With over 15 million students enrolling in institutes of higher education, it is critical to understand the factors that lead to course completion and graduation. This becomes especially important when considering students with disabilities, as this is historically a vulnerable population. Modern technology and online classes may be one way to meet these needs. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether course completion rates differ when taking online versus traditional courses, among students with and without disabilities. The participants of the study were a purposive sample of 3,488 undergraduate and graduate students, from a comprehensive, midsized, Historically Black College located on east coast of the United States. Hierarchical general linear modeling was used to determine whether disability status and course delivery format were related to completion, while controlling for student-level and course-level variables. The results show that students were significantly less likely to complete online courses after controlling for individual level (e.g., gender, cumulative GPA, and previous course credit hours) and class level covariates. Yet, students with disabilities were just as likely as peers without disabilities to complete courses, and the cross-level interaction between disability status and delivery format was not statistically significant (i.e., course completion differences over delivery format does not statistically significantly differ over student disability status). The results have important implications for college students with disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AitkinM. & LongfordN. T. (1986). Modeling issues in school effectiveness studies. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 149, 1–43.
2.
AllenJ.RobbinsS.CasillasA. & OhI.-S. (2008). Third-year college retention and transfer: Effects of academic performance, motivation, and social connectedness. Research in Higher Education, 49(7), 647–664.
3.
AllenI. E. & SeamanJ. (2006). Making the grade: Online education in the United States, 2006. Needham, MA: Sloan-C Publishing.
4.
AllenI. E. & SeamanJ. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Needham, MA: Sloan-C Publishing.
5.
AragonS. R. & JohnsonE. S. (2008). Factors influencing completion and noncompletion of community college online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 146–158.
6.
Association on Higher Education and Disability. (1997). Guidelines for documentation of a learning disability in adolescents and adults [Brochure]. Columbus, OH. Retrieved July 1, 2002, from http://www.ahead.org/ldguide.html.
7.
BanasE. J. & EmoryW. F. (1998). History and issues of distance learning. Public Administration Quarterly, 22(3), 365–383.
8.
BertschT. F.CallasP. W.RubinA.CaputoM. P. & RicciM. A. (2006). Effectiveness of lectures attended via interactive video conferencing versus in-person in preparing third-year internal medicine clerkship students for clinical practice examinations (CPX). Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 19(1), 4–8.
9.
BuckleyW. & SmithA. (2007). Application of multimedia technologies to enhance distance learning. RE:view: Rehabilitation Education for Blindness and Visual Impairment, 39(2), 57–65.
10.
CantoA. I.ProctorB. E. & PervattF. (2005). Educational outcomes of students first diagnosed with learning disabilities in postsecondary school. Journal of College Admission, 187, 8–13.
11.
CarrS. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(23), A39–A41.
12.
CruddenA.SansingW. & ButlerS. (2005). Overcoming barriers to employment: Strategies of rehabilitation providers. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 99(6), 325–335.
13.
DiazD. P. (2000). Comparison of student characteristics, and evaluation of student success in an online health education course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University.
14.
Dupin-BryantP. A. (2004). Pre-entry variables related to retention in online distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 18(4), 199–206.
EdmondsC. D. (2004). Providing access to students with disabilities in online distance education: Legal and technical concerns for higher education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 51–62.
17.
Educational Testing Service. (1999). Policy statement for documentation of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adolescents and adults (Revised). Princeton, NJ. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://www.ets.org.
18.
Educational Testing Service. (2001). Guidelines for documentation of psychiatric disabilities in adolescents and adults. Princeton, NJ. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://www.ets.org.
19.
Educational Testing Service. (2003). Guidelines for documentation of physical disabilities and chronic health conditions in adolescents and adults. Princeton, NJ. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://www.ets.org.
20.
Educational Testing Service. (2007). Policy statement for documentation of a learning disability in adolescents and adults(2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://www.ets.org.
21.
EnglertC. S.YongZ.DunsmoreK.CollingsN. Y. & WolbersK. (2007). Scaffolding the writing of students with disabilities through procedural facilitation: Using an Internet-based technology to improve performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(1), 9–29.
22.
EppM. A. (2006). Closing the 95 percent gap: Library resource sharing for people with print disabilities. Library Trends, 54(3), 411–429.
23.
FikeD. S. & FikeR. (2008). Predictors of first-year student retention in the community college. Community College Review, 36(2), 68–88.
Georgia Tech Research on Accessible Distance Education Project (GRADE), Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access. (n.d.). Access eLearning Tutorial. Retrieved July 1, 2008, from http://www.accesselearning.net/.
26.
GithensR. P. (2007). Older adults and e-learning: Opportunities and barriers. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(4), 329–338.
27.
GuiffridaD. A. (2006). Toward a cultural advancement of Tinto's theory. The Review of Higher Education, 29, 451–472.
28.
HannaD. E. (1998). Higher education in an era of digital competition: Emerging organizational models. Journal of Asynchronous Learning, 2(1), 66–95.
29.
HarbourW. S. (2004). Final report: The 2004 AHEAD survey of higher education disability services providers. Waltham, MA: Association on Higher Education and Disability.
30.
HartK. (2008, June 19). Access denied: The blind or deaf can feel left behind as the tools of technology advance. The Washington Post. Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.washingtonpost.com.
31.
HeckerL.BurnsL.ElkindJ.ElkindK. & KatzL. (2002). Benefits of assistive reading software for students with attention disorders. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 243–272.
32.
HeimanT. (2006). Assessing learning styles among students with and without learning disabilities at a distance-learning university. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(1), 55–63.
33.
HermanowiczJ. C. (2004). The college departure process among the academic elite. Education and Urban Society, 37(1), 74–93.
34.
HornL. & NevillS. (2006). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary education institutions: 2003–2004: With a special analysis of community college students (NCES 2006–184). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
35.
HussarW. J. & BaileyT. M. (2008). Projections of education statistics to 2017 (NCES 2008–078). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
36.
JohnsonS. D.AragonS. R.ShaikN. & Palma-RivasN. (2000). Comparative analysis of online vs. face-to-face instruction. Paper presented at the WebNet 99 World Conference on the WWW and Internet Proceedings.
37.
KimM. M. & ConradC. F. (2006). The impact of historically Black colleges and universities on the academic success of African-American students. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 399–427.
38.
KinashS.CrichtonS. & Kim-RupnowW. S. (2004). A review of 2000–2003 literature at the intersection of online learning and disability. American Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 5–19.
39.
KlinkoszW.SekowskiA. & BrambringM. (2006). Academic achievement and personality in university students who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 100(11), 666–675.
40.
LiC.-S. & IrbyB. (2008). An overview of online education: Attractiveness, benefits, challenges, concerns and recommendations. College Student Journal, 42(2), 449–459.
41.
MarkleinM. B. (2005, October 19). College gender gap widens: 57% are women. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com.
42.
MbilinyiL. (2006, August). Degrees of opportunity: Adults' views on the value and feasibility of returning to school. Retrieved July 1, 2008, from http://www.degreesofopportunity.org.
43.
MorrisL. V.WuS.-S. & FinneganC. L. (2005). Predicting retention in online general education courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 23–36.
44.
MuilenburgL. Y. & BergeZ. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29–48.
45.
MurrayC.GoldsteinD. E.NourseS. & EdgarE. (2000). The postsecondary school attendance and completion rates of high school graduates with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(3), 119–127.
46.
MurrayC. & WrenC. T. (2003). Cognitive, academic, and attitudinal predictors of the grade point averages of college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(5), 407–415.
47.
MurtaughP. A.BurnsL. D. & SchusterJ. (1999). Predicting the retention of university students. Research in Higher Education, 40(3), 355–371.
48.
PattersonB. & McFaddenC. (2009). Attrition in online and campus degree programs. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(2). Retrieved July 12, 2009, from http://www.westga.edu/∼distance/ojdla.
PurdieN. & Boulton-LewisG. (2003). The learning needs of older adults. Educational Gerontology, 29(2), 129–149.
51.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S.CheongY. F. & CongdonR. T. (2004). HLM: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
52.
RaudenbushS. W. & BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
Russo-JamesonD. (2007). Self-determination and success outcomes of two-year college students with disabilities. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37(2), 26–46.
54.
SaumureK. & GivenL. M. (2004). Digitally enhanced? An examination of the information behaviours of visually impaired post-secondary students. Canadian Journal of Information & Library Sciences, 28(2), 25–42.
SeoY.AbbottR. D. & HawkinsJ. D. (2008). Outcome status of students with learning disabilities at ages 21 and 24. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(4), 300–314.
57.
StewartJ. F.MalleryC. & ChoiJ. (2010). A multilevel analysis of distance learning achievement: Are college students making the grade?Journal of Rehabilitation, 76(2), 27–39.
58.
TincaniM. (2003). Improving outcomes for college students with disabilities. College Teaching, 54(4), 128–132.
59.
TintoV. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.) Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
60.
TintoV. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence seriously. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 167–177.
61.
TintoV. (2006–2007). Research and practice of student retention: What next?Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 1–19.
62.
TraininG. & SwansonH. L. (2005). Cognition, metacognition, and achievement of college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 261–272.
63.
TsaiI.-C.KimB.LuP.-J.GogginsS. P.KumalasaraC. & LaffeyJ. M. (2008). Building a model of explaining social nature of online learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 198–215.
64.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (USDOE). (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
65.
WagnerM.NewmanL.CametoR. & LevineP. (2005). Changes over time in the early postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: A report of findings from the national longitudinal transition study (NLTS) and the national longitudinal transitional study-2. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
66.
WeathersR. R.WalterG.SchleyS.HennesseeJ.HemmeterJ. & BurkhauserR. V. (2007). How postsecondary education improves adult outcomes for supplemental security income children with severe hearing impairments. Social Security Bulletin, 67(2), 101–131.
67.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York. NY: Cambridge University Press.
68.
WillgingP. A. & JohnsonS. D. (2004). Factors that influence students' decision to dropout of online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(4), 105–118. Retrieved on July 12, 2009, from http://sloanc.org/publications/jaln/v8n4/pdf/v8n4_willging.pdf.
69.
WojciechowskiA. & BierleinP. L. (2005). Individual student characteristics: Can any be predictors of success in online classes?Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(2). Retrieved on January 21, 2009, from http://www.westga.edu/∼distance/ojdla/.
70.
ZavarellaC. A. & IgnashJ. M. (2009). Instructional delivery in developmental mathematics: Impact on retention. Journal of Developmental Education, 32(3), 2–13.
