Comparison of Retention Rates of Courses Taught in Traditional, Online, and Hybrid Format

Due to low retention rates, most states have now based community college funding on a combination of student enrollment and student retention. Student satisfaction is a primary factor that contributes to overall student success, retention, and completion, all of which contribute to the institution’s financial funding. The method of course delivery can significantly affect student satisfaction and the student’s ability to complete the course. This study analyzed the retention rates of the Computer Information Systems (CIS) courses taught in online, hybrid, and traditional modes of instruction. The results will guide student recruitment, promotion, and scheduling of CIS courses. Scheduling and teaching courses that promote student retention lead to higher student success and completion rates, resulting in higher enrollment and more funding for the college. Five years of data, consisting of 5,041 students enrolled in 88 courses, formed the sample population of the study. The results of my study showed the mean retention rate for online CIS courses was 80.40%, compared to the mean retention rate of 85.49% for hybrid and 86.86% for traditionally taught face-to-face courses. The results showed there was a significant difference between at least two of the methods of instruction, F(2,85) = 6.10, p = .003. Tukey HSD test results, based on the value of p < .05, showed a statistically significant difference between the online and traditional modes of instruction with a mean difference of -6.47, a standard error of the mean 1.92, and p value of .003. Each institution needs to perform its own study based on its student population. Course delivery mode can affect student satisfaction, which has implications for course completion, retention, graduation rates, and the college’s financial stability. Keywords: modes of instruction, student retention, traditional, online, hybrid

Grantor dc:publisher

Creighton University

Year dc:date.issued

2021

Author dc:creator

• Woo, Donna

Advisor dc:contributor.advisor

• Walker, Scott

Statement dc:rights

• Copyright is retained by the Author. A non-exclusive distribution right is granted to Creighton University and to ProQuest following the publishing model selected above.

Language dc:language.iso

en_US

Handle dc:identifier.uri

http://hdl.handle.net/10504/130484

OAI identifier oai:identifier

oai:cdr.creighton.edu:10504/130484