etec541csusb.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web viewDespite the explosion in online higher education programs, very little research has been done to study student success of underprepared

Online Student Success

Literature Review on Improving Student Success among Underprepared Online Students in

Higher Education

Christen Smith

EADM 607

Professor Greer

March 17, 2015

1


Introduction

Online education in higher education has been heralded as the answer to student access,

yet success and retention of online learners continues to be cause for concern despite the steady

increase in online programs. President Obama has cited distance education as a primary means

for increasing the number of college graduates, particularly students of color, and reducing the

cost of education in the United States (Sturgis, 2012). In 2014, the total number of reported

students in Higher Education taking at least one online class was reported to be 7.1 million; that

is 33.5 % of the total number of college and university students (Allen & Seaman, 2014). While

there is no central data collection on student success and retention rates in higher education

throughout the US, the largest academic organization in higher education, the California

Community College (CCC) system, has tracked the disparity between traditional and distance

education classes of 2.1 million students. The CCC Chancellor’s office reports that online

students are 8.1% less likely to complete online classes and 11% less likely to succeed with a

grade of C or better if they do finish (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office,

2013). Online programs may be providing better access to college classes, but emphasis needs to

be on increasing graduation rates by studying causes for the achievement gap between face-to-

face and online learners.

Despite the explosion in online higher education programs, very little research has been

done to study student success of underprepared students in online higher education. While

hundreds of studies have focused on online learning student success in general, the majority of

those studies have examined the roles of learning styles, age, gender, and motivation (Britto &

Rush, 2013; Harrell, 2008; Baxter, 2012; Simpson, 2013). Only a handful of studies have

expressly grappled with the success or retention of underprepared students. This is alarming

2


given that it is estimated that one third of all incoming freshman require at least one

developmental course in math, English, reading, or ESL (Bettinger & Long, 2009). As colleges

and universities do attempt to broaden educational access, it is likely that the number of remedial

students and second language learners enrolled in college will increase (Daiek, Dixon, & Talbert,

2012; SRI International, 2002). For this reason, it is paramount that schools address the online

learning needs of underprepared students. If colleges and universities are going to increase

online offerings, researchers and institutions must view distance education as more than just a

tool for accessibility and cost savings and instead search for means to increase student learning

and completion.

Fortunately, research of ESL and underprepared students in online classes shows that

online education can be potentially beneficial (Al-Jarf, 2002; Carpenter, Brown, & Hickman,

2004; Dawson, 2001; Kaupp, 2012; Mongillo, & Wilder, 2012; Simpson, 2006; Stewart, &

Scappaticci, 2005; Zha, Kelly, Park, & Fitzgeral, 2006). Studies show that due to the increased

volume of writing, online activities can improve writing of developmental students (Al-Jarf,

2002; Mongillo, & Wilder, 2012; Zha, Kelly, Park, & Fitzgeral, 2006). Studies also suggest that

online learning can provide more individualized learning to better meet the learning needs of

remedial students (Al-Jarf, 2002; Carpenter, Brown, & Hickman, 2004; Mongillo, & Wilder,

2012; Simpson, 2006). Studies of online learning have also concluded that strong student-

centered learning environments can be established through online collaboration, and that these

connections may lead to better retention (Dawson, 2001; Kaupp, 2012; Stewart, & Scappaticci,

2005). The purpose of this literature review is to analyze how instructors and educational

institutions can improve student success for underprepared online students. An analysis of

literature will study both retention and success of underprepared students in fully online classes

3


and hybrid classes. Higher passing rates and improved retention of underprepared online

students will be studied; specifically, whether online instruction can be equally or even more

beneficial than traditional face-to-face instruction; identification of at-risk characteristics and

successful student traits and strategies; and descriptions of best practices in instructional design

will be analyzed. The goal of this investigation is to determine best practices that can be

established in policies and institutional practices mindful of the learning needs of underprepared

students in online courses.

Method

This literature review is based on a search of peer reviewed journals and conference

papers. A combination of the Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC) and EBSCO

Informational Services was used to locate the articles. Searching was started by combining an

extensive variety of phrases created from the following list of topics: underprepared, pre-

collegiate, at-risk, basic skills, developmental, remedial, ESL, ELL, literacy, reading, writing,

math, college, higher education, online, hybrid, computer, retention, success, tutoring,

assessment, readiness. In this study, underprepared students will include any college or

university student who assesses at a pre-collegiate level in math, reading, English, and/or ESL.

Also, an ancestral study of references was used to locate additional studies. These search

methods produced a total of 12 studies: nine peer reviewed journal articles and three studies

presented at conferences (Al-Jarf, 2002; Carpenter, & Hickman, 2004; Colorado, & Eberle,

20010; Dawson, 2010; Fair, & Wickersham, 2012; Kaupp, 2012; Menager-Beeley, 2001;

Mongillo, & Wilder, 2012; Simpson, 2006; Stewart, & Scappaticci, 2005; Yukselturk, & Bulut,

2007; Zha, Kelly, Park, & Fitzgerald, 2006). Besides these studies, a number of reports, articles,

4


and other studies were used for background information on higher education, underprepared

students, and online education.

Because of the limited number of studies that focus on student success of underprepared

students in online classes, a broad range of related subtopics dealing with both the online student

characteristics and online teaching practices were included in order to provide a comprehensive

view of the issues as they relate to underprepared students. Studies were selected that mostly

addressed online learners in higher education: seven studies of university students, four studies

of community college students, and one study of elementary school children. Of the 12 studies,

an examination of outcomes were divided: four studies reviewed final grades, one study only

looked at course completion, six studies focused on both grades and course completion, and three

of those studies additionally analyzed retention in subsequent semesters. The design of these

studies included two qualitative, four quantitative, six mixed-methods studies. It should be noted

that the majority of studies did not indicate how courses had been selected; institution-wide

studies were given more credibility. Only studies that included original research were included.

Articles were annotated and from those notes, outlines were created. The studies were

first analyzed for validity based on size. Because there were so few studies on this subject

matter, all studies with at least one class section were included. Next, studies were evaluated for

whether the study instruments would bias the results. Third, data analysis was analyzed to

determine whether the studies made correlations between online or hybrid and face-to-face

students, or if correlations were between underprepared and prepared learners. Finally, the

findings of the studies were divided into four themes: the first theme, establishing the benefit of

online over traditional instruction for underprepared students; the second theme, identifying traits

5


of successful and at-risk online learners; the third theme, best online practices for second

language learners; and the fourth theme, best online practices for remedial students.

Coverage of the Literature

Success and Retention Rates of Online versus Face-to-Face

While most research agrees that retention rates are less likely in online courses, there is

some evidence to suggest that online or hybrid classes can produce equal and even improved

outcomes. Based on a survey of 2,800 colleges and university, just 5% of administrators

reported believing online student outcomes were inferior to face-to-face classes, yet nearly 90%

expressed concerns over retention rates (Allen & Seaman, 2013). In 2009, the US Department of

Education completed a meta-analysis study of the most comprehensive online studies and

concluded that online learners had equally and even better outcomes than traditional face-to-face

students (as cited in Jaggars, 2011). The majority of studies used in this literature review attempt

to address issues in both retention and success.

Two of the studies expressly focusing on developmental students concluded learners in

online classes had better writing outcomes than face-to-face students (Al-Jarf, 2002; Carpenter,

2004). In one mixed-methods study of 113 university ESL writing students, hybrid students

actually surpassed traditional students in writing outcomes according to a t-test of the pre and

post exams (Al-Jarf, 2002). In comparison, a second study using multi-level modeling of

quantitative data of 256 online developmental community college writers tracked higher drop

rates of online students but higher success rates among retained online students (Carpenter,

2004). Given that online writing students are writing more volume due to exercises on written

discussion board forums and blogs, it’s reasonable that these students would make greater gains

in their writing and would therefore be more successful than face-to-face students if they

6


completed courses. Though most colleges have delayed offering online developmental level

classes (Jaggars, 2001), these studies support online student success of underprepared students.

Characteristics and Traits of Most and Least Successful Online Learners

Seven of the studies attempted to identify characteristics or traits that could identify

which students were most or least likely to be successful in online courses. These included a

combination of factors: ethnicity, age, work, current units, cumulative units, GPA, gender,

technical skills, previous online experience, placement scores, TASK motivation, major, reading

assessment, writing assessment, self-regulation strategies, intrinsic goals, number of degrees,

time since last class (Carpenter, Brown & Hickman, 2004; Colorado & Eberle, 2001; Fair &

Wickersham, 2012; Kaupp, 2012; Menager-Beeley, 2001; Yukselturk & Bulut, 2007).

Students’ cumulative GPAs, assessment scores, and completed or concurrent units were

indicators for retention and success in a number of study groups (Menager-Beeley, 2001; Fair, &

Wickersham, 2012; Carpenter, 2004; Colorado & Eberle, 2010). A correlational analysis of

quantitative data on grades in previous English courses revealed a relation between higher grades

and persistence in online classes (Menager-Beeley, 2001). A second correlational analysis of

mixed methods tests showed conflicting responses: in a post course survey, over half the students

of one study reported reading comprehension skills as a critical skill needed for online success;

however, in a correlations analysis of reading skills, no major relation with course grades was

found (Fair & Wickersham, 2012). Two studies examined the influence of previous units

completed and/or current units while enrolled in online classes (Carpenter, 2004; Colorado, &

Eberle, 2010). Full time students were more likely to pass online classes; the strongest indicator

of dropping was with part time students (Carpenter, 2004; Colorado & Eberle, 2010). Multilevel

modeling was used to analyze data collected from student profiles, placement tests, and course

7


grades, and although there was a correlation between assessment scores and class grades, no

connection was made with assessment and retention (Carpenter, 2004).

Not only did students’ academic backgrounds play a role in outcomes, so did students’

identities. Two studies found a disparity in outcomes when students’ ethnicity was compared.

The Carpenter (2004) study of 256 developmental writing students concluded Caucasian female

students were most likely to pass. A second study, the largest to ever look at online success

characteristics, also concluded that Caucasian students were most successful in online classes

(Kaupp, 2012). This quantitative study analyzed 4.5 million CA community college student

records between 2005-2009; there were three key findings: online Caucasian students were 9%

more likely than Latino students to succeed; there was no achievement gap of online basic skills

students; there was a huge achievement gap between vocational online students (Kaupp, 2012).

The second finding is particularly of interest since it specifically applies to underprepared

students, and it surprisingly finds no achievement gap based on race in pre-collegiate classes but

then does find a gap in college level courses. Even though the CCC system annually reports on

student equity in student success and retention, it currently does not analyze achievement of

specific groups within online education even though it tracks enrollment by race, gender, age,

etc. (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2013). More studies are needed that

specifically analyze success and retention based on student demographics.

Only by understanding where achievement gaps exists in online education can educators

begin to identify reasons for these achievement gaps and address barriers to success (Matthews,

& Lumina Foundation, 2012). In one qualitative study of Hispanic student online outcomes,

faculty attributed the failure of Hispanic students with lacking technical skills, language skills, or

motivation; on the other hand, students cited poor social connections (Kaupp, 2012). By

8


understanding that Hispanic students place higher value on student-student and student-instructor

contact (Johnson, 2013; Kaupp, 2012), instructional designers can plan for more interactive

collaboration in their online classes. Social connections may actually be one of the key markers

for underprepared students succeeding in online classes.

The role of social networking, and specifically the network students achieve, may in fact

enhance learning and outcomes of online learners; in essence, who you know dictates what you

learn (Baris, & Tosun, 2013; Dawson, 2010; Mongillo & Wilder, 2012). In a quantitative study

of 1,026 online university students, a t-test of Social Networking Analysis (SNA) patterns on

Blackboard discussion boards between high and low performing students uncovered key factors

in students’ success: the highest grades correlated with students with the largest social networks;

high and low performers did not interact; and high performing groups received higher

participation by instructors (Dawson, 2010). This verifies teacher presence plays a vital role in

online classes and it is crucial that instructors make strong connections with all of their online

learners (Hosler, & Arend, 2012; Kupczynski, Ice, Wiesenmayer, & McCluskey, 2010; Rubin, &

Fernandes, 2013). The research clearly shows that students expect and benefit from interaction

with classmates and instructors; creating strong learning communities with varying student levels

is an essential element of instructional design.

Who students are or who they know are just part of the factors related to academic

success; critically important are students’ own attitudes and actions. In multiple studies, students

with the highest task values had the highest persistence and success (Menager-Beeley, 2001;

Yukselturk & Bulut, 2007). When students' task values corresponded with coursework, course

satisfaction, success, and completion rose (Menager-Beeley, 2001). In a correlational research

design and regression tests using quantitative data, successful students assessed high in intrinsic

9


goals, task value, self-efficacy, cognitive strategy use, and self-regulation (Yukselturk & Bulut,

2007). In a READI assessment, no connections were found between personal attributes and

course grades; nevertheless, students related their time management as the most important factor

to affect their grades (Yukselturk & Bulut, 2007). Though the studies did not compare these

factors between face-to-face and online groups, it likely the findings would be the same with

both groups.

Best Online Practices for English as a Second Language Learners

The role of instructional design plays a key part in contributing to strengthening

outcomes of online students. Three studies focused on instructional design elements and English

as a Second Language (ESL) students (Al-Jarf, 2002; Simpson, 2006; Zha, Kelly, Park, &

Fitzgeral, 2006). In the first study, university level ESL traditional and hybrid writing students

were compared using a qualitative analysis of pre and post writing tests; because the hybrid

students had access to more online resources, activities, and overall writing practice, they

improved more (Al-Jarf, 2002). In a second study of technologically enhanced traditional

elementary classes, CMS discussion posts were analyzed with a t-test to determine progress in

communicative competence; the findings indicated that low level students modeled higher level

student writing and showed significant improvements (Zha, Kelly, Park, & Fitzgeral, 2006). The

third study focused on the use of asynchronous lectures online; a t-test of 160 university students

[half native speakers and half second language learners] concluded that ESL students were

significantly more likely to opt for asynchronous over live lectures (Simpson, 2006). Over this

three-semester study, the addition of the optional asynchronous lectures was credited for a 14%

improvement in retention and 5% grade elevation. While the study did not distinguish improved

10


success rates between native or non-native speakers, overall, students using the asynchronous

lectures outperformed students who only attended live lectures (Simpson, 2006).

Best Online Practices for Remedial Students

The roles of student-student interaction and entertainment proved to be motivation for

success and persistence of remedial students (Mongillo & Wilder, 2012; Stewart & Scappaticci,

2005). A qualitative study of at-risk college freshman enrolled in a pre-collegiate reading course

was compared for effect sizes; the ability for the online activities to feel game-like and the

awareness of classmates as their audience in the discussion forum were reported as motivators

(Mongillo & Wilder, 2012). This study was based on a social constructivists perspective of

learning grounded in the idea that learning occurs in social contexts. Social impact on student

persistence was reinforced in a second study of conditionally accepted university freshman

attending a Summer Bridge program; the mixed methods study used effect sizes to analyze

persistence rates between the face-to-face control group and the online pilot group (Stewart &

Scappaticci, 2005). Intriguing that both studies found that the online students reported more

positive responses to the social interaction online than in face-to-face sessions (Mongillo &

Wilder, 2012; Stewart & Scappaticci, 2005). As social media and CMS technologies have

improved our ability to interact through web 2.0 and 3.0 applications, perhaps these

improvements will be reflected in success and retention rates in online education.

Synthesis

Overall, online learning has the potential to be an academically sound option for

underprepared students. Before online education can truly become a viable option for improved

college access and attainment of degrees, higher education institutions will need to overcome

low completion and persistence rates (Allen & Seaman, 2014; California Community Colleges

11


Chancellor’s Office, 2013; Sturgis, 2012). Colleges that demonstrate the greatest gains in

helping students achieve the dream of graduating share three key features: an engagement of all

stakeholders [students, faculty, staff, and administrators], decision making based on data driven

evidence, and a scaled plan for change (Public, & Achieving the Dream, 2012). If academies can

establish policies that prioritize these key points, improved online courses and programs will

present a strong alternative to traditional classes.

Much of the literature supports online success, but there are very few resources that

explicitly address underprepared online students and more research is needed (Jaggars, &

Columbia University, 2011). It’s noteworthy that most of the studies in this review were of

hybrid classes rather than fully online. Given that research has shown hybrid classes to be more

effective than fully online classes (Meydanlioglu & Arikan, 2014), it can not be assumed that

research on fully online classes would produce as favorable outcomes. Further research is

needed on fully online developmental classes; based on current research, hybrid classes appear to

be the most credible choice. Furthermore, none of the studies investigated whether online

students were equally prepared and as successful in more advanced courses of the same

discipline; additional research is needed in this area as well.

Successful completion of courses and matriculation through college programs toward

degree completion are crucial issues for underprepared students (Barnett, Bork, Mayer, Pretlow,

Wathington, Weiss, & National Center for Postsecondary Research, 2012). If higher education

is to fulfill President Obama’s goals of making college more attainable, institutions must ensure

that their instructional designers are creating online courses that meet the needs of all types of

students. Stellar online courses are dependent on institutional support of technical training and

technical assistance (Taylor, & Holley, 2009; Watson, Gemin, & International Association for K-

12


12 Online, 2009), robust professional development in online education (Herman, 2012, Storandt,

Dossin, & Lacher, 2012) and specialized evaluation of online instruction (Hosie, & Schibeci,

2005; International Association for K-12 Online, 2011). It is not enough to simply open access

to colleges and universities through mass offerings in online programs, schools have a

responsibility to establish policies that ensure quality online programs that offer students a sound

opportunity for degree completion.

13


References

Al-Jarf, R. S. (2002, June). Effect of online learning on struggling ESL college writers. Paper

presented at National Educational Computing Conference, San Antonio, Texas.

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2014, Jan.). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United

States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.

Baris, M. F., & Tosun, N. (2013). Can social networks and e-portfolio be used together for

enhancing learning effects and attitudes?. Turkish Online Journal of Educational

Technology - TOJET, 12(2), 51-62.

Barnett, E, Bork, R., Mayer, A., Pretlow, J., Wathington, H., Weiss, M., & National Center for

Postsecondary Research. (2012). Bridging the gap: An impact study of eight

developmental summer bridge programs in Texas. NCPR Brief. National Center for

Postsecondary Research.

Baxter, J. (2012). Who am I and what keeps me going? Profiling the distance learning student in

higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4),

107-129.

Bettinger, E., & Long, B. (2009). Addressing the needs of underprepared students in higher

education: Does college remediation work? Journal of Human Resources, University of

Wisconsin Press, 44(3).

Britto, M., & Rush, S. (2013). Developing and Implementing Comprehensive Student Support

Services for Online Students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 29-42.

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2013). Distance education report.

Retrieved from:

http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/reportsTB/REPORT_DistanceEduc

14

http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/reportsTB/REPORT_DistanceEducation2013_090313.pdf


ation2013_090313.pdf

Carpenter, T., Brown, W., & Hickman, R. (2004). Influences of online delivery on

developmental writing outcomes. Journal of Developmental Education, 28(1), 14-16, 18,

35.

Colorado, J., & Eberle, J. (2010). Student demographics and success in online learning

environments. Emporia State Research Studies, 46(1), 4-10.

Daiek, D., Dixon, S., & Talbert, L. (2012). At issue: Developmental education and the success of

our community college students. Community College Enterprise, 18(1), 37-40.

Dawson, S. (2010). 'Seeing' the learning community: An exploration of the development of a

resource for monitoring online student networking. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 41(5), 736-752.

Fair, B., & Wickersham, L. (2012). The READI assessment as a possible predictor of student

success in online communication courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(2),

115-124.

Harrell, I. (2008). Increasing the Success of Online Students. Inquiry, 13(1), 36-44.

Herman, J. H. (2012). Faculty development programs: The frequency and variety of professional

Development programs available to online instructors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning

Networks, 16(5), 87-106.

Hosie, P., & Schibeci, R. (2005). Checklist and context-bound evaluations of online learning in

higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 881-895.

Hosler, K., & Arend, B. (2012). The importance of course design, feedback, and facilitation:

student perceptions of the relationship between teaching presence and cognitive presence.

Educational Media International, 49(3), 217-229.

15

http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/reportsTB/REPORT_DistanceEducation2013_090313.pdf


International Association for K-12 Online, L. (2011). National standards for quality online

courses: Version 2. International Association for K-12 Online Learning.

Jaggars, S., & Columbia University, C. C. (2011). Online Learning: Does It Help Low-Income

and Underprepared Students? CCRC Working Paper, 26. Assessment of Evidence Series.

Community College Research Center, Columbia University.

Johnson, J. (2013, Sept.). The Use of E-Learning Tools for Improving Hispanic Students'

Academic Performance. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(3).

Kaupp, R. (2012). Online penalty: The impact of online instruction on the Latino-White

achievement gap. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 19(2), 8-16.

Kupczynski, L., Ice, P., Wiesenmayer, R., & McCluskey, F. (2010). Student perceptions of the

relationship between indicators of teaching presence and success in online courses. Journal

of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 23-43.

Matthews, D., & Lumina Foundation. (2012). A Stronger Nation through higher education: How

and why Americans must achieve a big goal for college attainment. A Special Report from

Lumina Foundation. Lumina Foundation for Education.

Menager-Beeley, R. (2001). Student success in web based distance learning: Measuring

motivation to identify at risk students and improve retention in online classes. Paper

presented at Webnet 2001 Symposium, Orlando, Florida.

Meydanlioglu, A., & Arikan, F. (2014). Effect of hybrid learning in higher education.

International Journal of Social, Education, Economics and Management Engineering,

8(5).

Mongillo, G., & Wilder, H. (2012). An Examination of At-Risk College Freshmen's Expository

Literacy Skills Using Interactive Online Writing Activities. Journal of College Reading

16


and Learning, 42(2), 27-50.

NCTE Beliefs about the Teaching of Writing. (n.d.). The National Council of Teachers of

English. Retrieved from: http://www.ncte.org/governance/writing

Public, A., & Achieving the Dream, I. (2012). Building institutional capacity for data-informed

decision making. Cutting Edge Series. 3. Public Agenda.

Rubin, B., & Fernandes, R. (2013). The teacher as leader: Effect of teaching behaviors on class

community and agreement. International Review of Research in Open and Distance

Learning, 14(5), 1-26.

Simpson, N. (2006). Asynchronous access to conventional course delivery: A pilot project.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(4), 527-537.

Simpson, O. (2013). Student retention in distance education: Are we failing our students?. Open

Learning, 28(2), 105-119.

SRI International, M. C. (2002). California's teaching force: Key Issues and Trends, 2002.

Stewart, T., & Scappaticci, L. (2005). Making the connection: A hybrid distance learning

program for underprepared college students. Online Submission.

Storandt, B. C., Dossin, L. C., & Lacher, A. P. (2012). Toward an understanding of what works

in professional development for online instructors: The case of PBS Teacherline. Journal

of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 121-162.

Sturgis, I. (2012, Mar.). The online frontier. Issues in Higher Education, 29(3), 16-19.

Taylor, B., & Holley, K. (2009). Providing academic and support services to students enrolled in

online degree programs. College Student Affairs Journal, 28(1), 81-102.

17

http://www.ncte.org/governance/writing


Watson, J., Gemin, B., & International Association for K-12 Online, L. (2009). Policy and

funding frameworks for online learning. Promising practices in online learning.

International Association for K-12 Online Learning.

Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2007). Predictors for student success in an online course. Journal of

Educational Technology & Society, 10(2).

Zha, S., Kelly, P., Park, M. K., & Fitzgerald, G. (2006). An Investigation of communicative

competence of ESL students using electronic discussion boards. Journal of Research on

Technology in Education (International Society For Technology In Education), 38(3), 349-

367.

18

Documents

etec541csusb.files.wordpress.com€¦ · Web viewDespite the explosion in online higher education programs, very little research has been done to study student success of underprepared