The article states that student participation in an online class significantly relates to successful completion. The article strongly encourages students to participate fully in an online class. The goal was to find a model to predict online success, since “drop-out rates for online courses range from 20 to 50%” (Bernard, Brauer, Abrami, & Surkes, 2004). Based on the authors’ findings, students that not only logged on regularly, but also communicated effectively with their classmates or the facilitator, were the ones who successfully completed the class. Those students who did otherwise did not share in the success.
Researchers used a learning management system (LMS) to track students’ contributions within online communities. The LMS reveled that some students do not realize the benefits of participating online, which was evident by their failure in the class. Students that listened but did not participate did not gain the same benefits as those who participated fully. Interacting with your peers can help eliminate the social isolation that online students often experience. These interactions insure students are a part of facilitator-controlled discussions. As the student participates they gain more knowledge of the material, and are able to contribute to the community more. Groups of students are better able to problem solve, as well as clarify ideas. “Well-facilitated online discussions can be more inclusive than classroom discussion by including introverted students and enabling better quality interaction” (Cox, Carr, & Hall, 2004).
Since, the authors were ultimately interested in improving course completion rates, they divided these “Low online visibility and participation”(Nagel, Blignaut and Cronje 2007) students into five categories. The first is the read-only participants, students that logged in and posted frequently but did the post anything of value in the forums, students that had issues logging on (due to poor Internet connectivity), students who were absent from the online forums, but still kept in contact with the facilitator, and the final group was absent and did not share or contribute to the online community at all.
Through their research the authors discovered the most at risk students contributed the least and lowest quality contributions. These students lacked the facilitator and peer support needed to pass their class. In contrast, the selfish behavior of “read-only” students brings the entire community down as a whole. Strict online guidelines, which penalize non-participation, are suggested to motivate typical non-participating students to fully contribute to the class.
The credibility from the journal article stems from the fact that all the authors are experienced in the fields of technology and education. When reading the article I noticed the authors cite a wide range of literature, none of which is earlier then 1991. They also seemed to validate the data and determine if it was statistically significant. Their only fault may have been the sample size. It would have been more thorough if they collected data from many different online courses. References

Bernard, R.M., Brauer, A., Abrami, P.C., & Surkes, M. (2004). From peripheral to full participation in a blended trade bargaining simulation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(2), 15.

Cox, G., Carr, T., & Hall, M. (2004). Evaluating the use of synchronous communication in two blended courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 183-193.

Nagel, L., Blignaut, A.S., & Cronje, J.C. (2009). Read-only participants: case for student communication in online class. Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, 37-51.