Finding where learners get stuck

Every course loses learners along the way. Some stop because life gets busy, some because they got what they needed and some because they hit a lesson that stopped them in their tracks. The first two groups are normal. The third is a problem you can fix, but only if you can find it.

Most course creators have a vague sense that people “drop off in the middle.” That is not enough to act on. Drop-off analysis turns that vague sense into a specific answer: this lesson, at this point, for this reason. It needs no special tools, just the progress information most membership software records and an hour with a spreadsheet.

Stuck is not the same as quiet

In any course, the number of learners falls a little with each lesson. That gradual decline is normal and hard to eliminate entirely. What you are looking for is different: a sudden cliff where far more learners stop than at the lessons around it. A cliff almost always means something about that lesson, or the one just before it, is getting in the way.

The goal of drop-off analysis is to separate the steady slope from the cliffs, so you spend your time fixing the lessons that matter.

Build a lesson-by-lesson completion list

Start by counting how many learners completed each lesson. Most membership platforms can show or export course progress, even if only as a list of completed lessons per member. Put it into a simple spreadsheet with three columns:

1. Lesson, in course order.
2. Learners who completed it.
3. Change from the previous lesson, which is the number who completed the previous lesson minus the number who completed this one.

Only include learners who have had enough time to reach the end. Someone who started last week has not dropped off; they simply have not got there yet. If you are new to spreadsheets, spreadsheet basics for membership numbers covers everything you need for this.

A worked example

Imagine a hypothetical membership that prepares people for their amateur radio license exam, run by a longtime operator named Henrik. His twelve-lesson course had 160 learners who started at least two months earlier. His completion list, with illustrative numbers, looked like this:

• Lesson 1: 160 (starting point)
• Lesson 2: 152 (down 8)
• Lesson 3: 147 (down 5)
• Lesson 4: 143 (down 4)
• Lesson 5: 108 (down 35)
• Lesson 6: 104 (down 4)
• Lesson 7: 100 (down 4)
• Lesson 8: 97 (down 3)
• Lesson 9: 79 (down 18)
• Lessons 10 to 12: small, steady drops, ending at 70

Most lessons lose three to eight learners. Lesson 5 loses thirty-five, and lesson 9 loses eighteen. Those are the cliffs. Instead of vaguely improving the middle of the course, Henrik now knows exactly which two lessons to investigate first.

Look closely at what happens around each cliff

The numbers tell you where; other signals tell you why. For each cliff lesson, and the lesson just before it, look at:

• Quiz results. Are there questions most learners get wrong? That suggests the teaching is unclear.
• Repeated attempts. Many learners retaking a quiz or rewatching a video points to confusion.
• Time spent. A lesson that takes far longer than others may simply be too big.
• Questions and comments. What are learners asking in the discussion or by email about this lesson?
• The content itself. Watch or read the lesson as a newcomer. Is there a jump in difficulty, a missing step or a sudden change in format?

Henrik found that lesson 5 introduced the math of electrical circuits, with a forty-minute video and a difficult quiz. Many learners emailed to say they had “never been good at math.” Lesson 9 required downloading and setting up practice software, and several learners reported getting stuck on installation.

Compare groups of learners

Sometimes a cliff affects only certain learners. Split your completion list by group where you can: learners who joined through different offers, those who started at different times or those who came in through different placement routes. The approach in breaking your numbers down by plan and source works for courses too. If newer learners hit a cliff that earlier learners did not, a recent change may be the cause. If one group struggles far more than another, the course may be assuming knowledge that group lacks.

Form a hypothesis and test one fix

With the evidence gathered, write down your best explanation for each cliff and one change that would address it. Common causes and fixes include:

• Too long: split the lesson into shorter parts.
• Sudden jump in difficulty: add a bridging lesson or a worked example.
• Missing prerequisite: add a short refresher or clearer prerequisites.
• Technical setup: add a step-by-step guide and a troubleshooting section.
• Anxiety about the topic: acknowledge it directly and make the first step small.

Henrik split lesson 5 into three shorter lessons, opened with a message acknowledging math anxiety and added a gentle worked example before the quiz. For lesson 9, he recorded a screen-by-screen installation guide. Change one thing per cliff where possible, so you can tell what worked, then compare the next group of learners with the previous one.

Your drop-off routine

1. Export lesson completion data for learners who started long enough ago to finish.
2. Build a completion list with the change from each lesson to the next.
3. Mark the lessons where the drop is much larger than usual.
4. Check quiz results, time spent, questions and the content around each cliff.
5. Split the list by learner group to see whether the cliff affects everyone.
6. Write a hypothesis and one fix for each cliff.
7. Repeat the analysis after the next group of learners has had time to finish.