Student Success In Top 20 Courses Of An Online Institution: Demographic Differences In A Multi-Semester Cross-Curricular Study

Angela M.Gibson*, 0**, Phil Ice***
* Instructional Design Project Leader, American Public University System.
** Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership, Texas A&M University – Kingsville.
*** Director of Course Design, Research and Development, American Public University System.
Periodicity:July - September'2010


Student success is vitally important.  Without academic achievement student self-efficacy is lost, persistence is blocked, and matriculation is unachievable.  Exponential growth at online institutions necessitates the inquiry into factors that play a role in student success.  In this study, approximately 15,000 cases from the Top 20 enrolled courses of undergraduate students at a large national fully online university were examined to determine if course Grade Point Average was related with student characteristics, e.g., student gender, ethnicity, age, and military status.  Multiple semester sessions were analyzed across multiple curricular areas.  Results and recommendations are discussed.


Student Success, Academic Achievement, Online Learning, Higher Education, Undergraduate Students, Ethnic Membership, Gender, Minority, Age Status, Non-Traditional Students, Military Status.

How to Cite this Article?

Angela M. Gibson, Lori Kupczynski and Phil Ice (2010). Student Success in Top 20 Courses of an Online Institution: Demographic Differences in a Multi-Semester Cross-Curricular Study. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 7(2), 18-27.


[1]. American Council on Education, Center for Advancement of Racial and Ethnic Equity, (2004, July). Reflections on 20 years on minorities in higher education and the ACE annual status report. Retrieved from the American Council on Education Web site: http:// www. CAREE/2004_reflections_msr.pdf
[2]. Artino, A. R. (2009). Think, feel, act: Motivational and emotional influences on military students' online academic success. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(2), 146-166. doi: 10.1007/s12528-009- 9020-9
[3]. Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
[4]. Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2005). Degree attainment rates at American colleges and universities: Revised edition. Report from the Higher Education Research Institute University of California, Los Angeles.
[5]. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[6]. Barefoot, B. O. (2000). The first-year experience. About Campus, 4(6), 12-18.
[7]. Braxton, J. M. (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
[8]. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association Higher Education Bulletin,39(7), 3-7.
[9]. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1991). Applying the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. Vol. 47. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
[10]. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS: Introducing statistical methods series (2nd ed). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
[11]. Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of selfschemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman, (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (127- 154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[12]. Gender gap stops growing. (2010, January 26). Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered. com/news/2010/01/26/gender
[13]. Gonyea, R. M., Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Cruce, T., & Nelson Laird, T. (2006, November). The influence of high school engagement and pre-college expectations on first-year student engagement and self-reporting learning outcomes at liberal arts institutions. Presented at the meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Anaheim, CA. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub. edu/pdf/conference_presentations/2006/Expectations%2 0and%20Engagement%20ASHE%202006%20Gonyea% 20Kuh%20Kinzie.pdf
[14]. Gonzalez, J. (2010, January 27). Study points to academic success of students attending for-profit colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from Academic/63760/?sid=cc&utm_source=cc&utm_medi um=en
[15]. Greer, J. (2010, January 26). Study: Online education continues its meteoric growth. U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved from articles/2010/01/26/study-online-educationcontinues- its-meteoric-growth.html
[16]. Kinzie, J. (2009, June). Using NSSE results to foster collaboration on assessment and retention. Presented at the meeting of the NASPA IARC, New Orleans, LA. sing%20NSSE%20Partnerships%20handouts.pdf
[17]. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.
[18]. Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development. Journal of Higher Education, 66(2),123-155
[19]. Kuh, G. D. (2007). What student engagement data tell us about college readiness. Peer Review, 9(1), 4-8.
[20]. Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5).
[21]. Marklein, M. B. (2005, November 7). College 'swirling' muddies quality. USA Today, p. 6D.
[22]. McCabe, R. (2000). Under prepared students. Measuring up 2000: The state by state report card for higher education. Retrieved from http:// measuringup. higher education. org/2000/ articles/ Under prepared
[23]. Minority college enrollment surges over the past two decades; Students of color still lag behind whites in college participation. (2003). Retrieved from http:/ /www. plate=/CM/HTMLdisplay.cfm&ContentID=3719
[24]. Nelson Laird, T. F., Bridges, B. K., Holmes, M. S., Morelon, C. L., & Williams, J. M. (2004, November). African American and Hispanic student engagement at minority serving and predominantly White institutions. Presented at the meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Kansas City, MO.
[25]. Ouimet, J. A. (2003). Community college strategies. Assessment Update, 15(1), 8-20.
[26]. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[27]. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[28]. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ) 3. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
[29]. Schroeder, C. (2003). How are we doing at engaging students? About Campus, 8(1), 9-16.
[30]. Seaman, I. E. A., & Seaman, J. (2009). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States 2009. Sloan Survey of Online Learning. Retrieved from on demand.pdf
[31]. Sloan Consortium. (2009). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. Retrieved from nd_sr2010
[32]. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[33]. Tinto, V. (July 2004). Student retention and graduation: Facing the truth, living with the consequences. Retrieved from The Pell Institute http://www. tinto/ TintoOccasionalPaperRetention.pdf
[34]. Udas, K. (2009). Sloan study of online learning, chaired by UMass President Jack Wilson, gains key faculty insights. Retrieved from node/834
[35]. United States Department of Veteran Affairs. (2009, November 6). What is the yellow ribbon program? Retrieved from gi_ bill_ info / ch 33 / yellow_ ribbon.htm
[36]. What is blended learning? Retrieved from what_is_blended_learning
[37]. Young, M. R., Klemz, B. R., & Murphy, J. W. (2003). Enhancing learning outcomes: The effects of instructional technology, learning styles, instructional methods, and student behavior. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(2), 130–142.

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article
Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.