Factors Contributing to Online Course Completion

Aragon and Johnson (2008) studied factors that influence completion of community college online courses.  They identified three factors that contribute to persistence in courses.  Students who are female, enrolled in a higher number of online courses, and/or who are entered the course with a higher GPA were more likely to complete online courses.  Additionally, they explored the reasons that students withdraw from online courses.  Students reported withdrawing from courses because of: personal reasons (34%), course design (28%), technological reasons (18%), institutional mistakes (11%), and learning preferences (9%).

Data was collected from 305 students taking an online course at a rural community college in the Midwest.  The researchers utilized a combination of data that was collected as part of the organizations data management.  These included: student demographic, enrollment, academic readiness, and course completion.  The researchers defined completion as receiving a grade of A, B, C, or D, and academic readiness as a combination of GPA and academic placement test results.  Measures of self-directed learning were measured utilizing Bartlett-Kotrlik Inventory of Self-Learning, which was administered online.  They also contacted via telephone 65 of the 116 who withdraw from or failed their online course.  These students were asked “Why did you choose not to complete your online course?” (p. 149). 

The researchers utilized a chi-test to compare student demographics and academic preparedness between completers and non-completers, and a t-test to compare age, hours enrolled, hours enrolled in online courses, GPA, self-directed learning variables.  They subsequently utilized the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients to determine the strength and direction of the relationships among the variables.

As a result of their findings they recommend that community colleges advisers identify students with who have a low entering GPA and provide them with additional counseling on the workload and time management of online courses.   Unfortunately, the authors do not provide practitioners with a means to determine what the cut off should be for a low entering GPA.  Aragon and Johnson recommend utilizing a “student help desk” to assist students in addressing technology related issues including provide computer related trainings as needed.   The authors do not address if this help desk should be online or a physical space on the campus, and if utilization of this service should be optional or mandatory for students. Additionally, they recommend that “instructors need to set the parameters of when communication is to occur and then abide by those times” (p.155). 

Citing that a significant portion of the sample of students who withdrew did so because of course design (28%) the authors recommend that course designers need to be cognizant of the unique demands of the online educational environment and its students.  They suggested that an innovative approach to course design that recognizing differences among the learners, motivates students to learn, avoids overloading the student, is based in a real-life context, and that provides both hands-on activities and opportunities for student reflection (p.155).   Which leads to their final recommendation which is for community colleges to establish ongoing measures for quality control and for oversight of course development.