The Effect of a Multifactor Orientation on Student Performance: Organizational Skills, Goal setting, Orientation to Classroom, and Academic Support

Barbara M. McKenna, Dora Finamore, Valerie Hewitt, Linda Watson, Loretta A. Millam, Michelle Reinhardt


Online classes have significantly increased over the last 20 years. From a simple asynchronous model to a complex, interactive, live system, they challenge many online students. Based on Knowles’ Andragogy theoretical framework, researchers sought to explore the qualities students need to complete a first term undergraduate online course. Researchers conducted a quantitative exploratory study to identify the effects of offering a multifactor orientation; this was an extra seminar online, focused on organizational skills, goal setting, orientation to the online classroom, and academic support for successfully completing a first term class.  Participants at an online university in a first term course agreed to attend a faculty- led, one-hour presentation; this was an extra seminar focusing on organizational skills, goal setting, orientation to the online classroom, and academic support.  A total of 25 students volunteered and attended the extra seminar, provided by three faculty members who were experienced in teaching first-term students in a school of business at a large online university.  There was a total of six separate classes of students, each attending a first-term, 10-week course, Academic Strategies for the Business Professional.  The course is a combination of synchronous live seminars- and other asynchronous interactive exercises, focusing on providing a foundation for secondary learning. Students in three of those classes were invited to participate.  Three faculty members randomly selected a section of this course prior to the beginning of a new term. Once the term started, the faculty, during the first regular live seminar, invited their respective students to the selected treatment class.  A total of 144 students were still on the roster at the end of the courses.  Of those, 25 were male (17%). There were only 35 males in all the classes, 24% of the total number of students, so the percentage of males in the treatment group was less than the number of males in all the courses.  The average number of males (25%) are enrolled in the school.    There was no compensation for attending the extra seminar and an IRB approved the study.  The students in the treatment groups were told that they could drop out of the study at any time without penalty and this was detailed in the signed consent form, using Survey Monkey.  The final grades for students were compared by an instructor who did not teach one of the treatment classes via a single-factor ANOVA to determine if there was any significant difference in the way each instructor graded.  With a p-value of .74, no significant difference was found among the three instructors (Table 1).  The final grades of students who did not attend the seminar were compared to the final grades of the students who attended the extra seminar via a single-factor ANOVA to determine if there was a difference in the final grades for those who attended the extra seminar versus those who did not.  With a p-value of .03, the grades of those who attended the extra seminar were significantly higher than those who did not (Table 2).  Though the n was small, this study indicates that students who received additional help, if only a single extra seminar, may have benefited by earning higher final grades than those students who did not receive the additional instructions. The average grade for the students who did not attend the extra seminar was 58.8%; compared to 79.5% for students who attended the seminar. The students in all classes had continued support services through regular emails, announcements, and resources from faculty, after the multifactor orientation. In other words, the only difference in the classes was that some students had the opportunity to attend an extra seminar and some did not.



organizational skills, goal setting, orientation to online class, academic support

Full Text:



Allen, I. E., & Seaman J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Newburyport, MA: Sloan Consortium. American University.

Arbaugh, J. Ben. 2008. “Does the Community of Inquiry Framework Predict Outcomes in

Online MBA Courses?” The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 9(2): 1–19.

Barak, M., Dori, Y., & Hussein-Farraj, R. (2016). On-campus or online: examining self-regulation and cognitive transfer skills in different learning settings. International Journal Of Educational Technology In Higher Education, 13(1), 1-18. doi:10.1186/s41239-016-0035-9

Beck, H. P., & Milligan, M. (2014). Factors influencing the institutional commitment of online students. The Internet And Higher Education, 2051-56. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.002

Beckford, M. M. (2015). The online learning orientation session: An overlooked retention tool. Distance Learning, 12(4), 43 – 49. Retrieved from

Bowler, M. (2009). Dropouts loom large for schools. U.S. News & World Report, 146(8), 36. Retrieved from

Bressler, L. A., Bressler, M. E., & Bressler, M. S. (2010). The role and relationship of hope, optimism and goal setting in achieving academic success: a study of students enrolled in online accounting courses. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, (4), 37.

Cherif, A., F. Movahedzadeh, G. Adams, and J. Dunning. 2013. Why do students fail? In A collection of papers on self-study and institutional improvement, 2013, 35–51. Chicago: The Higher Learning Commission.

Cherif, A. H., Movahedzadeh, F., Adams, G. E., Martyn, M., & Dunning, J., (2015). Why do students fail? Faculty’s perspective. Power Point presentation presented at the Illinois Community College Assessment Fair. Waubonsee Community College, Sugar Grove, Illinois.

Chiteng Kot, F. (2014). The impact of centralized advising on first-year academic performance and second-year enrollment behavior. Research in Higher Education, 55(6), 527-563.

Cohen, M. T. (2012). The importance of self-regulation for college student learning. College Student Journal, 46(4), 892 – 903.

Conaway, W. & Zorn-Arnold, B. (2015). The keys to online learning for adults: The six principles of Andragogy, Distance Learning, 12(4), 37 – 42.

Coon, D. R., & Walker, I. (2013). From consumers to citizens: Student-Directed goal setting and assessment. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2013(135), 81-87.

Crosling, G., Heagney, M., & Thomas, L., (2009). Improving student retention in higher education Australian Universities Review, 51 (2). 9-18. Retrieved from 51-02.pdf

Developing and Implementing a Mandatory Online Student Orientation. (2013). Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 43-45.

Dupin-Bryant, P. A., (2004). Pre-entry variables related to retention in online distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 18(4), 199–206.

Eom, Sean B., H. Joseph Wen, and Nicholas Ashill. 2006. “The Determinants of Students’

Perceived Learning Outcomes and Satisfaction in University Online Education: An Empirical Investigation.”Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 4(2): 215–235.

Executive Function and Self-Regulation (2016). Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. Retrieved from

Flynn, E. (2016). Should at-risk students take online courses? College Student Journal, 50(1), 130.

Fotia, D., Holtzman, D., Dagavarian, D., & Ciocco, M. (June, 2010). Developing student

orientation modules for online education programs. Conference presentation at the National Institute on the Assessment of Adult Learning, Atlantic City, NJ.

Garza Mitchell, R. L. (2014). Case Study: Texas State Technical College Harlingen-Online Orientation to Improve Student Success. Community College Enterprise, 20(2), 88-92.

Glancy, F. H., & Isenberg, S. K. (2013). A conceptual learner-centered e-learning framework. Journal of Higher Education Theory & Practice, 13(3/4), 22.

Hao, Q., Branch, R., & Jensen, L. (2016). The effect of precommitment on student achievement within a technology-rich project-based learning environment. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 60(5), 442-448.

Hendricks, S., Stephen, F. What really matters? Technological profieciency in an online course. Summer 2014 - Volume 17, Number 2- Retrieved from

Hochanadel A., & Finamore D. (2015). Fixed and growth mindset in education and how grit helps students persist in the face of adversity, Journal of International Education Research, 11(1). 47 – 50.

Khatib, S. A. (2010). Meta-cognitive self-regulated learning and motivational beliefs aspredictors of college students’ performance. International Journal for Research in Education, 27, 57-72.

Kibby, M. (2015). Applying 'hope theory' to first year learning. A Practice Report. International Journal of The First Year In Higher Education, 6(1), 147. doi:10.5204/intjfyhe.v6i1.248

Kim, D-I., & Ra, Y-A, (2015). What impacts success in college? Findings from the perceptions of Korean students, College Student Journal, 49(1), 161 – 168.

Kitsantas, A., Winsler, A., & Huie, F. (2008). Self-regulation and ability predictors of academic success during college: A predictive validity study. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(1), 42-68.

Knowles, M., & American Society for Training and Development, M. W. (1973). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species.

Lawanto, O., Santoso, H. B., Lawanto, K. N., & Goodridge, W. (2014). Self-regulated learning skills and online activities between higher and lower performers on a web-intensive undergraduate engineering course. Journal of Educators Online, 11(3).

Lopez, M. H., & Gonalez-Barrera, A. (2014, March 6). Women’s college enrollment gains leave men behind. Factank: News in the numbers, Pew Research Center. Retrieved from

Manning, E., Killen, R., & Taylor, A. (1993). Predictive validity of various sets of HSC scores, and the ASAT for performance in certain faculties at the University of Newcastle, NSW. Admission of students into higher education: A collection of recent research articles. Tertiary Entrance Procedures Authority Research Series, 2, 36 - 46.

Marks, Ronald B., Stanley D. Sibley, and J. B. Arbaugh. 2005. “A Structural Equation Model of

Predictors for Effective Online Learning.” Journal of Management Education 29(4): 531–563.

Mensch, S. (2015). Improving distance education through student online orientation classes. Culture and Religion Review Journal, (2), 12-16.

Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2016). How health professionals regulate their learning in massive open online courses. The Internet And Higher Education, 31113-121. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.07.005

Miller, D. A. (2015). Learning how students learn: An exploration of self-regulation strategies in a two-year college chemistry class. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(3), 11 – 16.

Orellana, A., Hudgins, T. L., & Simonson, M. (Eds.). (2009). The perfect online course—Best practices for designing and teaching. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Paris, S., & Paris, A. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology, 36, 89–101.

Robichaud, W. (2016). Orientation Programs to Increase Retention in Online Community College Courses. Distance Learning, 13(2), 57-64.

Self-regulated learning. (2010). TEAL Center Fact Sheet No. 3. The teaching excellence in adult literacy (TEAL) Center. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from

Shaw, M., Burrus. S., & Ferguson, K., (2016). Factors that influence student attrition in online courses. Online Journal of Distance Learning and Education, 19(3).

Smith, Ashley. The Increasingly Digital Community College. 2015, April 21). (Inside Higher Ed, Retrieved from

Snyder, C.R., Shorey, H.S., Cheavens, J., Pulvers, K.M., Adams III, V.H., & Wiklund, C. (2002). Hope and academic success in college. Journal of Educational Psychology 4, 820-826.

Snyder, C. R., Shorey, H. S., & Rand, K. L. (2006). Using Hope Theory to Teach and Mentor Academically At-Risk Students. In S. F. Davis, S. F. Davis (Eds.) , Handbook of the teaching of psychology (pp. 170-174). Malden: Blackwell Publishing. doi:10.1002/9780470754924.ch29

Song, H., Kim, J., & Luo, W. (2016). Full length article: Teacher–student relationship in online

classes: A role of teacher self-disclosure. Computers In Human Behavior, 54436-443. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.037

Sorensn, C. K., & Baylen, D. M. (2009). Learning online. In A. Orellana, T. L. Hudgins 7 M. Simonson (Eds.), The perfect online course: Best practices or designing and teaching (pp. 69 – 86). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Stelnicki, A. M., Norstokke, D. W., & Saklofske, D. H. (2015). Who is the successful university student? An analysis of personal resources. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 45(2) 214-228.

Taylor, J.M., Dunn, M., & Winn, S. K. (2015). Innovative orientation leads to improved success in online courses. Online Learning, 19(4).

The Benefits of a College Degree, (2015). College Atlas. Retrieved from

The Rising Cost of Not Going to College, (2014, February 11). Social and Demographic Trends, Pew Research Center, retrieved from

Whiteside, A. L., & Dikkers, A. G. (2016). “More confident going into college”: Lessons learned from multiple stakeholders in a new blended learning initiative, Online Learning, 20(4), 136 – 156.

Turner, P. (2016). Supporting freshman males during their first-year of college. College Student Journal, 50(1), 86.

Turner, P., & Thompson, E. (2014). College retention initiatives meeting the needs of millennial freshman students. College Student Journal, 48(1), 94.

Zie, K., & Huang, K. (2014). The role of beliefs and motivation in asynchronous online learning in college-level classes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(3), 315-341.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidneer (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13- 39). San Diego: Academic Press.

Zmeyov, S. (1998). Andragogy: Origins, developments and trends. Intenational Review of Education, 44(1), 103 – 108.