Attrition and Achievement Gaps in Online Learning
Abstract
Attrition in online learning is generally higher than in traditional settings, especially in large-scale online learning environments. A systematic analysis of individual differences in attrition and performance in 20 massive open online courses (N > 67,000) revealed a geographic achievement gap and a gender achievement gap. Online learners in Africa, Asia, and Latin America scored substantially lower grades and were only half as likely to persist than those in Europe, Oceania, and Northern America. Women also exhibited lower persistence and performance than men. Yet more persistent learners were only marginally more satisfied with their achievement. The primary obstacle for most learners was finding time for the course, which was partly related to low levels of volitional control. Self-ascribed successful learners reported higher levels of goal striving, growth mindset, and feelings of social belonging than unsuccessful ones. Insights into why learners leave online courses inform models of attrition and targeted interventions to support learners achieve their goals.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Online learners in developing nations achieve lower scores and drop out more often than their counterparts in developed nations.
“Students from developing countries score lower in online learning and are likely to withdraw from the online courses compared to their colleagues in developed countries (Kizilcec & Halawa, 2015).”
From "I'm not against online teaching, but what about us?": ICT in Ghana post Covid-19 (2021) · cites this paper as Kizilcec & Halawa, 2015
Cites
Mindset: The New Psychology of Success
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-2397 · Cited by 7,804 · see citing works
The "Grammar" of Schooling: Why Has it Been so Hard to Change?
Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/00028312031003453 · Cited by 1,169 · cited 1× · see citing works
“For instance, MOOCs can be viewed as bridging two worlds: one is governed by the user-centric norms of online media, where everyone is encouraged to be as active as they wish; the other adheres to the “grammar of schooling” [25], which presupposes instructordefined goals that students strive to achieve [13].”
BackgroundStudent skill and goal achievement in the mapping with google MOOC
Wilkowski, J., Deutsch, A., & Russell, D. M. (2014) · Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning @ scale conference · doi:10.1145/2556325.2566240 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001 · Cited by 1,003 · see citing works
Self-citation"I'm not against online teaching, but what about us?": ICT in Ghana post Covid-19
Adarkwah, M. A. (2021) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-020-10331-z · Cited by 416 · see citing works
“Students from developing countries score lower in online learning and are likely to withdraw from the online courses compared to their colleagues in developed countries (Kizilcec & Halawa, 2015).”
BackgroundHsu, H.-C. K., Wang, C. V., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2019) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-019-09863-w · Cited by 349 · see citing works
Bulathwela, S., Pérez-Ortiz, M., Holloway, C., Cukurova, M., & Shawe-Taylor, J. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16020781 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Scaling up behavioral science interventions in online education
Kizilcec, R. F., Reich, J., Yeomans, M., Dann, C., Brunskill, E., Lopez, G., Turkay, S., Williams, J. J., & Tingley, D. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1921417117 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
Self-citationHow Do We Model Learning at Scale? A Systematic Review of Research on MOOCs
Joksimović, S., Poquet, O., Kovanović, V., Dowell, N., Mills, C., Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Graesser, A. C., & Brooks, C. (2018) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654317740335 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Kizilcec, R. F., & Cohen, G. L. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1611898114 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Kizilcec, R. F., & Halawa, S.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- ORCID
- Kizilcec, René F.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2015-03-14
- Pages
- 57-66
- OpenAlex
- W2016757206
- Cited by
- 307
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 16.69
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Outcomes and Influences
- Keywords
- student persistence, achievement gap, massive open online courses, gender differences in achievement, student satisfaction, volitional control, growth mindset, goal pursuit, social belonging, time constraints
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
