To What Extent Do the Benefits of Academic Coaching Endure?

Higher failure and dropout rates have been associated with online higher education compared to traditional face-to-face education (Britto & Rush, 2013). Learning centers, such as academic coaching and/or tutoring centers, may offer support services that provide students with opportunities to engage with their course curriculum with different media, relearn concepts, and ask for additional explanation (Fullmer, 2012). However, the literature is mixed in regards to what these centers do and how they function to best support student learning and achievement (Truschel & Reedy, 2009). This is particularly concerning in a time when such supports are needed most, as more students enroll in online programs, but continue to struggle to a greater extent than their peers in face-to-face academic settings (Britto & Rush, 2013).

There are a number of differences between online and brick-and-mortar institutions that might explain why additional academic support services may be needed for students at the former compared to the latter. For example, faculty members at brick-and-mortar institutions have greater and more predictable availability (e.g., class time, scheduled office hours) than those at online institutions, whereas the availability of online faculty members to interact with students is impacted by numerous factors (e.g., time zone differences) (Felder-Strauss et al., 2015). In addition, brick-and-mortar institutions are more likely to have learning centers than online institutions; however, the inability of online students to seek help from faculty members in their specific program or discipline has led online institutions to develop additional specialized services for students (Felder-Strauss et al., 2015). Nevertheless, students must be willing to use these additional services (Brown, Hughes, Keppell, Hard, & Smith, 2015), and these services need to be perceived as helpful by students (Price, Richardson, & Jelfs, 2007).

Regardless of program type, students who take advantage of support services at learning centers reportedly experience beneficial outcomes (e.g., Osborne, Parlier, & Adams, 2019). Bettinger and Baker (2014) found that students in a face-to-face context who participated in tutoring had significantly higher persistence rates 6, 12, 18, and 24 months later and higher degree completion rates than those who did not. Similarly, Lehan, Hussey, and Shriner (2018) found that graduate students who worked with an academic coach at a completely online university learning center even once were significantly more likely to persist 6 to 9 months later than a sample of students in the same course with the same faculty member at the same time who did not work with an academic coach. Specifically, after holding months since enrollment and grade point average at follow-up constant, working with an academic coach in the learning center increased the odds of persistence 2.66 times.

Scholars are now beginning to examine under what conditions the strength and/or direction of the relationship between working with an academic coach is related to student outcomes. Several researchers have reported a correlation between the number of visits to the learning center and improved student performance (Cooper, 2010; Fullmer, 2012; Laskey & Hetzel, 2011; Osborne et al., 2019), although Lehan et al. (2018) did not find support for such a relationship among online graduate students. Some researchers reported gender differences in student outcomes (Bettinger & Baker, 2014), whereas others did not (Yeats et al., 2010). Mixed results have also been reported with additional demographic variables (e.g., Milman et al., 2015).

In general, online students tend to be more successful when they seek additional support services, which learning centers tend to offer (Babcock, Lehan, & Hussey, 2019). No research was found examining the extent to which the number of times working with an academic coach at a completely online learning center is associated with program completion among online graduate students. This study extends upon a previous one (e.g., Lehan et al., 2018) to investigate the extent to which the relationship between working with an academic coach influences persistence all the way to completion in a completely online learning context. A quantitative methodology and causal-comparative design were employed, as the interest was in explaining differences in program completion based on utilization of learning center services (dichotomous variable). To understand the relationship between working with an academic coach and student completion, as was done in Lehan et al. (2018), a Data Operations team member once again provided enrollment status data for students in both samples in March 2019, which yielded a 39- to 41-month analytic window since their coaching session. This lengthy follow-up period allowed the students the opportunity to complete their program after working with an academic coach if they made continued and timely progress.

The learning center sample included 160 randomly selected graduate students who visited the university learning center at least one time from October 1 through December 31, 2015. Ranging from 1 to 208, the average number of visits among the students who worked with an academic coach was 16.9 (SD = 30.4). However, the mode was 1. Specifically, 34 students (21.3%) visited the center only one time from October 1, 2015 through March 1, 2019. Of the students in this sample, 60 (37.5%) were in the School of Business and Technology Management, 59 (36.9%) were in the School of Education, 26 (16.3%) were in the School of Psychology, and 15 (9.4%) were in the School of Marriage and Family Sciences. Additionally, 123 of these 160 graduate students were pursuing a doctoral degree. Of the students in the learning center sample, 57 were Caucasian, 35 were African-American, 15 were Hispanic/Latino, 7 were Asian, and 1 was Native American or other Pacific Islander. Three students reported identifying with two or more races. No information about racial/ethnic background was reported for 42 students. In addition, this sample comprised 117 women and 36 men, with 7 students not reporting information on sex. The matched sample included 160 graduate students who were in the same course with the same faculty member at the same time as each of the students in the learning center sample. As much as possible, the students were matched on demographic characteristics. As a result, the same number of students represented each school as in the learning center sample. In addition, the same number of graduate students were pursuing a doctoral degree. Of the students in the matched sample, 74 were Caucasian, 35 were African-American, 6 were Hispanic/Latino, 1 was Asian, and 1 was Native American or other Pacific Islander. Eight students reported identifying with two or more races. No information about racial/ethnic background was reported for 35 students. The matched sample comprised 106 women and 46 men, with 8 students not reporting information on sex.

Several variables were recoded to promote the interpretability of the findings. Course grades were recoded as dichotomous variables. Specifically, students who earned an A, B, C, or S in a course were considered to have successfully met expectations. Students who earned a D, F, or U or who dropped the course were considered not to have successfully met expectations. Similarly, the outcome variable, completion, was coded as a dichotomous variable. Students who completed the requirements of their program within the study period (from the visit to the learning center through March 2019) were considered to have graduated. First, preliminary analyses were conducted to determine whether there were significant differences between the learning center sample and the matched sample. Next, the bivariate relationships between each predictor variable and the outcome variable were examined. Finally, for the main analysis, a binary logistic regression was run with all the variables that had a significant relationship with program completion to include number of learning center visits to examine if the students who visited the learning center more were significantly more likely to complete their program than those who did not visit the center while controlling for other influential variables. They were months since enrollment to March 2019, years since least degree, grade point average (GPA) for content courses, attempts needed to pass the comprehensive exam, history of dismissal, number of chair changes, age, and financial aid status. In the main multivariate model, the influence of months since enrollment, GPA for content courses, attempts needed to pass comprehensive examination, and history of dismissal from the university on program completion remained significant. Inconsistent with previous findings (e.g., Bettinger & Baker, 2014), students who participated in more sessions with an academic coach at the learning center were not significantly more likely to persist through graduation. 

In this discovery session, these findings and others are presented in the context of existing literature. In addition, implications for future research and practice are discussed to a greater extent. Strategies, such as audience contribution and interactive questions and answers, will be used to enhance engagement so that the experience is relevant and applicable to all stakeholders in higher education.