1. Veterans and Course Completion Rates
Submitted by
Faith Bell
Pamela Monroe
Boubacar Vilane
Susan Walker
Action Research Project
Grantham University
Lenexa, Kansas
December 8, 2015

2. 4
Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................................5
Introduction......................................................................................................................................6
Background......................................................................................................................................6
Literature Review.............................................................................................................................8
Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................................................8
Example of VIP2TM
in Practice...........................................................................................................9
Veterans Transition to Education Challenges..................................................................................10
Student Success Strategies............................................................................................................11
Operational Definitions...................................................................................................................12
Data Collection...............................................................................................................................15
Data Analysis..................................................................................................................................15
School ofBusiness....................................................................................................................15
School of Engineering & Computer Science ............................................................................16
School of Arts & Sciences ........................................................................................................16
School of Nursing & Allied Health...........................................................................................16
Findings..........................................................................................................................................17
Limitations and Recommendations.................................................................................................18
Limitations ...................................................................................................................................18
Recommendations........................................................................................................................18
Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................19
References .......................................................................................................................................21

3. 5
Abstract
Veterans represents a large number of students returning to college, whether it is online or
traditional settings. Veterans are considered non-traditional students secondary to many factors
such as working a full time job and having families to support. They are also faced with unique
challenges that may affect their ability to complete courses. With that in mind, it is important to
analyze course completion rates here at Grantham University. This study reviewed archives data
for foundations courses completed at Grantham University during the first and second quarters of
2015. The completion rates among veterans and nonveterans were analyzed. The results shows
that a difference in foundation course completion rates between both categories.
Keywords: foundation courses, completion rates, graduation rates, veteran’s resources, student
success, military friendly, veterans, non-veterans, and non-traditional students.

4. 6
Introduction
The new reality of higher education contains a fundamental shift in student
demographics, which consist of traditional and nontraditional students. According to the Center
of Posts and Economic Success (2011), a traditional college student is considered a recent high-
school graduate who enrolls full-time and has limited work and family obligations. According to
Pelletier (2010), The National Center for Education Statistics defines nontraditional students as
meeting one of seven characteristics: delayed enrollment into postsecondary education; attends
college part-time; works full time; is financially independent for financial aid purposes; has
dependents other than a spouse; is a single parent; or does not have a high school diploma(to
Pelletier 2010).
Background
College is an important asset for many individuals, whether it is on a traditional campus
or online environment, because it opens doors and provides many advantages and opportunities
such as being financially stable and also a competitive “entity” in the job market. According to
the National Center for Education Statistics (2011), between 2002 and 2012, enrollment in
postsecondary institutions increased 24%, from 16.6 million to 20.6 million. Much of the growth
during this time period was in full-time enrollments; the number of full-time students rose 28%,
while the number of part-time students rose 19%. Moreover, between 2002 and 2012, the
number of 18- to 24-year-olds increased from 28.5 million to 31.4 million, an increase of ten
percent, and the percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college rose from 37% in 2002 to
41% in 2012. In addition to enrollment in accredited 2-year colleges, 4-year colleges, and

5. 7
universities, about 504,000 students attended non-degree-granting, Title IV eligible,
postsecondary institutions in fall 2012 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011.).
There are challenges that veterans are faced with includes moving from a more structure
environment to the “openness of a college campus”, physical and mental disabilities that they are
faced with in regards to traditional or online education (Brown & Gross, 2011). Since Grantham
University has a large number of nontraditional students that are veterans, it is important to focus
on course completion rate of veterans and nonveterans.
Grantham University serve a large number of nontraditional students that are veterans
that totaled 11,336 students between 2011-2012 (MilitaryTimes, 2012). Veterans are men and
women who have served even for a short time in the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps,
or the Coast Guard, or who served in the U.S. Merchant Marine during World War II. People
who served in the National Guard or Reserves are also classified as veterans only if they were
ever called or ordered to active duty, not counting the 4-6 months for initial training or yearly
summer camps (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). For the purpose of this study, veterans is defined as
students using VA funding. All other students using other sources of funding will be considered
as non-veterans. It is possible during this study that the data may not capture the veterans that are
not using VA funding.
While it is possible for 17 year olds to be veterans of the Armed Forces, ACS data
products are restricted to the population 18 years and older ( United States Census Bureau,
2013). In its 2008 edition, KMI Media Group/Military Advanced Education ranked the
Grantham’s undergraduate program 10th out of 20 military-friendly universities and in 2010, the
KMI Media Group listed Grantham in its Guide to Military-Friendly Colleges and Universities
for the fourth year in a row (Higher Ed Assessment, 2009).

6. 8
Nonveterans would consist of individuals that are not served in the US armed forces.
When veterans return from military service, one important concept is to return to civilian life and
to obtain a college education that are met with challenges that may hinder them from obtaining a
postsecondary degree. We anticipate that veterans would have a higher completion rate than non-
veterans based on their background, discipline, and behaviors. The purpose of this study was to
investigate what level a relationship exists between veterans and non-veterans students when it
comes to college completion rates. The research question addressed in this study is: what is the
correlation between veterans and completion rates?
Literature Review
The purpose of this study is to compare course completion rates among veterans and non-
veterans students who have taken foundation courses with the intent to provide the institution
with valuable insight to aid in increasing the student success and learning experience.
Examination of the literature review consisted of the foundational theoretical framework,
exploring challenges that veterans face when transitioning to college enrollment and strategies
focused on student success.
Theoretical Framework
Knowles’ (1970) concept of andragogy provides the basis for understanding the unique ways
that adults learn (Knowles, 1970). Knowles first termed andragogy as the “art and science of
helping adults learn” (Knowles, 1970). The basis of this concept is to move the learner from
dependency to a more self-directed learning that encompasses the learner to draw upon
accumulated past experiences to enhance their learning experience (Knowles, 1970). Mezirow
(1997) extends Knowles’ andragogy theories by offering a theory on adult learning that is based

7. 9
on the way individuals think about themselves and their world around them, a concept that
involves a shift of consciousness (Mezirow, 1997). Hence, a need for institutions to change their
approach to meet the needs of the learning adult is critical (Laher, 2007). Adding to the
literature on adult online learning, Hayek (2011) found a relationship between satisfaction
among military students and retaining the students in their respective courses. Hayek’s (2011)
VIP2TM framework provided the basis for institutions to increase satisfaction and retention
among the military student population which supports Laher’s (2007) observation regarding the
importance of changing approaches to meet the needs of special populations. Grantham
University adapted the VIP2TM from an institutional standpoint, where being Visible, Immediate,
Proactive, and Personal are the critical components that aid Grantham in serving those who
serve. Hayek’s VIP2TM framework is the foundation for this study to help the authors explore the
challenges student veterans face while they transition to obtaining their education and strategies
implemented to aid student veterans to be successful in their educational experience including
completing their courses.
Example of VIP2TM in Practice
The VIP2TM philosophy is embedded in Grantham University’s teaching philosophy and
enforces the need for instruction approaches that create a deeper learning experience for the
students. Creating a deeper learning experience for Grantham students, is fourfold. First,
VIP2TM instructors reinforce relevance and practical application to theories being learned. Next,
they show flexibility and work with the student regarding milestones and deadlines. Moreover,
instructors follow the grading expectations closely and provide constructive feedback that allows
the learners to improve. All of these approaches align well with the VIP2TM philosophy yet,
these are the practices of that one department has implemented. Little is known if these VIP2TM

8. 10
practices alone help student veterans complete their courses which drives further exploration of
the study’s research question. Moreover, further examination of existing literature in terms of
the challenges veterans face when transitioning into education, and exploring recommended
strategies to serve this specific population of students will allow the authors of this study to gain
a deeper understanding of the student veterans’ success in terms of completing courses.
Veterans Transition to Education Challenges
Veterans are considered nontraditional students because of many factors. These factors
includes they are older; they usually have financial benefits (for example the GI Bill); they have
college credits that they have obtained while in the military; and many have families (O’Herrin,
2011). When veterans return from military service, one important concept is to return to civilian
life and to obtain a college education. The National Conference of State Legislature (NCSL,
2014) recorded that roughly 85% of veterans and active duty service members who are enrolled
in undergraduate programs are 24 years of age or older. The federal law has encouraged
thousands of veterans to pursue higher education, and more are enrolled in postsecondary
education than ever before. This focus creates many challenges that could hinder the veteran
from obtaining a postsecondary degree (NCSL, 2014). Brown and Gross (2011) found that some
of the challenges that exists when veterans transition include moving from a structured
environment to non-structured college campus. In addition physical and mental disabilities also
pose to be challenges as well (Brown & Gross, 2011). Veterans also face difficulty in obtaining
credit for military training and experiences (Vaachi, 2012), and also may have concerns about
targeted recruiting by for-profit institutions, or state residency requirements. Moreover, veterans
may not be familiar with programs offered by the institution and available or could be a few
years removed from formal education (Brown & Gross, 2011). They may face challenges and

9. 11
disruptions. Surprisingly, many students are not using their VA or DOD funding to pay for
school, because they are unaware of these benefits or have exhausted them (Callahan & Jaret,
2014). In his study, Vacchi (2012) found five challenges for veterans to have to overcome when
transitioning to the college experience, including issues with processing the GI bill, academic
advising practices and faculty practices (Vacchi, 2012).
Student Success Strategies
When student veteran’s needs are addressed, institutions are coined as being “Military
Friendly” which leverages processes that benefits the student (Brown & Gross, 2013).
Moreover, management’s role to help increase student success is centered on designing
processes and best practices that, when implemented, are beneficial to students (Brown & Gross,
2013). The National Center for Education Statistics does not recognize the student veteran
population, which creates the challenge for institutions to know when a student is a veteran
Vacchi (2012). Students within this population must identify themselves as a veteran which
often times does not occur during the enrollment process (Vacchi, 2012). Therefore, institutions
may not understand when a student veteran requires additional help or assistance during their
learning experience (Vacchi, 2012). Best practices to serve the student consists of student
advisors understanding the true needs of the veteran and faculty interaction increases the
likelihood that the student veteran is successful (O’Herrin, 2011; Vacchi, 2012). In contrast,
O’Herrin (2011) recommended a collaboration with other community organizations to provide
comprehensive services for student veterans and suggested that veterans receive a thorough
introduction to the university through an orientation program developed specifically for student
veterans. Additionally, institutions that create veteran specific communities on campus improves

10. 12
the campus climate by establishing student veterans groups and providing education to faculty
and staff about the veteran specific resources (O’Herrin, 2011).
In their study, Bean & Eaton (2002) found that retaining student veterans involve creating
an environment where the student has a positive experience, they feel a part of the institution,
and they have the ability to do well in their classes which increases the likelihood that they will
have a desire to complete their program (Bean & Eaton, 2002). This idea equates to how
Grantham University well works to retain students and depicts the VIP2TM philosophy in its
core. One approach mentioned by Bean and Eaton (2002) is to mentor students as a way to
enhance and guide their success. The authors also discussed the need for institutions to facilitate
the student’s psychological growth which goes beyond students learning skills. They suggested
that staff development programs that focus on the facilitation of psychological growth could
significantly have an impact on students completing courses and their degree program (Bean &
Eaton, 2002).
Operational Definitions
Traditional students: The “traditional” undergraduate—characterized here as one who
earns a high school diploma, enrolls full time immediately after finishing high school, depends
on parents for financial support, and either does not work during the school year or works part
time( NCES,2003).
Nontraditional students: is defined as meeting one of seven characteristics: delayed
enrollment into postsecondary education; attends college part-time; works full time; is
financially independent for financial aid purposes; has dependents other than a spouse; is a single
parent; or does not have a high school diploma (Pelletier, 2011).

11. 13
Veterans: A veteran is a former member of the Armed Forces of the United States
(Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard) who served on active duty and was
discharged under conditions, which were other than dishonorable. Veterans are men and women
who have served (even for a short time), but are not currently serving, on active duty in the U.S.
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or the Coast Guard, or who served in the U.S. Merchant
Marine during World War II. People who served in the National Guard or Reserves are classified
as veterans only if they were ever called or ordered to active duty, not counting the 4-6 months
for initial training or yearly summer camps (U.S Census, 2013).
Nonveterans: are men and women who have never served on active duty in the United
States military (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2014)
Military friendly: the term means that veterans are welcome, while the school has
Veterans Administration-approved programs for using the G.I. Bill and also by the federal
Department of Defense related to tuition assistance. (Grantham, 2015).
Course completion rate: The completion rates represent the percent of students who
completed courses (i.e., earned credit) out of the total number of students who attempted courses.
A (90-100) Excellent A = 4.0 B (80 - 89) Above Average B = 3.0 C (70-79) Average C = 2.0 D
(60 - 69) Below Average D = 1.0 F (below 60) Failure F = 0.0 I Incomplete Not computed
(Grantham, 2015).
Foundation course: a general course of study that introduces students to a subject, and is
taught in the first year at Grantham University. (Grantham, 2015).
Deployment: refers to activities required to move military personnel and materials from a
home installation to a specified destination (MilitaryTimes, 2012). A transition all service
members take part in sometime in their military career.

12. 14
Learning communities: Learning communities begin with a block scheduling that
enables students to take courses together. An organizing theme typically links courses (Engstrom
& Tinto, 2008; Wilson-Ahlstrom & Yohalem, 2011).

13. 15
Data Collection
The archival reports were generated through the Grantham University dean’s dashboards. The
reports were accessed via Blackboard Learning Management System. The data were collected
during the first two quarters of 2015 for all foundations courses offered at Grantham University.
All foundations courses were reviewed across all schools within the university.
Data Analysis
The data provided for this research were collected from Blackboard. Reports were run for the
first quarter of 2015 for all foundations courses and exported with excel application. The
descriptive statistics used to analyze the research variables include averages and graphic
representations.
School of Business. Table 1 is a descriptive statistics comparative analysis between all
funding students and VA funding students. The course number along with the sample size were
utilized to compute the successful completion rate. The average completion rate during this
period for these four business foundations courses is 66.70% for all funding students versus
72.76% for identified VA students.
Table 1
School of Business - All Funding Sources versus VA Funding
Course
Successful
Completion Rate - All
Funding
Active All
Funding
Students
Successful Completion
Rate – VA Funding
Active VA
Students
BA150 54.39% 763 57.64% 85
BA101 72.86% 597 77.11% 118
BA250 80.35% 392 83.52% 85
BA181 59.20% 277 72.72% 33
Avg Completion Rate 66.70% 72.76%

14. 16
School of Engineering & Computer Science. Table 2 is a descriptive statistics
comparative analysis between all funding students and VA funding students. The course number
along with the sample size were utilized to compute the successful completion rate. The average
completion rate during this period for these Engineering & Computer Sciences foundations
courses is 56.94% for all funding students versus 72.07% for identified VA students.
Table 2
School of Engineering and Computer Science - All Funding SourcesversusVA Funding
Course
Successful
Completion Rate - All
Funding
Active All
Funding
Students
Successful Completion
Rate – VA Funding
Active VA
Students
CS105/CS105 56.94% 288 72.07% 265
School of Arts & Sciences. Table 3 is a descriptive statistics comparative analysis
between all funding students and VA funding students. The course number along with the
sample size were utilized to compute the successful completion rate. The average completion
rate during this period for these Arts and Sciences foundations courses is 66.63% for all funding
students versus 77.19% for identified VA students.
Table 3
School of Arts and Science - All Funding Sourcesversus VA Funding
Course
Successful
Completion Rate -
All Funding
Active All
Funding
Students
Successful
Completion Rate –
VA Funding
Active VA
Students
GP210 65.85% 1473 75.21% 230
HU260 64.43% 1510 79.52% 254
GS102 70.12% 1225 73.39% 218
EN101 61.95% 1046 75.31% 158
MA105 77.86% 768 83.55% 152
CO101 59.54 917 76.15% 151
Avg Completion Rate 66.63% 77.19%
School of Nursing & Allied Health. Table 2 is a descriptive statistics comparative
analysis between all funding students and VA funding students. The course number along with

15. 17
the sample size were utilized to compute the successful completion rate. The average
completion rate during this period for these Allied Health and Nursing foundations courses is
56.75% for all funding students versus 83.33% for identified VA students.
Table 4
School of Allied Health/Nursing - All Funding Sources versus VA Funding
Course
Successful
Completion Rate -
All Funding
Active All
Funding
Students
Successful
Completion Rate –
VA Funding
Active
VA
Students
AH111 56.35% 1473 66.66% 15
AH112 57.14% 1510 100.00% 9
Avg Completion Rate 56.75% 83.33%
Findings
The study’s sample population consisted of students enroll to all foundations courses at
Grantham University during the first quarter of 2015. The date was collected via Blackboard.
The independent variable was the students and the dependent variable was the completion rate.
Variable. The purpose of this study was to investigate what level a relationship exists between
veterans and non-veterans students when it comes to college completion rates.
The first research question addressed was
R1: What is the correlation between veterans and completion rates?
The corresponding hypothesis tested was
H1: There is a correlation between being a veteran and completion rates
H0: There is no correlation between being a veteran and completion rates
With respect to this research question and corresponding hypothesis, the results shows
that the veterans have a higher completion rates than non-veteran students across all colleges at
Grantham University on foundations courses. Therefore, the null hypothesis was refuted.

16. 18
Surprisingly, we found that the number of active students is considerably lower compared
to the non-veteran students across all schools at Grantham University. For example, the school of
nursing and allied heath recorded a 100% completion rates for AH112 for the first and second
quarters of 2015. This could be attributed to the sample size. This is supported by Vacchi’s
(2012) findings that universities rely on veterans to self-report their status.
Limitations and Recommendations
Limitations.
One of the limitations of this study is that the funding sources were the only criteria to
identify the veteran’s population. Some veterans that may not use this specific funding are not
captured on this research. Another limitation is that there are other behavioral variables that
could impact the student’s success. The data did not capture the instructor’s usage of the VIP2
Model in these foundations courses which could impact these findings. It is important to mention
that BA181 was revised and implemented after the second quarter of 2015 which could possible
alter the results associated with this specific course. The study only utilized archival data which
limit the data collection process. Another limitation of this study would be that the research
focused on the entire pool of instructors at Grantham University and did not categorize full time
versus adjunct status. The data was collected only for Grantham University which could limit the
generalization of the results of the study. Last, there is the limited scholar research available
pertaining to course competition.
Recommendations.
One of the recommendation for further research is to focus on the graduation rate instead
the course completion rate. The length of the data collection period could also be extended.
Other types of instruments could have been utilized to better capture the essence of student’s
success. Instruments such as questionnaires or pre and post questionnaires in the foundations

17. 19
courses to better gauge their goals, needs and characteristics. It would be interesting to see
further researches comparing course completion rates between adjuncts and full-time faculty
instructors. To reach a complete alignment with the US Department of Education and Veterans
Affairs, would be to create a designated space (BlackBoard for example) for GU Veteran’s
Resources Center.
Conclusions
Serving those who serve has always been Grantham University’s philosophy. As of 2012,
Grantham University served over 11,000 veterans students (MilitaryTimes, 2012). The
organization, as the whole, is dedicated to the success of the veteran population. Several
initiatives were put in place in order to support such beliefs and ideas. The organization has
received several accolades throughout the years as one of the most military friendliest school in
the country. Grantham University has received the GI jobs recognition for the past seven years
consecutively. The organization also holds the best practices on hiring vets and partnered with
the American Federation of Government employees to offer scholarship to the marines’ veterans.
With all the recognitions, it is important to investigate the veterans and their course completion
rates.
The Obama Administration implement strategies to help ensure that veterans make a
successful transition to higher education. More than 250 schools across the nation have already
committed to the effort. The program, called “8 Keys to Success”, aims to help veterans obtain
college degrees and other credentials required for competitive jobs in the workforce (Insight for
Diversity, 2013). These strategies are aligned with the Grantham’s philosophy in general and the
VIP2TM model in particular. With its large veteran population’s size, Grantham University could
implement some strategies to improve veteran’ success. This could be achieved by having

18. 20
specific departments, courses, logistics, measures, surveys and resources what would ensure their
overall experience in the classrooms and beyond.

19. 21
References
Bean, J., & Eaton, S. B. (2002-2003). The psychology underlying successful retention
practices. Journal of College Student Retention, 3(1), 73-89. Retrieved from
http://www.cscsr.org/jcsr/index.php/jcsr
Brown, P.A. & Gross, C. (2011). Serving those who have served- Managing veterans and
military student best practices. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(1), 45-49.
doi:10.1080/07377363.2011.544982
Callahan, C, & Jarrat, D. (2014). Helping student service members and veterans succeed.
Change, 46(2), 36-41. Retrieved from http://www.changemag.org/
Engstrom,C.,& Tinto,V.(2008). Learningbettertogether:The impactof learningcommunitiesonthe
persistence of low-income students.OpportunityMatters,1,5-21.
Grantham University (2015) Military Programs. Retrieved from
http://www.grantham.edu/online-college-tuition/military-programs/
Grantham University (2015).Grantham University Catalog. Retrieved from
http://www.grantham.edu/m/catalog.pdf
Hayek, C. T. (2011). A nonexperimental study examining online military learner satisfaction and
retention. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
database. (UMI No, 3475761).
Higher Ed Assessment (2009). Top Military-Friendly Colleges & Universities. Retrieved from
http://higheredassessment.blogspot.com/2009/01/top-military-friendly-colleges.html

20. 22
Insight for Diversity (2013). Helping veterans succeed on campus. ‘Eight keys to success’.
Source: U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Retrieved from www.insightfordiversity.com
Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education (Vol. 41). New York, NY:
Association Press
Laher, S. (2007). Reflections on teaching undergraduate psychology to part-time adult
students. South African Journal of Psychology, 37, 383-388.
doi:10.1177/008124630703700215
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 74, 5-12. doi:10.1002/ace.7401
MilitaryTimes (2012). Best for vets. Retrieved from
http://bestforvets.militarytimes.com/2015/colleges/online-nontraditional/
National Conference of State Legislatures (2014). State and Community Roles in Supporting
College Completion for Veterans. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/veterans-and-college.aspx#_edn4
National Center for Education Statistics (2011.). Fast facts. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
O’Herrin, E.(2011). Enhancing veteran success in higher education. Peer Review 13(1), 15-18.
Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/publications

21. 23
Vacchi, D. T. (2012). Considering student veterans on the twenty-first-century college campus.
About Campus, 17(2), 15-21. doi:10.1002/abc.21075
Wilson-Ahlstrom, A., & Yohalem, N. (2011). Changing the odds for students: Spotlight on
Kingsborough College. Ready by 21, Credentialed by 26, 3, 1-7.
U.S. Census Bureau (2013). Definitions and Concepts. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/hhes/veterans/about/definitions.html