influenced

their decision to leave the program. Conversely, 22.7% (n = 5) strongly agreed that this

condition had contributed to their withdrawal, while 18.2% (n = 4) selected the neutral response.

Taken together, the findings suggest that institutional factors were not uniformly perceived

across the sample. The highest level of agreement was obtained by insufficient university

support (36.4%), followed by barriers to accessing scholarships (31.8%) and limited schedule

flexibility (22.7%).

Vocational/career choice factors

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2703 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

The vocational factors category investigated whether participants' choice of program,

changes in their academic interests and the perceived alignment between their personal abilities

and program requirements had influenced their decision to withdraw. Overall, most participants

did not identify vocational factors as the main reason for leaving their studies. Regarding

program choice, 72.7% of participants (n = 16) disagreed or strongly disagreed that selecting

the wrong program had influenced their decision to withdraw. In contrast, 13.6% (n = 3) agreed

or strongly agreed with the statement, while a further 13.6% (n = 3) selected the neutral

response.

Loss of interest overtime received the highest level of agreement within this category.

While 72.7% of participants (n = 16) disagreed or strongly disagreed that declining interest had

contributed to their withdrawal, 22.7% (n = 5) agreed or strongly agreed that this factor had

influenced their decision. Only 4.5% (n = 1) selected the neutral response. The perceived

mismatch between students' skills and interests, and the program's requirements, received the

highest level of disagreement. A total of 77.3% of participants (n = 17) disagreed or strongly

disagreed that this mismatch had influenced their decision to withdraw. Conversely, 13.6% (n =

3) agreed or strongly agreed, while 9.1% (n = 2) were neutral.

Overall, the findings show that vocational factors were not widely identified as reasons

for withdrawal within the sample. Loss of interest over time received the highest level of

agreement (22.7%), while choosing the wrong program and experiencing a mismatch between

personal abilities, interests and program requirements each received 13.6% agreement.

Work and time factors

The work and time factors examined whether limited time, employment schedules, and

difficulties balancing family, work, and academic responsibilities influenced participants'

decisions to withdraw from the program. Regarding general time constraints, 68.2% of

participants (n = 15) expressed disagreement or strong disagreement with the assertion that a

lack of time had affected their academic performance and contributed to their withdrawal. In

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2704 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

contrast, 27.3% (n = 6) strongly agreed with the statement, while 4.5% (n = 1) selected the

neutral response. It is noteworthy that all participants who identified this factor selected the

option of 'Strongly agree'.

Conflicts between work schedules and class attendance were the most prevalent source

of disagreement within this category. While 54.5% of participants (n = 12) expressed

disagreement or strong disagreement that extended working hours and challenges in attending

online classes had influenced their withdrawal, 36.4% (n = 8) indicated agreement or strong

agreement. The remaining 9.1% (n = 2) selected the neutral response. The challenges

experienced in achieving equilibrium between familial obligations, professional commitments,

and academic responsibilities exhibited a consistent pattern. A total of 68.2% of participants (n =

15) expressed disagreement or strong disagreement with the assertion that this situation had

led them to discontinue their participation in the program. Conversely, 27.3% (n = 6) of

respondents expressed agreement or strong agreement with the statement, while 4.5% (n = 1)

remained neutral. The findings, when considered as a whole, demonstrate that work and time

factors were not perceived uniformly across the sample. The most prevalent form of

disagreement was observed to be conflicts between working hours and class attendance, with

36.4% of respondents expressing concern. This was followed by general time constraints and

difficulties balancing family, work, and studies, which each accounted for 27.3% of responses.

Family factors

The family factors category examined the influence of three factors on participants'

decisions to withdraw from the program: insufficient family support, family responsibilities, and

family conflicts. In general, most respondents did not attribute their decision to leave their

studies to family-related circumstances. The lowest level of agreement within this category was

obtained by the lack of family support. A total of 90.9% of participants (n = 20) expressed

disagreement or strong disagreement with the assertion that insufficient support from their

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2705 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

families had been a key factor in their withdrawal. In contrast, 9.1% (n = 2) of participants

strongly agreed with the statement, and no participants selected the neutral response or agree.

The impact of family responsibilities was found to be comparatively greater. While 68.2% of

participants (n = 15) expressed disagreement or strong disagreement with the assertion that

these obligations had impeded their pursuit of university studies, 27.3% (n = 6) concurred or

strongly concurred with the statement. The remaining 4.5% (n = 1) selected the neutral

response. The results of the survey revealed that 63.6% (n = 14) of respondents strongly

disagreed that these circumstances had reduced their motivation to continue studying, whereas

22.7% (n = 5) strongly agreed. The remaining 13.6% (n = 3) selected the neutral response. All

participants who reported their influence selected 'Strongly agree'. The results of the study

demonstrate that family factors were not perceived uniformly across the sample. The highest

level of agreement was obtained by family responsibilities (27.3%), followed by family problems

or conflicts (22.7%) and insufficient family support (9.1%).

Social/interpersonal factors

T he social factors category examined whether a lack of empathy from classmates,

interpersonal conflicts, and a limited sense of belonging influenced participants' decisions to

withdraw from the program. Regarding relationships with classmates, 90.9% of participants (n =

20) expressed disagreement or strong disagreement with the assertion that a lack of peer

empathy had influenced their withdrawal. In contrast, 9.1% (n = 2) of participants expressed

agreement or strong agreement with the statement, and no participants selected the neutral

response.

Conflicts with teachers and classmates obtained the highest level of agreement within

this category. A total of 86.4% of participants (n = 19) expressed disagreement or strong

disagreement with the assertion that interpersonal conflicts had contributed to their withdrawal.

In contrast, 13.6% (n = 3) of the participants strongly agreed with the statement, while no

participants selected the Agree or neutral response. Most participants, constituting 86.4% of the

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2706 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

sample (n = 19), expressed strong disagreement with the assertion that their inability to

assimilate within their student group had influenced their decision to withdraw. Conversely,

9.1% (n = 2) strongly agreed, and 4.5% (n = 1) selected the neutral response.

The findings, when considered as a whole, indicate that social factors were not widely

perceived as reasons for withdrawal within the sample. Conflicts with teachers and classmates

obtained the highest level of agreement (13.6%), followed by a lack of empathy from classmates

and a limited sense of belonging (9.1% each).

Personal/psychological factors

The personal and psychological factors category examined the influence of motivation,

exhaustion, stress and anxiety on the decisions of participants to withdraw from the program. In

contrast to categories that exhibited a distinct concentration of responses, these indicators

manifested varying degrees of agreement, disagreement, and neutrality. Regarding the issue of

motivation, 68.2% of participants (n = 15) expressed strong disagreement with the assertion that

this factor had led them to discontinue their studies. Conversely, 27.3% (n = 6) strongly agreed,

while 4.5% (n = 1) selected the neutral response. It is noteworthy that no participants selected

the intermediate categories of Disagree or Agree.

The distribution within the category was found to be most balanced in cases of physical

and mental exhaustion. A total of 36.4% of participants (n = 8) expressed disagreement or

strong disagreement with the assertion that exhaustion had contributed to their withdrawal,

while 31.8% (n = 7) expressed agreement or strong agreement with this assertion. Furthermore,

an additional 31.8% (n = 7) of respondents selected the neutral response. The comparable

proportions observed across the three response categories imply that the role of exhaustion

was not uniform or clearly delineated within the sample. Half of the participants (50.0%, n = 11)

expressed disagreement or strong disagreement that these conditions had affected their

academic continuity. In contrast, 27.3% (n = 6) strongly agreed that high levels of stress or

anxiety had influenced their withdrawal, while 22.7% (n = 5) selected the neutral response.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2707 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

The findings, considered as a whole, demonstrate that personal and psychological factors were

experienced differently across participants. The most prevalent responses were physical and

mental exhaustion (31.8%), followed by lack of motivation and stress or anxiety (27.3% each).

The substantial proportion of neutral responses for exhaustion (31.8%) and stress or anxiety

(22.7%) further differentiates these indicators from lack of motivation, which elicited more

polarized responses.

Technological/access factors

The technological and accessibility factors category examined whether the lack of a

computer, the distance between participants' homes and the university, and difficulties using

virtual learning platforms influenced their decisions to withdraw from the program. In general,

the majority of participants did not identify these conditions as the primary factors contributing to

their decision to discontinue their academic pursuits.

Regarding access to electronic equipment, 90.9% of participants (n = 20) expressed

disagreement or strong disagreement with the assertion that the absence of a computer had

resulted in their withdrawal from their studies. In contrast, 4.5% (n = 1) strongly agreed with the

statement, while another 4.5% (n = 1) selected the neutral response. Geographical accessibility

achieved the highest level of agreement within this category. A total of 77.3% of participants (n

= 17) expressed disagreement or strong disagreement with the assertion that the distance

between their homes and the university had influenced their withdrawal. In contrast, 22.7% (n =

5) of participants expressed agreement or strong agreement with the statement, and no

participants selected the neutral response. Most participants, constituting 90.9% of the sample

(n = 20), expressed disagreement or strong disagreement with the assertion that challenges

associated with these platforms had influenced their withdrawal. Conversely, 9.1% (n = 2) of

participants expressed agreement or strong agreement, while no participants selected the

neutral response.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2708 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

When considered as a whole, the findings suggest that technological and accessibility

conditions were not generalized explanations for withdrawal. The highest level of agreement

was observed among participants regarding the distance between their places of residence and

the university (22.7%), followed by difficulties using virtual learning platforms (9.1%) and lack of

access to a computer (4.5%).

Supplementary survey findings

Table 4.

Supplementary survey findings

Supplementary

question

Main findings

Principal reason for

withdrawal

Lack of financial resources: 27.3% (n = 6); teaching methodologies:

18.2% (n = 4); health problems: 13.6% (n = 3); insufficient time: 9.1%

(n = 2); other responses: 4.5% each (n = 1).

Reported university

support

No support received: 63.6% (n = 14); unaware of available services:

18.2% (n = 4); scholarship: 13.6% (n = 3); academic support: 4.5% (n =

1); psychological/emotional support: 0%.

Intention to resume

studies

Would return to the same university: 77.3% (n = 17); would choose

another institution: 22.7% (n = 5).

Note. Percentages are based on the total sample (N = 22). The table summarizes

responses to the three supplementary closed-ended survey questions. Percentages may not

total 100% due to rounding.

Qualitative findings

The qualitative findings were based on three semi-structured interviews with former

students, identified as P1, P2, and P3. The interviews were conducted in Spanish, and selected

excerpts were translated into English for reporting purposes. Four recurring themes were

identified: reasons for withdrawal, institutional support, work and time management, and future

educational aspirations.

Theme 1. Reasons for Student Withdrawal: Participants described different pathways to

withdrawal. Financial difficulties were central to the experiences of P1 and P2, with P1 referring

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2709 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

to difficulties covering tuition fees and P2 identifying financial constraints alongside schedule-

related challenges. In contrast, P3 associated withdrawal primarily with a mismatch between

personal interests and the teaching-oriented nature of the programme. These accounts illustrate

that withdrawal emerged from different combinations of economic, employment-related, and

vocational circumstances.

Theme 2. Institutional Support: Experiences of institutional support varied across

participants. P2 reported receiving follow-up calls and emails, whereas P1 did not report

assistance that directly addressed the financial circumstances underlying the interruption. P3

referred to a payment option that would have facilitated continuation. Overall, the accounts

distinguish between institutional contact and support that directly responded to participants’

specific needs.

Theme 3. Work and Time Management: Work and time constraints were particularly

relevant to P1 and P2. Their accounts showed that employment, financial needs, and time

availability were interconnected, as the need to work could limit participation in academic

activities. This pattern was not evident in P3’s account, whose withdrawal was associated

primarily with vocational misalignment.

Theme 4. Future Educational Aspirations: Withdrawal did not necessarily represent the

end of participants’ educational aspirations. P1 and P2 expressed intentions to resume their

studies if their financial, employment, and time circumstances improved. P3 also considered

continuing in higher education but in a field more closely aligned with personal vocational

interests. Thus, withdrawal represented either a potentially temporary interruption or a

redirection of the educational trajectory.

Overall, the qualitative findings reveal that withdrawal resulted from different

combinations of circumstances. Financial constraints and work-related time limitations were

prominent in the accounts of P1 and P2, while P3’s experience was shaped by a mismatch

between personal interests and the professional orientation of the program. Institutional

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2710 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

responses also varied and did not necessarily address the specific circumstances underlying

withdrawal. Nevertheless, the three participants retained some interest in higher education,

either by considering a return to the program or by planning to pursue a different academic field.

Summary of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings

The integration of the quantitative and qualitative findings indicates that participants’

withdrawal decisions cannot be explained by a single factor. These results do not mean that the

factors examined were irrelevant; instead, they demonstrate that their influence varied

according to participants’ circumstances. Financial difficulties emerged as one of the most

consistent findings across both components. The interviews added depth to this result, as P1

and P2 described financial limitations as central to their decisions. Thus, the qualitative

accounts showed how economic constraints could interact with other aspects of participants’

lives rather than operating in isolation. Work and time demand constitute another point of

convergence. General time constraints and difficulties balancing family, work, and studies were

each identified by 27.3% of respondents. These patterns were reflected in the interviews with

P1 and P2, who described difficulties managing their studies alongside employment and other

responsibilities. The interviews further revealed that employment served a dual role: it provided

the income necessary to study but simultaneously reduced the time available for academic

participation.

Institutional support presented a more complex pattern. In the Likert-scale results, 36.4%

of respondents indicated that insufficient university support had influenced their withdrawal. In

the complementary question, 63.6% reported receiving no institutional support, and 18.2% were

unaware that such services existed. These results are not necessarily contradictory because the

questions measured different aspects: one examined whether insufficient support contributed to

withdrawal, while the other documented whether support had been received or was known to

participants. The interviews clarified this distinction. P2 received follow-up calls and emails,

whereas P1 did not report assistance that addressed the financial difficulty behind the

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2711 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

interruption, and P3 mentioned a payment alternative that could have facilitated continuation.

Therefore, institutional contact did not always correspond to the practical support participants

needed. Academic, vocational, and psychological factors were relevant to groups rather than to

the sample.

The experience of P3 illustrates how a factor reported by a relatively small quantitative

subgroup can still be decisive at the individual level. Only 13.6% of survey respondents

associated withdrawal with choosing the wrong program or with a mismatch between their

interests and program requirements. Nevertheless, vocational misalignment was the central

explanation in P3’s account, as the participant was interested in learning English but not in

becoming a teacher. This finding demonstrates how aggregate percentages can conceal the

importance of less frequent but highly influential individual circumstances.

Family, social, and technological factors obtained comparatively low levels of agreement.

These factors were also not prominent in the interviews. Participants’ intentions to resume

higher education provide a final point of connection between the two components. The

interviews showed that these intentions were often conditional. Withdrawal therefore did not

necessarily represent a permanent rejection of higher education; for some participants, it

constituted a temporary interruption, while for another it represented a redirection of their

academic trajectory. Overall, the findings portray student withdrawal as a heterogeneous and

multifactorial process. Financial limitations, employment responsibilities, time availability, and

access to appropriate institutional support were the most consistently visible conditions across

the quantitative and qualitative evidence. Consequently, withdrawal should be understood as

the result of different combinations of circumstances rather than as the consequence of a single

generalized cause.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2712 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

DISCUSSION

The economic factors demonstrated clear convergence with previous research. The

relationship between financial limitations and university dropout has been a subject of consistent

research (Tuz Rosales, 2024; Chalacán & Delgado, 2020; González Cortez & Carrión Berrú,

2024). It has been demonstrated that students often must manage educational costs alongside

other financial demands, and that this is particularly true when they are required to pay for

university in a country where the cost of living is high (Tuz Rosales, 2024). In the present study,

50% of participants strongly agreed that lack of financial resources was a significant reason for

withdrawal, while 54.5% agreed or strongly agreed that competing financial priorities had an

adverse effect on their studies. Financial constraints were also the most frequently selected

principal reason in the supplementary question and were prominent in two of the three

interviews. The findings of this study indicate that economic pressures continue to be a

significant factor in the persistence of students in distance higher education, potentially

interacting with employment-related and time-related demands.

Institutional support was identified as a salient dimension when the findings were

compared with those of previous research. As asserted by Camián Acosta (2023) and Montoya

Gutiérrez (2016), the significance of academic and psychosocial support in fostering student

retention is paramount. In the present study, 63.6% of participants reported that they had

received no institutional support, while 18.2% were unaware of the available services. The

interviews further suggested a distinction between institutional contact and assistance that

responded directly to students' financial, academic, or personal needs. These findings

underscore the significance of providing support mechanisms and ensuring that students are

cognisant of and able to access support that is commensurate with their circumstances.

The findings also partially align with research linking withdrawal to employment and

family responsibilities (Castillo, 2022; Espitia Carrascal & Montes Rótela, 2009; Saavedra &

Suárez, 2002). However, employment-related constraints were more evident than family factors

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2713 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

in the present study. Conflicts between working hours and class attendance demonstrated the

highest degree of agreement within the work and time category, while family responsibilities and

conflicts were reported by a smaller proportion of participants. The interviews yielded further

insights into this relationship, particularly for P1 and P2, whose accounts demonstrated how

employment could concurrently provide the financial resources necessary for study and reduce

the time available for academic engagement.

A notable divergence emerged in relation to social and interpersonal factors. As

indicated by Elías Andreu (2008) and Camián Acosta (2023), earlier studies have linked dropout

with restricted social integration, loneliness, discrimination, and challenges in establishing

relationships within university communities. In contrast, most participants in the present study

rejected the notion that withdrawal was attributable to a lack of peer empathy, interpersonal

conflicts, and a limited sense of belonging. These factors were also largely absent from the

qualitative accounts. Consequently, within the context of distance education, social and

interpersonal challenges appeared less pronounced than economic, employment-related, and

temporal factors.

A more nuanced relationship with previous research was revealed by vocational factors.

Despite the identification of inappropriate program choice as a significant contributing factor to

early university dropout (Elías Andreu, 2008; Botella, 2000), the survey results indicated

relatively low levels of agreement regarding vocational factors. However, the qualitative findings

complicate this pattern: vocational mismatch was central to P3's decision to withdraw, as the

participant's interest in learning English did not correspond with the teaching-oriented

professional trajectory of the program. This finding illustrates the value of integrating quantitative

and qualitative evidence, as a factor with relatively low prevalence at the group level may still be

decisive within an individual educational trajectory.

A particularly salient finding pertains to technological and access-related factors, given

that the study was conducted within the context of a distance education program. Contrary to

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2714 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

prevailing assumptions within this field, technological difficulties were not the most reported

condition associated with withdrawal. Most participants (90.9%) disagreed with the assertion

that their decision to depart from the program was influenced by factors such as limited access

to computers or challenges in utilizing virtual learning platforms. Geographical distance

demonstrated a slightly higher degree of relevance, although it was associated with withdrawal

by a mere 22.7% of participants. The findings of this study indicate that, within the specified

group of former students, the phenomenon of withdrawal cannot be comprehensively

understood by focusing primarily on the technological or access-related characteristics of

distance education. Instead, the broader findings indicate that economic pressures, employment

and time constraints, institutional support, and individual circumstances are all relevant factors.

In this sense, a comprehensive understanding of withdrawal necessitates an examination that

extends beyond the modality itself, encompassing the broader conditions that influence

students' educational trajectories.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrates that student withdrawal from the distance foreign

language teacher education program was associated with multiple and intersecting

circumstances, rather than with a single dominant factor. It is evident from the quantitative and

qualitative findings that economic constraints are one of the most consistent conditions,

frequently intersecting with employment responsibilities and limited time. Conversely,

technological difficulties, restricted access to computers, and challenges associated with virtual

learning platforms were not frequently identified as factors contributing to participants' decisions

to withdraw. The findings of this study suggest that a more comprehensive understanding of

withdrawal in distance higher education requires an examination that extends beyond the

modality itself. It is imperative to consider the broader economic, employment-related, personal,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2715 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

academic, vocational, and institutional circumstances that shape students' educational

trajectories.

A salient finding of the study was that withdrawal did not necessarily signify

disengagement from higher education. Most survey respondents (77.3%) indicated that they

would consider returning to the same university. However, subsequent interviews revealed that

future educational plans were frequently contingent on changes in financial, employment, or

personal circumstances. For some participants, withdrawal therefore represented a potentially

temporary interruption, whereas for others, such as the participant who identified a vocational

mismatch, it involved a redirection of their educational trajectory.

The findings of this study have practical implications for the retention of students in

distance programs. Institutional strategies may benefit from moving beyond approaches focused

primarily on students' adaptation to online learning and considering mechanisms that respond to

the circumstances identified in this study. These include financial pressures, competing

employment demands, time constraints, and awareness of and access to institutional support.

The early identification of students experiencing multiple pressures has the potential to inform

the development of more responsive and context-sensitive retention strategies.

However, it is imperative to interpret the findings considering the study's limitations,

particularly the small quantitative sample and the limited number of qualitative interviews. The

results are therefore context-specific and should not be generalized to all distance education

students. Future research could examine these relationships with larger and more diverse

samples and explore longitudinally how economic, employment-related, institutional, and

personal circumstances interact over time in students' decisions to persist, interrupt, or resume

their studies.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest related to this research.

Author Contributions

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2716 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

Blanca Lucia Cely Betancourt: formal analysis, review and editing of the manuscript.

Juan Daniel Martínez Quimbayo: Conceptualization, methodology, research, data

curation, formal analysis, visualization, drafting of the original manuscript.

Danna Camila Chaparro Espitia: Conceptualization, methodology, research, data

curation, formal analysis, visualization, drafting of the original manuscript.

Declaration of Use of AI

The authors declare that they used artificial intelligence tools specifically DeepL Write,

Grammarly, and ChatGPT only as an aid during the process of linguistic review and

improvement of the manuscript’s writing. These tools were used to review aspects related to

clarity, grammar, style, and academic expression. They were not used for data collection,

analysis of results, or the formulation of the study’s conclusions. All conceptual, methodological,

analytical, and interpretive decisions were made by the authors, who reviewed and validated the

final content and assumed full responsibility for the originality, accuracy, and integrity of the

manuscript.

REFERENCES

Abello Riquelme, R., Díaz Mujica, A., Pérez Villalobos, M. V., Almeida, L. S., Lagos Herrera, I.,

González Puentes, J., & Strickland, B. (2012). Vivencias e implicación académica en

estudiantes universitarios: Adaptación y validación de escalas para su evaluación.

Estudios Pedagógicos, 38(2), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052012000200001

Abril Valdez, E., Román Pérez, R., Cubillas Rodríguez, M. J., & Moreno Celaya, I. (2008). ¿

Deserción o autoexclusión? Un análisis de las causas de abandono escolar en

estudiantes de educación media superior en Sonora, México. Revista electrónica de

investigación educativa, 10(1), 1-16.

Aguirre Varelas, E, Marquez Guerra, A y Villegas Usuga, L. (2026). Afectaciones sociales,

culturales y educativas de la deserción escolar en niños, niñas y adolescentes de la

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2717 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

vereda Las Malvinas en el municipio de Caucasia, Antioquia, entre los años 2021 y

2026. Tecnológico de Antioquia, Institución Universitaria. Disponible en:

https://dspace.tdea.edu.co/handle/tdea/9162

Borzone Valdebenito, M. A. (2017). Autoeficacia y vivencias académicas en estudiantes

universitarios. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 20(1), 266–274.

https://doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2017.20.1.13

Camián Acosta, N. L. (2023). Desafíos de la educación virtual: Análisis de los factores que

influyen en el abandono de los estudios en línea. LATAM Revista Latinoamericana de

Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 4(2), 1531–1542.

https://doi.org/10.56712/latam.v4i2.702

Castillo, J., Barrera, H., & Moreno, H. (2022). Causas de la deserción del sistema de educación

escolar. Un estudio de caso. Gestionar: revista de empresa y gobierno, 2(1), 52-62.

https://doi.org/10.35622/j.rg.2022.01.004

Cely-Betancourt, B. L. (2023). El perfil del licenciado en lenguas extranjeras: Un reto

pedagógico para los docentes formadores. Revista Sociedad & Tecnología, 6(1), 81–97.

https://doi.org/10.51247/st.v6i1.326

Chalacán-Velásquez, L. A., & Delgado-Portilla, K. N. (2020). Factores de riesgo y protección en

la deserción escolar de la Institución Educativa Policarpa. Revista UNIMAR, 38(1), 35–

63. https://doi.org/10.31948/Rev.unimar/unimar38-1-art2

Cornejo, M., & Lucero, M. C. (2006). Preocupaciones vitales en estudiantes universitarios

relacionado con bienestar psicológico y modalidades de afrontamiento. Fundamentos en

Humanidades, (12), 143–153.

Corominas Rovira, E. (2001). La transición a los estudios universitarios: Abandono o cambio en

el primer año de universidad. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 19(1), 127–152.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2718 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in

education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1–27.

https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071001001

Elias Andreu, M. (2008). Los abandonos universitarios: Retos ante el Espacio Europeo de

Educación Superior. ESE. Estudios sobre Educación, 15, 101–

121.https://doi.org/10.15581/004.15.23447

Espitia Carrascal, R. E., & Montes Rotela, M. (2009). Influencia de la familia en el proceso

educativo de los menores del barrio Costa Azul de Sincelejo (Colombia). Investigación &

Desarrollo, 17(1), 84–105.

Esteban García, M., Bernardo Gutiérrez, A. B., & Rodríguez-Muñiz, L. J. (2016). Permanencia

en la universidad: La importancia de un buen comienzo. Aula Abierta, 44(1), 1–6.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aula.2015.04.001

Frankola, K. (2001). Why online learners drop out. Workforce, 80(10), 53–58.

https://doi.org/10.11221/jima.57.530

Gámez, E., Marrero, H., & Díaz, J. M. (2008). Motivación interpersonal y metas vitales en

estudiantes universitarios. En I. Etxebarría (Ed.), Emoción y motivación: Contribuciones

actuales (pp. 173–185). Asociación de Motivación y Emoción.

González Cortez, A. L., & Carrión Berrú, C. B. (2024). Desvalorización parental al proceso

educativo de los estudiantes en la escuela Zamora Chinchipe. Revista Científica y

Arbitrada de Ciencias Sociales y Trabajo Social: Tejedora, 7(15), 110–126.

https://doi.org/10.56124/tj.v7i15ep.007

Montoya Gutiérrez, G. (2016). Estudio factores asociados al abandono temprano de la

educación superior. Congresos CLABES.

MUÑOZ, J. S. Á., & MARTÍNEZ, A. A. (2017). El problema de la deserción escolar en la

producción científica educativa. Revista Internacional de Ciencias Sociales y

Humanidades, SOCIOTAM, 27(1), 89-112.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2719 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

Osorio, M., Cely, B., Ortiz, M., Benito, J., Herrera, C., Bernar, A., & Zuluaga, N. (2020).

Tendencias en la formación de docentes de lenguas extranjeras y necesidades de los

contextos educativos de educación básica y media en Colombia. Editorial Jotamar.

OECD (2016). Education at a glance 2016: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2016-en

Rinaudo, M. C., Chiecher, A., & Donolo, D. (2003). Motivación y uso de estrategias en

estudiantes universitarios: Su evaluación a partir del Motivated Strategies Learning

Questionnaire. Anales de Psicología, 19(1), 107–119.

Roca-Cuberes, C. (2012). Las causas del abandono en la Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Revista

del Congrés Internacional de Docència Universitària i Innovació (CIDUI), 1.

Rojas, A. (2011). Beyond delinquent citizenships: Immigrant youth's (re) visions of citizenship

and belonging in a globalized world. Harvard Educational Review, 81(1), 64-95.

https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.1.6j488401h4540454

Saavedra, J., & Suárez, P. (2002). El financiamiento de la educación pública en el Perú: el rol

de las familias. MISC.

Sanchez Solanar, M. C. ., Silva Triana, E. L. ., Méndez Monroy, L. S. ., & Silva Triana, L. C. .

(2026). Estrategias Metodológicas en Retención de Estudiantes: Una Alternativa para

Elevar la Calidad Educativa Disminuyendo la Deserción Escolar. Prisma ODS: Revista

Multidisciplinaria Sobre Desarrollo Sostenible, 5(3), 1-

17. https://doi.org/10.65011/prismaods.v5.i3.250

Tamayo, N. K. C., Márquez, M. A. G., Meléndez, K. D. V., & Albor-Chadid, L. (2026). La

deserción escolar en Soledad, Atlántico: causas y desafíos para la permanencia

educativa. Tejidos Sociales, 8(1), 1-12.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.71112/vdm47v93

2720 Multidisciplinary Journal Epistemology of the Sciences | Vol. 3, Issue 3, 2026, July–September

Tuz Rosales, L. G. (2024). Factores que interrumpen la educación de los niños “Chapitas” que

migran hacia la localidad de Carlos A. Madrazo. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica

Multidisciplinar, 8(4), 8682–8699. https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v8i4.13023

Vasquez, Y. I. A., & Torres, J. A. (2026). Factores psicosociales y educativos que inciden en la

deserción escolar: Una revisión sistemática. Alternancia-Revista de Educación e

Investigación, 8(14), 17-35. https://doi.org/10.37260/alternancia.v8n14.02

Yang, H., & Chang, X. (2010). A New Two-Parameter Estimator in Linear Regression.

Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 39(6), 923–934.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03610920902807911