An investigation of course-level factors as predictors of online STEM course outcomes

Abstract This study analyzed students who took STEM courses online or face-to-face at a large urban community college in the Northeastern U.S. to determine which course-level characteristics most strongly predicted higher rates of dropout or D/F grades in online STEM courses than would be expected in comparable face-to-face courses. While career and elective STEM courses had significantly higher success rates face-to-face than liberal arts and major requirement STEM courses respectively, career STEM courses had significantly higher success rates online than would be expected, while elective STEM courses had significantly lower success rates online than would be expected given the face-to-face results. Once propensity score matching was used to generate a matched subsample which was balanced on a number of student characteristics, differences in course outcomes by course characteristics were no longer significant. This suggests that while certain types of STEM courses can be identified as higher or lower risk in the online environment, this appears not to be because of the courses themselves, but rather because of the particular characteristics of the students who choose to take these courses online. Findings suggests that one potential intervention for improving online STEM course outcomes could be to target students in specific courses which are at higher risk in the online environment; this may allow institutions to leverage interventions by focusing them on the STEM courses at greatest risk of lower online success rates, where the students who are at highest risk of online dropout seem to be concentrated.

[1]  Claire Wladis,et al.  Balancing Retention and Access in Online Courses: Restricting Enrollment … is it Worth the Cost? , 2013 .

[2]  Amaury Nora,et al.  An Exploration of College Persistence for Students Enrolled in Web-Enhanced Courses: A Multivariate Analytic Approach , 2008 .

[3]  Wallace E. Boston,et al.  A Longitudinal Study of Online Learners: Shoppers, Swirlers, Stoppers, and Succeeders as a Function of Demographic Characteristics , 2013 .

[4]  Stephen Downes.  E-learning 2.0 , 2005, ELERN.

[5]  Keith Tyler-Smith.  Early Attrition among First Time eLearners: A Review of Factors that Contribute to Drop-out, Withdrawal and Non-completion Rates of Adult Learners undertaking eLearning Programmes , 2006 .

[6]  Wallace E. Boston,et al.  Assessing Retention in Online Learning: An Administrative Perspective , 2011 .

[7]  Shanna Smith Jaggars,et al.  Online Learning in the Virginia Community College System , 2010 .

[8]  G. Leinhardt,et al.  Going the Distance With Online Education , 2006 .

[9]  Badrul H. Khan,et al.  Toward a Learner-Oriented Community College Online Course Dropout Framework , 2007 .

[10]  A. Cabrera,et al.  The Role of Perceptions of Prejudice and Discrimination on the Adjustment of Minority Students to College , 1996 .

[11]  Dc Washington,et al.  Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: (NCES -044). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education for Education Statistics. , 2009 .

[12]  Hannah D. Street,et al.  Factors Influencing a Learner's Decision to Drop-Out or Persist in Higher Education Distance Learning , 2010 .

[13]  Sarah Carr.  As Distance Education Comes of Age, the Challenge Is Keeping the Students. , 2000 .

[14]  Nathan K. Lindsay,et al.  Thirty-two Trends Affecting Distance Education: An Informed Foundation for Strategic Planning , 2003 .

[15]  I. E. Allen,et al.  Class Differences Online Education in the United States, 2010 , 2010 .

[16]  Catherine L. Finnegan,et al.  Best Practices in Predicting and Encouraging Student Persistence and Achievement Online , 2008 .

[17]  T. Waits.  Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2000-2001. E.D. Tabs. , 2003 .

[18]  Nicolae Nistor,et al.  Stability of attitudes and participation in online university courses: Gender and location effects , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[19]  David P. Diaz.  Online Drop Rate Revisited , 2002 .

[20]  Shanna Smith Jaggars,et al.  Adaptability to Online Learning: Differences across Types of Students and Academic Subject Areas. CCRC Working Paper No. 54. , 2013 .

[21]  Katherine M. Conway,et al.  Community Colleges and Underappreciated Assets: Using Institutional Data to Promote Success in Online Learning. , 2013 .

[22]  I. E. Allen,et al.  Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. , 2013 .

[23]  Zehui Zhan,et al.  Academic self-concept and social presence in face-to-face and online learning: Perceptions and effects on students' learning achievement and satisfaction across environments , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[24]  B. Patterson,et al.  Attrition in Online and Campus Degree Programs. , 2009 .

[25]  Andrea Solimeno,et al.  The influence of students and teachers characteristics on the efficacy of face-to-face and computer supported collaborative learning , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[26]  Cherng-Jyh Yen,et al.  A predictive study of learner satisfaction and outcomes in face-to-face, satellite broadcast, and live video-streaming learning environments , 2010, Internet High. Educ..

[27]  Claire Wladis,et al.  The Representation of Minority, Female, and Non-Traditional STEM Majors in the Online Environment at Community Colleges , 2015 .

[28]  Barack Obama,et al.  Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address: January 20, 2015 , 2015 .

[29]  Shanna Smith Jaggars,et al.  Online and Hybrid Course Enrollment and Performance in Washington State Community and Technical Colleges , 2011 .

[30]  Thomas Mazzurana.  eLearning 2.0 , 2008 .